New Version of i1Profiler

[Mark D Segal]

X-Rite has recently released version 1.6.7 of i1Profiler and presented me with the update option when I opened the application just now. In typical obtuse X-Rite fashion, the dialog box which is supposed to contain the release notes is empty, so I have no idea what this update does. These days one updates software with some trepidation because of the risk of inadequate QC/QA messing up things that once worked. Have any readers downloaded and worked with this update? Any issues?

[howardm]

if you dig deep enough into the XRite website, it says this about 1.6.7 .............

Notes: This update to i1Profiler adds support for Korean language and new Apple iMacs using GB-LED display technology, as well as several bug-fixes that correct multiple issues from the previous version.  Uninstaller scripts are now available for Mac OS.

[Jeff-Grant]

Have any readers downloaded and worked with this update? Any issues?

That would be code for have any fools rushed in? My observation with Xrite is that they add, modify and subtract features at will. Each release is a process of discovery, or it has been for me.

[howardm]

actually, on the Mac at least, if you do tell it to upgrade, it'll use the normal Mac upgrade process and the Release Notes are there..............

New for the 1.6.7 Release
The following features and improvements have been added for this release:
General Application
•   Added support for Korean
•   Added an uninstall script for Mac to application CD
•   Added support for new Apple iMacs that use GB-LED technology
Bug Fixes
•   Fixed an issue with export of Tab Delimited data in Measure Chart workflow
•   Fixed an issue where CGATS data was not saved correctly for different illuminants and observers
•   Made the Reflectance Spectrum check box setting sticky and enabled by default for Custom CGATs dialog where spectral data is present
•   Fixed a problem with ProfileMaker 5 CGATS files exported from PatchSetEditor
•   Installation and Registration
•   Administrative rights are required to install and uninstall the software.
•   Do not connect measurement devices until the software installation is complete and the system has restarted.
•   The i1Profiler Dongle, i1Display Pro or the i1Pro 2 must be connected in order to register your i1Profiler solution.

[Mark D Segal]

Thanks for digging that out Howard; very good of you.

Of course X-Rite should post all this in the dialog box titled "Release Notes" when one triggers the update from within their own application.

[Mark D Segal]

That would be code for have any fools rushed in?

I wouldn't rush to judgment calling them fools Jeff. After all, they are the front guard that eventually makes it safe for us more timid/cautious folks. Where would we be these days without the early adopters?  :-)

[Jeff-Grant]

Couldn't agree more, Mark, just a vague attempt on my part to add a little levity: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fools_rush_in_where_angels_fear_to_tread

[Mark D Segal]

Indeed!  :-)

Now - over to Howard: have you had any issues since you upgraded?

[howardm]

I haven't used the new version and don't expect to for a bit.

[Mark D Segal]

OK, thanks Howard.

[jkline]

I used the updated software to scan additional patches and generated an optimized profile.  I'll likely wait two days to measure the targets I printed to evaluate the profile.

The only surprise was that it started up defaulting to a CYMK printer and I couldn't find my work files until I figured that out.

[tonyrom]

One data point, Mark.

I made targets yesterday with the previous version and scanned them with my i1iO2 today with the new software and the profile looks correct.  I compared it to one I made earlier on the older software but with less tiles (621 vs. 2033).  Attached is a 50% slice with the colored graphed representing the 2033 sample.

-tony

[Mark D Segal]

Thanks for the data Tony, but I have a few qualms about it. I don't understand all the jaggies shown in the graph. Normally well-made profiles would have smoother contours. As well, however, one cannot really tell from such graphs how "correct" a profile is, if by "correct" we mean that the profile assists the printing process to lay-down approximately accurate renditions of the image file numbers. Comparing a 621 patch target with a 2033 patch target also introduces another variable complicating a comparison of one software version versus the other. I understand you weren't intending this as a strictly scientific view of the matter, and were trying to help with what you have on hand, but just pointing out that it's not necessarily a reliable indicator of comparative software performance.

