Pages: [1] 2   Go Down

Author Topic: Practical to still use GM EyeOne Photo?  (Read 3072 times)

gdi

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 57
Practical to still use GM EyeOne Photo?
« on: June 18, 2017, 04:46:56 PM »

I have a Gretag Macbeth EyeOne Photo kit and I know it is very old  (Rev "A" from about 2004-2005) and I wonder if I should still rely on it.  I think it will not account for OBAs in the media, so I have been largely using only BC Media without brighteners. 

What is the opinion of all you Color Management Gurus out there?  Is it a mistake to rely on this dinosaur, or should it still be OK?  (Maybe I should spring for a ColorMunki Photo?) I have had the spectro re-calibrated, but I just ran the i1 Pro diagnostics and all was well with it. 

Thanks
Logged

daicehawk

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 44
Re: Practical to still use GM EyeOne Photo?
« Reply #1 on: June 18, 2017, 05:28:53 PM »

If it passes the iDiagnostics tests, I would be not worried regarding its accuracy much.
Logged

gdi

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 57
Re: Practical to still use GM EyeOne Photo?
« Reply #2 on: June 18, 2017, 06:40:05 PM »

If it passes the iDiagnostics tests, I would be not worried regarding its accuracy much.

Thanks, Daicehawk, that's what I was thinking.  I have been using it with iMatch on my Windows machine, but I may try Argyll since I hear it will be much better and my device is not licensed for iProfiler.
Logged

daicehawk

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 44
Re: Practical to still use GM EyeOne Photo?
« Reply #3 on: June 18, 2017, 06:52:00 PM »

That is what I am doing. I use Argyll for monitor calibartion/profiling. RGB printer profiles, I have not had much success with them yet, because I do not have a printer myself.
Logged

GWGill

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 381
  • Author of ArgyllCMS & ArgyllPRO ColorMeter
    • ArgyllCMS
Re: Practical to still use GM EyeOne Photo?
« Reply #4 on: June 18, 2017, 09:37:58 PM »

I have a Gretag Macbeth EyeOne Photo kit and I know it is very old  (Rev "A" from about 2004-2005) and I wonder if I should still rely on it.  I think it will not account for OBAs in the media, so I have been largely using only BC Media without brighteners. 
As long as it doesn't have a UV filter fitted, you can use it to measure FWA/OBA media - just not with X-Rite's software :-)
Logged

gdi

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 57
Re: Practical to still use GM EyeOne Photo?
« Reply #5 on: June 19, 2017, 07:53:15 AM »

As long as it doesn't have a UV filter fitted, you can use it to measure FWA/OBA media - just not with X-Rite's software :-)

Thanks, I didn't know that, I thought that I had to have a special Spectro to profile those papers.
Logged

Ethan Hansen

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 71
    • Dry Creek Photo
Re: Practical to still use GM EyeOne Photo?
« Reply #6 on: June 20, 2017, 07:47:12 PM »

There are several options for making profiles with UV compensation. Your i1 may be a dongle for the old ProfileMaker Pro 5. If so, there is UV compensation baked in. The resulting profiles are OK quality but you can do much better.

As Graeme mentions, ArgyllCMS is free, capable of creating superb profiles, and has UV compensation. There is a bit of a learning curve. Buy a box of reasonably cheap paper, plan on using 15 pages of ink, and you'll be dialed in by the end of the day.

BasicColor has profiling software that includes powerful UV compensation as does Colorlogic's CoPrA. Neither are cheap.

X-Rite went the route of selling new hardware and removed software UV compensation. This approach is arguably more accurate, but leaves out owners of legacy kit.

gdi

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 57
Re: Practical to still use GM EyeOne Photo?
« Reply #7 on: June 21, 2017, 11:49:58 AM »

There are several options for making profiles with UV compensation. Your i1 may be a dongle for the old ProfileMaker Pro 5. If so, there is UV compensation baked in. The resulting profiles are OK quality but you can do much better.

As Graeme mentions, ArgyllCMS is free, capable of creating superb profiles, and has UV compensation. There is a bit of a learning curve. Buy a box of reasonably cheap paper, plan on using 15 pages of ink, and you'll be dialed in by the end of the day.

BasicColor has profiling software that includes powerful UV compensation as does Colorlogic's CoPrA. Neither are cheap.

