Pages: [1]   Go Down

Author Topic: Monaco Profiler v. Profile Maker  (Read 13897 times)

shewhorn

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 537
    • http://
Monaco Profiler v. Profile Maker
« on: June 02, 2010, 05:19:45 pm »

I hate vs. threads but I'm curious to hear what the thoughts are on the differences/pros/cons between these two apps from folks who are familiar with them? So far I've been using the Measure Tool from Profile Maker along with an i1 Pro to scan in the Atkinson targets and then using Eye One Match to generate the actual profiles. Going this route I'm pretty much limited to selecting different targets (I've tried the Atkinson targets from the 918 patch targets to the 5.2K targets... seems like more isn't better, the 900 to 1200ish targets seem to be the sweet spot, at least for my printer) and changing the gamut mapping (Colorful vs. Chroma. vs. Classic). There's still a few things that I'm not quite happy with and I feel I need a little more control over certain areas of the profile.

I've been playing around with Argyll CMS as well and I'm actually getting some nice results from it but they still leave me wanting a bit more. Realizing that the i1 Pro I bought had some limitations I ended up buying a used Spectroscan/Spectrolino. I knew it would make a difference but I was pleasantly surprised just how much of a difference it made in the shadows and darker mid-tones. Quite an improvement. I'm getting much better results now, especially with Argyll which I feel like I have a better handle on at this point but there's still aspects of each profile (from Argyll and Eye One Match) that I wish I could just grab and put into one profile to make the perfect profile.

So that's where I'm at now. With regards to the papers I have to profile I'm looking at Museo Silver Rag, Epson Exhibition Fiber, Hahnemuhle German Etching, blah blah blah (smooth matte finishes, canvas, etc. a fairly decent cross section of paper). Would either Profile Maker or Monaco Profiler allow me to have more control over the final results of the profile? Of the profiles I've bought in the past my favorite have been built with a Spectrolino/scan and Monaco Profiler. The transitions from in gamut colors to out of gamut colors (perceptual rendering) seem to be much smoother than other profiles I've seen. I've also noticed that they seem to hold highlight detail a lot better.

Having not had any experience building profiles with either tool though... I'd love to hear some thoughts.

Cheers, Joe
Logged

digitaldog

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 20614
  • Andrew Rodney
    • http://www.digitaldog.net/
Monaco Profiler v. Profile Maker
« Reply #1 on: June 02, 2010, 05:37:48 pm »

Considering both ProfileMaker and PROFILER are about to be replaced, I’d sit it out and not worry about either for the time being.
Logged
http://www.digitaldog.net/
Author "Color Management for Photographers".

shewhorn

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 537
    • http://
Monaco Profiler v. Profile Maker
« Reply #2 on: June 02, 2010, 05:42:58 pm »

Quote from: digitaldog
Considering both ProfileMaker and PROFILER are about to be replaced, I’d sit it out and not worry about either for the time being.

i1 Profiler is not to be released until Q4 of this year AND... if you buy either right now you get a free upgrade to i1 Profiler when it gets released. Either way for various reasons I can not wait. I need this right now (even if there was no free upgrade I need it now).

Cheers, Joe
Logged

digitaldog

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 20614
  • Andrew Rodney
    • http://www.digitaldog.net/
Monaco Profiler v. Profile Maker
« Reply #3 on: June 02, 2010, 05:47:28 pm »

For RGB profiles, I tend to prefer ProfileMaker. For CMYK, PROFILER. Both have advantages and disadvantages but both will produce quite good profiles.
Logged
http://www.digitaldog.net/
Author "Color Management for Photographers".

aaronchan

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 617
Monaco Profiler v. Profile Maker
« Reply #4 on: June 02, 2010, 05:51:42 pm »

Quote from: digitaldog
For RGB profiles, I tend to prefer ProfileMaker. For CMYK, PROFILER. Both have advantages and disadvantages but both will produce quite good profiles.

Is that because ProfileMaker use LUT algorithm which will generate a more accurate profile?
As I remember, Profile that calculated by using matrix method is usually smoother but will be less accurate than the LUT method. Am I right?

terrywyse

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 107
    • WyseConsul (old consulting site)
Monaco Profiler v. Profile Maker
« Reply #5 on: June 02, 2010, 06:28:18 pm »

Quote from: aaronchan
Is that because ProfileMaker use LUT algorithm which will generate a more accurate profile?
As I remember, Profile that calculated by using matrix method is usually smoother but will be less accurate than the LUT method. Am I right?

When you're talking about OUTPUT (printer) profiles, both create LUT profiles, although you have some options with both packages as to the size/resolution of the LUTs.

I'll concur with Andrew and say that either package will make decent RGB profiles but MonacoPROFILER tends to make better CMYK profiles. Monaco's superior GCR algorithms and perceptual rendering intent are usually where you see the biggest difference. I was a ProfileMaker guy for several years before making the switch to Monaco and I don't regret it. ProfileMaker is a nice package with Measure Tool, Color Picker and their excellent Profile Editor....but Monaco makes the better profiles.

