ColorMunki Printer profiling

[keith_cooper]

Hi

I've written up a longer review just covering the printer profiling aspects of the X-Rite ColorMunki
www.northlight-images.co.uk/reviews/profiling/colormunki_printing.html

It may be a little lacking in technical analysis for some on this list, but I've tried to pitch it to be of interest/use to the target market ;-)

The jist of it would be:
Device - good
Profiling software back end - good
Software - needs some work, particularly lacking in support info and how to go from making OK profiles to possibly quite good profiles.

Hope it's of interest

[tyurek]

Thanks a lot for this wonderful and detailed review Keith.

So if the iterative profile enhancement process can be used ad infinitum, would this mean that you can actually build profiles with the Colormunki using thousands of patches if you wish to? Maybe one could even feed it profile target images as source images to cover a broad spectrum of colors with as few images as possible?

What is the most important factor why more expensive profiling instruments can generate better profiles than cheaper ones? Is it that their spectros do a more accurate job of reading LAB values? Or is it that their software generates profiles which allow better interpolation of colors which were not directly measured when building the profile? If it's only the latter, then it seems as if you can take the brutal approach of measuring more and more patches with the profile enhancement method to overcome any software weaknesses of the Colormunki. But I don't know how practical or correct this would be.

[keith_cooper]

> Thanks a lot for this wonderful and detailed review Keith.
Thanks, I find it's actually a lot more difficult to write stuff when you have some criticisms to make ;-)

> So if the iterative profile enhancement process can be used ad infinitum
So it would seem, but you have the problem of errors creeping in. Lots of prints raise the likelihood of one or more bad ones, and you are relying on the software to generate appropriate sets of patches.

Other solutions offer things like measurement averaging and editing measurement files to correct for problems. I also don't know the accuracy which the CM software works to.

I'm sure someone will try this, but I suspect that the gains will rapidly diminish - if anyone does have the patience to try it, and the equipment to measure the results, I'd be curious to know myself too

[eronald]

What is the most important factor why more expensive profiling instruments can generate better profiles than cheaper ones? Is it that their spectros do a more accurate job of reading LAB values? Or is it that their software generates profiles which allow better interpolation of colors which were not directly measured when building the profile? If it's only the latter, then it seems as if you can take the brutal approach of measuring more and more patches with the profile enhancement method to overcome any software weaknesses of the Colormunki. But I don't know how practical or correct this would be.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=196846\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

The high-end instruments (for print assessmment) can read large numbers of patches automatically, there is good inter-instrument agreement and re-reading agreement.

Edmund

[Mussi_Spectraflow]

The high-end instruments (for print assessmment) can read large numbers of patches automatically, there is good inter-instrument agreement and re-reading agreement.

Edmund
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=196858\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I'm still waiting for a chance to test one of these little buggers, but it looks like a nice little tool. As a consultant I work with designers and photographers almost daily and can say that if the process is to complex it simply won't get used. I had a chance to review the huey when it first came out. I was skeptical to say the least, however after putting it through it's paces I came to see it as a really perfect device. The software was lacking and it had its limits but at the price point, and with such an easy wizard driven interface it allowed more people to actually use the damn thing. 90% accurate color is better than no color management.
So aside from an absurd name...colormunki??? really? this looks like a nice little device. It's not going to replace the DTP70 or 3 i1's that we own but for some people it looks like the perfect fit. That said, the small patch count may create profiles that produce nice RGB images, however I wonder about the accuracy. For design work, especially working with tints and dark colors its not the same thing as printing a photograph. The iterative process seems to compensate for the small patch count to some degree but there is a certain logic behind having more sample points from which to build a profile. Gamut volume is only one metric in evaluating a profile it's all that space inside that really matters.  Perhaps this is why you can tune your profile based on image content, and my question here is...does that tuned profile gain the cumulative advantage of multiple image optimizations or do you basically tune a profile for specific content(skintones, BW)) And CMYK profiling...that gives me pause. I use the IT87.4 target (about 2k patches) for creating CMYK profiles, and usually end up tweaking GCR/black start to produce a good profile. Anyone tried building a CMYK profile? Interesting to read the feedback from users. I guess until I can play with this I have more questions than intelligent observations. At this point however it seems that for the market it targets this may be a nice little tool. I'm curious if anyone has seen the published specs on this I look but couldnt find anything on, measured spectral range(assuming 400-700), light source(assuming led), and sampling accuracy(assuming 10nm)

[digitaldog]

The high-end instruments (for print assessmment) can read large numbers of patches automatically, there is good inter-instrument agreement and re-reading agreement.