X-Rite went the route of selling new hardware and removed software UV compensation. This approach is arguably more accurate, but leaves out owners of legacy kit.

I wonder if there is any way to tell if my device has the builtin UV comp.  I always used it with the fairly simple software that came with it - iMatch.  I'll check the Xrite Diagnostic results again and see if it will tell me anything about UV in my spectro. 

Thanks
Logged

Doug Gray

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 688
Re: Practical to still use GM EyeOne Photo?
« Reply #8 on: June 21, 2017, 04:45:55 PM »

I wonder if there is any way to tell if my device has the builtin UV comp.  I always used it with the fairly simple software that came with it - iMatch.  I'll check the Xrite Diagnostic results again and see if it will tell me anything about UV in my spectro. 

Thanks

The devices don't have uv comp built in. It's done in software by analyzing the overshoot, if any, typically at about 420nm and high absorption at 380nm on the un-inked substrate.

The old, I1Pro spectros were in two versions. The regular one uses M0 which has some uV from the tungsten light and the uV cut model which as a uV filter on the lamp output. The latter is identified by "uvCut" in green printing just below the I1 Logo on the top of the spectro.

The newer I1Pro2 uses a uV cut filter on the tungsten lamp but has a uV LED that can illuminate the patches as well. Together they measure M1 (standard D50 uV levels) and M2 (uV Cut). These are combined to simulate the old M0.
Logged

gdi

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 57
Re: Practical to still use GM EyeOne Photo?
« Reply #9 on: June 21, 2017, 09:43:13 PM »

The devices don't have uv comp built in. It's done in software by analyzing the overshoot, if any, typically at about 420nm and high absorption at 380nm on the un-inked substrate.

The old, I1Pro spectros were in two versions. The regular one uses M0 which has some uV from the tungsten light and the uV cut model which as a uV filter on the lamp output. The latter is identified by "uvCut" in green printing just below the I1 Logo on the top of the spectro.

The newer I1Pro2 uses a uV cut filter on the tungsten lamp but has a uV LED that can illuminate the patches as well. Together they measure M1 (standard D50 uV levels) and M2 (uV Cut). These are combined to simulate the old M0.

Thanks, Doug, mine is not marked with the UV-Cut text.
Logged

GWGill

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 381
  • Author of ArgyllCMS & ArgyllPRO ColorMeter
    • ArgyllCMS
Re: Practical to still use GM EyeOne Photo?
« Reply #10 on: June 21, 2017, 11:33:18 PM »

The newer I1Pro2 uses a uV cut filter on the tungsten lamp but has a uV LED that can illuminate the patches as well.
In general they don't have a UV filter. I think you can order one special, but it's not standard. The assumption is that you will use the software simulation of UV cut (M2) instead.
Logged

Doug Gray

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 688
Re: Practical to still use GM EyeOne Photo?
« Reply #11 on: June 22, 2017, 02:20:25 AM »

In general they don't have a UV filter. I think you can order one special, but it's not standard. The assumption is that you will use the software simulation of UV cut (M2) instead.

You are confusing the original I1Pro with the I1Pro 2.  The I1Pro was available with uV cut (M2) but the standard I1Pro was M0, which included the uV from the tungsten lamp.

The I1Pro 2 most definitely has a uV cut filter on its lamp. It also has a uV LED that is activated separately from which it derives M0 and M1.
Logged

GWGill

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 381
  • Author of ArgyllCMS & ArgyllPRO ColorMeter
    • ArgyllCMS
Re: Practical to still use GM EyeOne Photo?
« Reply #12 on: June 22, 2017, 10:25:49 AM »

The I1Pro 2 most definitely has a uV cut filter on its lamp.
It most definitely does not. The default response is identical to the i1Pri Rev D with no filter - in fact it emulates a Rev D by default for backwards compatibility. This is very easy to verify by measuring some paper that has FWA in it in the single pass mode.
Quote
It also has a uV LED that is activated separately from which it derives M0 and M1.
If it had a UV filter  then the UV LED would be useless, since the filter would filter out the UV LED!

In any case, the UV filter attribute bit from the instrument is not set, so it doesn't have a filter.