[Doug Gray]

I've created profiles using the same measurement files using 1.6.7 and they are identical to those created with 1.6.6. Also, the subset that show anomalous behavior of OOG colors in Perceptual show exactly the same behavior.

OTOH, for in gamut colors, the profiles are quite good. For instance, with a 2033 patch profile, my 9800 renders 170 different, in gamut patches with an average dE2k of .53.

I too don't understand the jagged gamut edges and have never seen that occur.  I also don't really like 3D gamut eye candy and much prefer a set of horizontal slices at constant L* which produces a 2D plot over a*,b*. That makes it easy to look up a color and see whether it's in gamut or not and by how much. Extremely hard to do with 3D plots. Perhaps the new gaming, 3D virtual reality viewers will make 3D gamut displays more useful.

[Pictus]

Seems like the jagged gamut edges are from the low resolution mesh of the software used to display the gamut.

[tonyrom]

Sorry Guys, I am still learning CTP.  I was sure how to best show the profiles were close to each other.  The image I posted was the two profiles in a 3d graph with the slicer on.  Then i rotated the image to see the bottom to show the major difference in the two profiles.  The jagged edges are CTP rendering results when the sphere is sliced.

If anyone can give me some pointers on the best way to actually compare two profiles, I would appreciate it greatly.  The ColorSmart Guide in CTP has compare two profiles but it compares them to an image.  The other option is to compare the header information but that is not what I am looking for.  I want to know, given two profiles, how they differ.  Am i off base here?

Thanks in Advance.

[Mark D Segal]

The best way I know of comparing two profiles in CTP is to open both of them as 2D, then 3D images in the profile viewer, and make sure each has a distinct colour for differentiating them. CTP has instructions for doing all this in their Color Wiki. Also, for numerical comparison, you can use the Inspector tool and open the drop-downs for the primaries and B&W.

[tonyrom]

Thanks Mark, I will check this out.

[Doug Gray]

This is a link to a tif file with 3 layers comparing two profiles for the 9800. The paper is a store brand from Calumet called a "Brilliant White Luster" that inks nicely with the 9800 producing little bronzing with a black point at L=4. Similar to Epson Premium Luster.

There are images using two profiles. The 2033 patch profile was made with the printer set at highest quality. The 1430 patch profile was made with the printer set at a dpi of one lower than the highest quality.

This tif file has 3 layers labeled as follows:
2033: Round tripped to ProPhoto using Absolute Col. Intent.
1430: Round tripped to ProPhoto using Absolute Col. Intent.
B2A3 2033 then A2B3 1430: Converted using Abs. Col. Intent. with the 2033 profile then the 1430 profile was assigned, then the image was converted to ProPhoto.

By selecting the layer to view in Photoshop one can observe the slight differences in the profiles. The L=5 circle  shows the higher black point of the 1430 profile and the change in the last one shows the effect of using the wrong profile/printer setting. In this case the high quality dpi v the best quality dpi.  For best results always use a profile that is made with the same settings you print with.


https://1drv.ms/i/s!AoQDySMc0uNihYJbc9-9inJTyna-Ug


Gamut Viewing Image: Lab Circle Slices at L=5, 10, 15...95

This is the tif file composed of Lab slices. Each slice shows the a* and b* with a radius(saturation) of 125 and have grids in units of 10 along the a* and b* axis.  You can get a great overview of the printer's profile gamut by using view proof on either the Colorimetric or Absolute settings. CTR-Shift-Y will also gray out colors that are out of gamut over 6 dE 1976. However, 6 dE is a lot but that is the point Adobe seems to think it becomes enough to be problematic. The actual gamut as shown by something like PM5 or CTP will have the same shape but be slimmer as they don't throw in 6 dE of slop..

That attached image is a compressed jpeg in sRGB. It's to illustrate what the Lab slices appear like. The link contains images in Lab space and doesn't use lossy  compression.

https://1drv.ms/f/s!AoQDySMc0uNihYJZFe271eZ3CSmzUQ