Pages: 1 [2]   Go Down

Author Topic: Canon 6100 Review??  (Read 25702 times)

jpgentry

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 197
Canon 6100 Review??
« Reply #20 on: January 24, 2008, 10:15:43 pm »

That bump looks like a patch was mis-read.  I have no bumps on any of my profiles that stick inward.  I do have slightly bumpy spots that stick outward a bit.

Also yes it norma for that big dark blue hump to stick outwhere the primary is.  I have that showing on my profils also.

Your results are close and I like that as a Canon user.  That bump will not make a huge difference in total gamut volume but it will add some.  

As a comparison to your results I am getting 834,634 as the gamut volume for the 9100 on Canon Heavyweight Photo Satin.  Curious if anyone else is using this paper and what they are getting...

Please continue to post those results, they are greatly appreciated.

-Jonathan
« Last Edit: January 24, 2008, 10:24:29 pm by jpgentry »
Logged

John Hollenberg

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1185
Canon 6100 Review??
« Reply #21 on: January 24, 2008, 11:10:05 pm »

Quote
As a comparison to your results I am getting 834,634 as the gamut volume for the 9100 on Canon Heavyweight Photo Satin.  Curious if anyone else is using this paper and what they are getting...

[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=169393\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Using what program?  It is important to specify, as results will certainly be different.  I think the reference standard is probably Colorthink Pro, but could be persuaded otherwise with sufficient data.

HW Photo Satin profile on Canon iPF5000 made with Profilemaker 5.08 and 1728 patch Atkinson target has gamut volume of 714,000 in Colorthink Pro.  By way of comparison (also on iPF5000), Epson Premium Luster (260) with Special 5 Media Type weighs in at 732,000 and Harman Gloss FB Al using Media Type Photo Paper Plus Semi-gloss is 775,000.

--John
Logged

jpgentry

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 197
Canon 6100 Review??
« Reply #22 on: January 25, 2008, 11:30:08 am »

John

I use Gamutvision.  I can forward my profile to you for comparison in Colorthink.  

-Jonathan


Quote
Using what program?  It is important to specify, as results will certainly be different.  I think the reference standard is probably Colorthink Pro, but could be persuaded otherwise with sufficient data.

HW Photo Satin profile on Canon iPF5000 made with Profilemaker 5.08 and 1728 patch Atkinson target has gamut volume of 714,000 in Colorthink Pro.  By way of comparison (also on iPF5000), Epson Premium Luster (260) with Special 5 Media Type weighs in at 732,000 and Harman Gloss FB Al using Media Type Photo Paper Plus Semi-gloss is 775,000.

--John
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=169400\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
« Last Edit: January 25, 2008, 11:33:54 am by jpgentry »
Logged

Wayne Fox

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4237
    • waynefox.com
Canon 6100 Review??
« Reply #23 on: January 25, 2008, 04:01:02 pm »

Quote
John

I use Gamutvision.  I can forward my profile to you for comparison in Colorthink. 

-Jonathan
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Excuse my lack of knowledge here, but why would gamut volume be calculated "differently" by different software?  Isn't it pretty straight forward math ... plot the points and see how much "volume" is contained within the points?

If this isn't the case, then gamut volume begins to lose meaning as a comparative measuring tool with profiles.  Requiring everyone to standardize on a software package to obtain meaningful measuring data doesn't seem logical.  A profile is a profile and profile evaluation software should apply the standard - it sounds logical to this non-engineer's brain anyway.

(sorry to get of topic ... but I've sort of dragged this thread off topic anyway )

Anyway, after printing a new test chart and remeasuring I now feel I have a very good profile for Kodak Prof. Glossy paper on the 6100, and soon my other papers as well.  Fixing the problem mentioned yesterday shows a gamut volume of 729,592, slightly larger than the previous one.  The sharp inverted spot is gone and that area is now included in the gamut of the profile.  I guess I'll measure the original test chart again to see if is a problem in reading the data or a problem in the chart (just curious).

The profiles are identical except for the one problem area (as they should be), so as far as comparing gamut vs the 11880, nothing has changed.  The 11880 has an overall larger gamu - slight in some areas, a little more in others (notably the yellows). The 6100 extends outside the 11880 in the dark blue/magentas, a little bit in the saturated red, and a very slight amount in the green- pretty much in those areas the primary inks can make a difference.