I have received a driver trace file from someone with an i1Pro2 with the UV filter bit set, so they do exist, but I can't find them as being listed at X-Rite's website. I'm guessing X-Rite supplies them to certain customers for continuity with the earlier i1Pro's. I can't imagine such and instrument supporting the synthetic M* modes though.
Logged

Doug Gray

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 688
Re: Practical to still use GM EyeOne Photo?
« Reply #13 on: June 22, 2017, 01:44:53 PM »

It most definitely does not. The default response is identical to the i1Pri Rev D with no filter - in fact it emulates a Rev D by default for backwards compatibility.
Yes, you can use the standard driver and in default mode it emulates M0 by adding in the uV LED with the uV cut tungsten lamp
Quote

This is very easy to verify by measuring some paper that has FWA in it in the single pass mode.If it had a UV filter  then the UV LED would be useless, since the filter would filter out the UV LED!

The tungsten lamp is filtered, the uV LED is not
Quote

In any case, the UV filter attribute bit from the instrument is not set, so it doesn't have a filter.

I have received a driver trace file from someone with an i1Pro2 with the UV filter bit set, so they do exist, but I can't find them as being listed at X-Rite's website. I'm guessing X-Rite supplies them to certain customers for continuity with the earlier i1Pro's. I can't imagine such and instrument supporting the synthetic M* modes though.

It's pretty simple to verify that the I1Pro 2 has a uV cut tungsten lamp much like the uVCut I1Pro assuming you have access to an I1Pro, an I1Pro uVcut, and an I1Pro 2.

Start with a red, strong fluorescent surface. Paper with this characteristic can typically be found at stationary stores.  Then capture the spectral reflectance using the three I1Pros. The reflectance spectrum from a tungsten lamp without a uV cut filter will have a higher peak in the red wavelengths since the red levels will be boosted by the fluoresced, uV component of the lamp.

Compare the three I1Pros. You will find that the standard I1Pro (M0) reflectance curve red peak is significantly higher than both the I1Pro uVcut (M2) and the I1Pro 2. Thus, the I1Pro 2's tungsten lamp has a uVcut filter.


I've added spectrum captures of a pinkish, magenta fluorescent paper using these 3 I1Pros. From the left is a standard I1Pro (M0), a uVcut I1Pro, and the I1Pro 2 in M2 mode:

« Last Edit: June 22, 2017, 02:51:19 PM by Doug Gray »
Logged

Doug Gray

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 688
Re: Practical to still use GM EyeOne Photo?
« Reply #14 on: June 22, 2017, 06:20:23 PM »

GWGill,

You may well be right, so thanks for sticking with this as correcting an erroneous belief I may have is valuable to me.

I1Profiler, in single pass mode, does not appear to activate the uV LED at the start of a scan. If that is maintained during the scan then the data must be M0 and the tungsten lamp would have to supply M0 levels of uV. This would mean the tungsten lamp was not uV cut.

There are several possible ways M0, M1, and M2 data can be generated with only 2 scans, and M0 data with 1 scan.

I'll try to capture the USB data directly during an I1Pofiler scan. One of the things I noticed some time back was that all the spectral data above 550nm were identical on the saved, M0, M1, and M2 patch scans. This suggests that the uV LED is the only illumination present on the reverse scan on the same patch line.  Levels above 550nm, which would mostly contain noise, were discarded leaving the reflectance levels above 550nm unchanged across M0, M1, and M2.

However, I can't explain the differences in the fluorescent paper spectra if the tungsten lamp isn't uV cut. Perhaps the USB capture will elucidate.
Logged

GWGill

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 381
  • Author of ArgyllCMS & ArgyllPRO ColorMeter
    • ArgyllCMS
Re: Practical to still use GM EyeOne Photo?
« Reply #15 on: June 22, 2017, 06:47:48 PM »

Yes, you can use the standard driver and in default mode it emulates M0 by adding in the uV LED with the uV cut tungsten lamp
No it doesn't - this is quite easy to verify, since the UV LED is not very UV, and is quite visible when operating if you lift the instrument slightly when taking a reading.
Quote
The tungsten lamp is filtered, the uV LED is not
Nope - I've looked at the optical path, and there is no such filter.
Quote
It's pretty simple to verify that the I1Pro 2 has a uV cut tungsten lamp much like the uVCut I1Pro assuming you have access to an I1Pro, an I1Pro uVcut, and an I1Pro 2.

Start with a red, strong fluorescent surface. Paper with this characteristic can typically be found at stationary stores.  Then capture the spectral reflectance using the three I1Pros. The reflectance spectrum from a tungsten lamp without a uV cut filter will have a higher peak in the red wavelengths since the red levels will be boosted by the fluoresced, uV component of the lamp.