Edmund
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=196858\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Have you at least tested the re-reading agreement of the CM? If not, you should... Pretty impressive.

[eronald]

Have you at least tested the re-reading agreement of the CM? If not, you should... Pretty impressive.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=196892\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I've been testing my iSis - it's amazing me with re-reading repeatability.
Theoretically CM could do even better because it can average a greater number of readings.

Edmund

[melgross]

I don't know. i've been reading a lot about the ColorMunki, and so far, little of it been good.

I was thinking about buying one of these, but got the i1 PhotoUV instead. That does work well, and seems to be consistent, which users of the Colormunki seem to think it isn't.

When I read about someone having success with this, I wonder why.

[keith_cooper]

I don't know. i've been reading a lot about the ColorMunki, and so far, little of it been good.

Good or poor - a lot depends on what you want to do, and your level of colour management requirement.

I know I found things in the software that could do with improvement, but many users would find it perfectly OK for their needs.  If you read the detail of what I wrote for example, then there is much that I do like about the system.

I was thinking about buying one of these, but got the i1 PhotoUV instead.

Which suggests your requirements were beyond what the ColorMunki is marketed towards

That does work well, and seems to be consistent, which users of the Colormunki seem to think it isn't.

What exactly do you mean by consistency? I've only made somewhat cursory checks of measurement repeatability but it certainly seems on a par with my own i1. It has an LED light source for example, which should last longer than the bulb in an i1.

Could you post some links to people reporting 'inconsistency'? I'd like to see whether I can duplicate it, since if correct it would be an important issue.

When I read about someone having success with this, I wonder why.

Care in measurements and knowing what you were doing seemed to have quite a bit to do with it :-)

[keith_cooper]

Whether it reflects a general move in the pricing of X-Rite colour management kit or not, I've noticed that at least one supplier in the UK (Colour Confidence) is now offering various i1 packages with sizeable discounts on RRP.

Still not cheap, but perhaps aimed at those who thought of springing for a ColorMunki but decided it just didn't do enough?

Is i1 stuff being newly discounted to any extent elsewhere?

[digitaldog]

I've had very good success with the Munki in terms of printer profile quality.

[melgross]

Good or poor - a lot depends on what you want to do, and your level of colour management requirement.

I don't find that to be a valid excuse. Either it is good and consistent, or it is no good.

I know I found things in the software that could do with improvement, but many users would find it perfectly OK for their needs.  If you read the detail of what I wrote for example, then there is much that I do like about the system.

As I've said, the tide seems to be that so far, this is a poor device. It doesn't matter whether the problem is with the software, or the hardware.

If they can fix the problems, then it might emerge as a good choice, but right now, it doesn't seem to be.

Which suggests your requirements were beyond what the ColorMunki is marketed towards

I'm sorry, but I can't agree with that. Accuracy should be high. this is not a toy. It costs $500. The fact is that it was released before it was ready. This is quite obviously still in beta. That happens all too often these days.

If you read the literature, you will see that it is being marketed to professionals. If so, it should be a professional product.

What exactly do you mean by consistency? I've only made somewhat cursory checks of measurement repeatability but it certainly seems on a par with my own i1. It has an LED light source for example, which should last longer than the bulb in an i1.

I've been told by a couple of people I know, who, like myself, have been involved in color management since the beginning, and who understand this quite well, that their readings can be off by as much as 4 density units, sometimes more, from reading to reading. I've read reviews that also seem to find this unreliable.

I would like you to understand that the use of an LED does not make the light source any more reliable. an LED is very dependent on the power supply. If the supply is a cheap one, the LED will vary. an LEDs main advantages are longer life (maybe), and ruggedness.

Could you post some links to people reporting 'inconsistency'? I'd like to see whether I can duplicate it, since if correct it would be an important issue.

I'll look for some links, but really, all you have to do is to type the name into the Google box.

Care in measurements and knowing what you were doing seemed to have quite a bit to do with it :-)
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=197197\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Care is important. as always, but can't make up for poor equipment. I've used my Macbeth to double check my i1 readings, and they agree within +_ 1 unit. Pretty good.