Meaning?  Probably nothing ... both are great printers, have great gamuts and deliver amazing results - rich saturated colors, delicate and beautiful gradations.

If anyone is interested, I did a little movie in ColorThink that gives you an idea of what differences there are.   find it at

[a href=\"http://homepage.mac.com/waynefox/]http://homepage.mac.com/waynefox/[/url]

Again,I appreciate what I've learned here.
Logged

John Hollenberg

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1185
Canon 6100 Review??
« Reply #24 on: January 25, 2008, 04:29:11 pm »

Quote
Excuse my lack of knowledge here, but why would gamut volume be calculated "differently" by different software?  Isn't it pretty straight forward math ... plot the points and see how much "volume" is contained within the points?

Actually, I don't know a lot about it either.  However, I recall some post or discussion on some list by color guru Steve Upton (who wrote Colorthink) saying that there were different ways of determining the boundary of what is in and out of gamut--or something of that nature.  I could be completely wrong in my recollection, and would be happy to be corrected by someone more knowledgeable than I.  If in fact there is only one way to make the calculation correctly, one of the programs must be wrong  

Perhaps the best thing to do would be to get Steve Upton and Norman Koren (who wrote Gamutvision) to weigh in here.

--John
Logged

jpgentry

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 197
Canon 6100 Review??
« Reply #25 on: January 25, 2008, 11:35:22 pm »

I thought the same thing, that the gamut volume should be the same on both colorthink and gamutvision.  

When you profiled Canon Heavy Weight Photo Satin, what media setting did you use?  Again I got 834,634 on the ipf9100 using the "Heavyweight SimiGloss Photo Paper 2" setting.

Wayne, I would love to see what you get on a matte paper like Hahnemuhle Photo Rag or something like that.  I'm sure you have limited free time.


Quote
Actually, I don't know a lot about it either.  However, I recall some post or discussion on some list by color guru Steve Upton (who wrote Colorthink) saying that there were different ways of determining the boundary of what is in and out of gamut--or something of that nature.  I could be completely wrong in my recollection, and would be happy to be corrected by someone more knowledgeable than I.  If in fact there is only one way to make the calculation correctly, one of the programs must be wrong   

Perhaps the best thing to do would be to get Steve Upton and Norman Koren (who wrote Gamutvision) to weigh in here.

--John
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=169567\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
« Last Edit: January 25, 2008, 11:42:32 pm by jpgentry »
Logged

John Hollenberg

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1185
Canon 6100 Review??
« Reply #26 on: January 26, 2008, 12:15:32 am »

Quote
When you profiled Canon Heavy Weight Photo Satin, what media setting did you use?  Again I got 834,634 on the ipf9100 using the "Heavyweight SimiGloss Photo Paper 2" setting.

I believe I used HW Satin Photo Paper.

--John
Logged

Wayne Fox

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4237
    • waynefox.com
Canon 6100 Review??
« Reply #27 on: January 26, 2008, 06:08:26 pm »

Quote
I have a profile Joe Holmes sent me, which is for the Premium Luster (260), and is his best effort with +15 for the ink density.  That profile shows a gamut volume of 784,000 in Colorthink Pro. Dmax has L* of 3.0.

I will have to make a profile for the Premium Luster (260) to compare.

--John
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=168685\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I re-profiled Epson Premium Luster, with  very similar results to my first profile.  I'm even surprised at how much larger the gamut volume is compared to other papers.  I saw your mention of Joe's results, I've been following his testing of increasing ink with the driver, but haven't tried it yet myself.

My second profile showed a gamut volume even slightly higher ... 829,000.  This compares to epson premium glossy of only 758,000.

Naturally at first I suspected I was still doing something wrong, so I downloaded Bill Atkinson's 11880 profiles, made with ColorSavvy.  I feel a little better now ... his premium luster profile gamut volume is 823,000, and when I graph mine with his, they are almost identical.

Seems illogical to me that this one particular paper has results so different.  Of course, the proof is in the pudding as they say, and I now have several prints of Bills Lab Test Page done, on Kodak Glossy, and Epson Premium Luster from both the 11880 and the ipf6100.  If I look very hard for a long time, I begin to see some extremely subtle differences.  This applies equally to the 11880 prints on the two different papers.  Despite a 10% larger gamut volume, there really isn't any difference in the two prints.