I think I know how to recognize UV vs. non-UV mode with a single measurement of normal white office paper (see my paper on FWA compensation for more details).

In any case, here are the graphs for an i1Pro, i1Pro2, and Spectrolino without and with UV filter measuring normal office paper that has lots of FWA. It's not hard to spot the UV filter on the Spectrolino, and see that all the other measurements have no UV filter.

Quote
I've added spectrum captures of a pinkish, magenta fluorescent paper using these 3 I1Pros. From the left is a standard I1Pro (M0), a uVcut I1Pro, and the I1Pro 2 in M2 mode:
i1Pro in M2 mode is irrelevant, since it is using the UV LED and software to emulate UV cut. It uses two measurements, the first one using just the incandescent lamp, and then a second one using just the UV LED.

The native i1pro2 instrument has no UV filter, and so only needs to do a single measurement to return M0 results. It has to be like this to be able to emulate the i1pro to old drivers - the UV LED processing needed to compute M1 and M2 is not done in the instrument, it is done in the driver software (of course! the instrument is sending sensor values over the USB, not calibrated spectral values).
« Last Edit: June 22, 2017, 06:55:23 PM by GWGill »
Logged

GWGill

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 381
  • Author of ArgyllCMS & ArgyllPRO ColorMeter
    • ArgyllCMS
Re: Practical to still use GM EyeOne Photo?
« Reply #16 on: June 22, 2017, 07:05:24 PM »

There are several possible ways M0, M1, and M2 data can be generated with only 2 scans, and M0 data with 1 scan.
Right, but the i1pro2 only has 4 illumination modes :-

  None
  Incandescent
  UV LED
  Wavelength LED

Unfortunately there is no way of doing a measurement with combinations of illuminants.

(Being able to use Incandescent + UV would eliminate the need to use the zebra ruler to align the patches between Incandescent & UV passes.)
« Last Edit: June 23, 2017, 02:26:49 AM by GWGill »
Logged

Doug Gray

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 688
Re: Practical to still use GM EyeOne Photo?
« Reply #17 on: June 22, 2017, 07:09:22 PM »

No it doesn't - this is quite easy to verify, since the UV LED is not very UV, and is quite visible when operating if you lift the instrument slightly when taking a reading.Nope - I've looked at the optical path, and there is no such filter.I think I know how to recognize UV vs. non-UV mode with a single measurement of normal white office paper (see my paper on FWA compensation for more details).

Well, that's pretty definitive.

I started with a regular M0 I1Pro but much of my work needs a uV cut so I got a uVcut I1Pro. Later I got an I1Pro 2 and the M2 so closely matched with the uVcut I1 Pro that I just assumed that the base I1Pro 2 had a uV cut filter. Both M1 and M2 are, unlike M0, well defined and I incorrectly thought that they would synthesize M0.

It's clear that the I1Pro must be directly measuring M0 then synthesizing M1 and M2 from the reverse scan with the uV LED. It does an astonishingly good job at reconstructing M2.

Thanks again for taking the trouble to correct my misunderstanding.
Logged

GWGill

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 381
  • Author of ArgyllCMS & ArgyllPRO ColorMeter
    • ArgyllCMS
Re: Practical to still use GM EyeOne Photo?
« Reply #18 on: June 22, 2017, 07:31:54 PM »

However, I can't explain the differences in the fluorescent paper spectra if the tungsten lamp isn't uV cut. Perhaps the USB capture will elucidate.
"Start with a red, strong fluorescent surface."

Things that fluoresce in red typically have highest stimulation sensitivity in green. Yes, UV will trigger them, but so will a lot of other wavelengths shorter than the wavelengths they emit at.
Logged

GWGill

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 381
  • Author of ArgyllCMS & ArgyllPRO ColorMeter
    • ArgyllCMS
Re: Practical to still use GM EyeOne Photo?
« Reply #19 on: June 22, 2017, 07:39:42 PM »

It's clear that the I1Pro must be directly measuring M0 then synthesizing M1 and M2 from the reverse scan with the uV LED. It does an astonishingly good job at reconstructing M2.
Same office paper measured with i1pro Rev A and M2 simulation using ArgyllCMS.
- Probably not quite as good as using a UV LED, but also in the ball park.
Logged
Pages: [1] 2   Go Up