[digitaldog]

My two cents. Device is very good, very accurate and repeatable.

Software could use work.

[keith_cooper]

My two cents. Device is very good, very accurate and repeatable.
Software could use work.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=197267\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Yup, I'd definitely agree with you there.

I'll have a further look for criticism ... preferably backed up with actual use of the product...

[Steve Gordon]

To many of us who consider themsleves "advanced non-professionals" these threads have been very interesting.

I think as a user group we are looking for very high quality but the scarey cost of "professional" profiling devices has kept many of us from investing in printer color management, relying on canned profiles, with very variable results.

The Colormunki, and the Spyder3Print now give us hope that we can get higher quality results without the expense of the higher end products (The iOne photo is ~$3000 in Australia!)

Without being able to demo the devices (as we can with pure software products) we are reliant on user comments and reviews, and Keiths excellent reviews have been extremely helpful in this regard.

The bottom line though is knowing if we can consistently get significantly better results from these devices than downloadable profiles from the likes of Ilford, Hahnemuele, Epson etc, particularly as the quality of some of these profiles is now very good (eg the new profiles on the latest Epson machines)

And I guess too we would like to know just how much better quality we would get from jumping to the iOne photo with good software in a real-world situation.

I hope these threads continue to give us guidance on these issues and the choice of device. Thanks for the help.

[keith_cooper]

Without being able to demo the devices (as we can with pure software products) we are reliant on user comments and reviews, and Keiths excellent reviews have been extremely helpful in this regard.

Thanks, hopefully they give enough pointers to help fill in some of the gaps. I try and look at the products from the point of someone wanting to buy one rather than produce lots of spurious data and graphs that don't actually tell you much :-)

It is tricky putting the limitations into perspective, since one person's OK profile will fail someone else's test criteria. An example might be the slightly dark look I got from quite a few ColorMunki profile prints, or the handling of some seriously out of gamut colour in some of my Spyder3 Print profiles. There are many ways of evaluating profiles for a particular purpose and what is acceptable/noticeable varies too.

IMHO, use of the somewhat nebulous term 'professional' should only be applied to kit where you can get a license to sell the profiles you produce. Use of the term in a negative context always makes me a bit suspicious ;-)

One problem is that if you know enough to start worrying about precise instrument characteristics and more quantitative evaluation of results, then your level of knowledge points towards a more expensive solution. It's then a trade-off between aspiration and pocket book ;-)

If anyone has any more detailed questions, please feel free to mail me directly, since there is a limit to how much I can include in articles. I've got a huge stack of test prints sitting on the piano at the moment, and it's very difficult on the web to show any of the nuances between a profile created with two different media settings for example.

[joncanfield]

Yup, I'd definitely agree with you there.

I'll have a further look for criticism ... preferably backed up with actual use of the product...
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=197274\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I'd add my two cents in as well. The hardware works, and works well. The software can be improved.

Jon

[melgross]

I don't want people here to get the wrong idea. I haven't tried this device myself.

Remember that this is for people with little, or no experience. That is the user profile. I've no doubt, that without thinking about it, experienced people can get more out of this at this point in time. I'm sure I could have as well. but as the idea is to not need that experience, I felt that if I was going to have to need it anyway, I should get the i1 instead.

I'm pleased that those here seem to be satisfied with this so far.

But, many comments around seem to lead to some disturbing problems. Is it the software? Likely it is. But that's still part of the product, and until the problems are solved, the product is flawed.

What I'm finding in a number of reviews, is that the conclusion is that it works well enough, but there is almost always a "but". Often, the "but" involves yellow/green profiles, dark profiles, compressed shadows, or some equipment that profiles with another device, not working with this one, and other problems.

While I can't spend days looking for all of the comments I've read over a couple of months, I can provide a few. I'm sure some here will consider them to be unimportant, but they are not.

This page is one. both the initial review with the release software, and some comments on the later updates.

http://www.printerville.net/

Here is another.

http://www.thinbits.com/2008/05/colormunki...uch-doesnt.html

i've read quite a number of problems like these. Some of which Andrew commented upon.

So, the software seems to be a problem.

I'm not denying that this has promise, but it's not there yet, and that's all I'm saying.