Two great printers, no doubt.
« Last Edit: January 26, 2008, 06:08:53 pm by Wayne Fox »
Logged

jpgentry

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 197
Canon 6100 Review??
« Reply #28 on: January 27, 2008, 10:02:04 pm »

Really, really glad to hear these results.  Also glad to hear your results on Epson Luster are about what I'm getting on the Canon Satin paper.  I really like the Canon paper better than the Epson (by a long shot.)  It's much thicker and feels better in the hand.

So as far as dithering would you consider these two printers a wash or is the Epson showing slightly better detail under close examination?

Were you using the #5 setting on the Canon?



Quote
I re-profiled Epson Premium Luster, with  very similar results to my first profile.  I'm even surprised at how much larger the gamut volume is compared to other papers.  I saw your mention of Joe's results, I've been following his testing of increasing ink with the driver, but haven't tried it yet myself.

My second profile showed a gamut volume even slightly higher ... 829,000.  This compares to epson premium glossy of only 758,000.

Naturally at first I suspected I was still doing something wrong, so I downloaded Bill Atkinson's 11880 profiles, made with ColorSavvy.  I feel a little better now ... his premium luster profile gamut volume is 823,000, and when I graph mine with his, they are almost identical.

Seems illogical to me that this one particular paper has results so different.  Of course, the proof is in the pudding as they say, and I now have several prints of Bills Lab Test Page done, on Kodak Glossy, and Epson Premium Luster from both the 11880 and the ipf6100.  If I look very hard for a long time, I begin to see some extremely subtle differences.  This applies equally to the 11880 prints on the two different papers.  Despite a 10% larger gamut volume, there really isn't any difference in the two prints.

Two great printers, no doubt.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=169839\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Logged

John Hollenberg

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1185
Canon 6100 Review??
« Reply #29 on: January 29, 2008, 09:24:01 am »

Quote
Excuse my lack of knowledge here, but why would gamut volume be calculated "differently" by different software?  Isn't it pretty straight forward math ... plot the points and see how much "volume" is contained within the points?
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I ran across this Color Wiki FAQ that might help explain the differences.  A little hard for me to get my head around it, though:

[a href=\"http://www.colorwiki.com/wiki/Color_Management_Myths_26-28#Myth_26:_Graphing_profiles_to_see_their_gamut_gives_pretty_much_the_same_results_in_the_different_tools_that_are_available]http://www.colorwiki.com/wiki/Color_Manage...t_are_available[/url].

--John
Logged

Wayne Fox

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4237
    • waynefox.com
Canon 6100 Review??
« Reply #30 on: January 29, 2008, 03:16:00 pm »

Quote
I ran across this Color Wiki FAQ that might help explain the differences.  A little hard for me to get my head around it, though:

http://www.colorwiki.com/wiki/Color_Manage...t_are_available.

--John
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Thanks John ... for those wanting to read it somehow his link ended up with an extra space ... I found it here

[a href=\"http://www.colorwiki.com/wiki/Color_Management_Myths_26-28]http://www.colorwiki.com/wiki/Color_Management_Myths_26-28[/url]

Like you, a little tough to get one's head around, but I think I get the concept.

Anyway, it appears that gamut volume itself only has relevance if the same software is used to calculate it, and even then once you get over +700,000 I"m not sure there will be much in the way of visual differences when viewing prints.
Logged

jpgentry

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 197
Canon 6100 Review??
« Reply #31 on: January 29, 2008, 09:49:19 pm »

I didnt' read the article but I assume what is being said in the thread is that it doesn't matter gamut viewer you use, but the profiling solution used will make a difference.  That does make total sense.  

Quote
Thanks John ... for those wanting to read it somehow his link ended up with an extra space ... I found it here

http://www.colorwiki.com/wiki/Color_Management_Myths_26-28

Like you, a little tough to get one's head around, but I think I get the concept.

Anyway, it appears that gamut volume itself only has relevance if the same software is used to calculate it, and even then once you get over +700,000 I"m not sure there will be much in the way of visual differences when viewing prints.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=170713\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Logged
Pages: 1 [2]   Go Up