I've done some tests a while back, and have periodically confirmed these tests, which show that ProfileMaker makes *slightly* more accurate (we're talking <.10 dE difference mostly) forward tables (A2B or CMYK-to-PCS) while Monaco makes demonstrably better inverse or B2A/PCS-to-CMYK tables. For output profiling, the B2A tables matter most.

Terry
Logged
Terry Wyse
Color Management Specialist, Shutterfly Inc.
Dabbler in the photographic arts.

Mark Paulson

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 89
Monaco Profiler v. Profile Maker
« Reply #6 on: June 02, 2010, 06:28:34 pm »

I'm for sure not an expert, but I have a friend who is and he advised me to go with Monaco. I have made a couple of profiles for a friend to compare with PM5 and he also liked the Monaco results better. If you would like to send me your data file I can build you a profile with Monaco that you can compare by printing some test images and comparing to your other profiles. As any said you really can't go wrong either way. Most people looking a prints can't tell the difference anyway.
Logged

shewhorn

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 537
    • http://
Monaco Profiler v. Profile Maker
« Reply #7 on: June 02, 2010, 06:50:15 pm »

Quote from: MarkPaulson
I'm for sure not an expert, but I have a friend who is and he advised me to go with Monaco. I have made a couple of profiles for a friend to compare with PM5 and he also liked the Monaco results better. If you would like to send me your data file I can build you a profile with Monaco that you can compare by printing some test images and comparing to your other profiles. As any said you really can't go wrong either way. Most people looking a prints can't tell the difference anyway.

That would actually be a huge help! Can Profiler take the output from Profile Maker's Measure Tool (not sure if they've implemented any cross application compatibility since they're both owned by X-Rite now) or is there some other tool to use?

Cheers, Joe
Logged

Czornyj

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1948
    • zarzadzaniebarwa.pl
Monaco Profiler v. Profile Maker
« Reply #8 on: June 02, 2010, 06:59:30 pm »

Quote from: shewhorn
Can Profiler take the output from Profile Maker's Measure Tool
With a little help from our friends
http://people.csail.mit.edu/ericchan/dp/i1...oLAB/index.html
Logged
Marcin Kałuża | [URL=http://zarzadzaniebarwa

Mark Paulson

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 89
Monaco Profiler v. Profile Maker
« Reply #9 on: June 02, 2010, 09:57:52 pm »

Quote from: shewhorn
That would actually be a huge help! Can Profiler take the output from Profile Maker's Measure Tool (not sure if they've implemented any cross application compatibility since they're both owned by X-Rite now) or is there some other tool to use?

Cheers, Joe

just send the PM native file. I'll convert them.
Logged

shewhorn

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 537
    • http://
Monaco Profiler v. Profile Maker
« Reply #10 on: June 02, 2010, 11:11:53 pm »

Quote from: MarkPaulson
just send the PM native file. I'll convert them.

Fantastic, thanks! Attached are 3 measurement data files... two 1452 patch Atkinson Profiles and one 918 patch profile (of the two 1452 patch targets the one with the _2 tag at the end would be the better of the two choices as it has had 24 hours to dry (although with the IPF8300 it really seems quite stable after 30 minutes... have to do more experimenting though). The paper is Canon Polished Rag. Profiles were printed with the Canon plugin at "16 bits", blah blah blah.

Cheers, Joe
Logged

Mark Paulson

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 89
Monaco Profiler v. Profile Maker
« Reply #11 on: June 03, 2010, 08:23:37 am »

Quote from: shewhorn
Fantastic, thanks! Attached are 3 measurement data files... two 1452 patch Atkinson Profiles and one 918 patch profile (of the two 1452 patch targets the one with the _2 tag at the end would be the better of the two choices as it has had 24 hours to dry (although with the IPF8300 it really seems quite stable after 30 minutes... have to do more experimenting though). The paper is Canon Polished Rag. Profiles were printed with the Canon plugin at "16 bits", blah blah blah.

Cheers, Joe
Joe,

Sorry if I steered you wrong, but MP is limited in target size to 343, 729 of 1728 patch targets. I use the Atkinson 1728 target. Unless I'm missing something somewhere you are limited to one of those sizes.

mark
Logged

shewhorn

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 537
    • http://
Monaco Profiler v. Profile Maker
« Reply #12 on: June 04, 2010, 03:36:43 am »

Quote from: MarkPaulson
Joe,

Sorry if I steered you wrong, but MP is limited in target size to 343, 729 of 1728 patch targets. I use the Atkinson 1728 target. Unless I'm missing something somewhere you are limited to one of those sizes.

mark

No worries... good information that forced me into doing some research (and learning). Actually you can do it although not with the direct Atkinson target. You have to build and print a new target based on the Atkinson target and scan it in but it's really easy.

Open ColorPort
Click on the "Create" tab.
Under Patch Set click on the pull down menu and select "new"
Click the "Import Patches" button.
Navigate to your desired Atkinson profile and select the .txt file. In my case it would be the file named "RGB 1452 SpectroScan.txt"
Click OK, it will then say "1452 patches were imported"
In the name text entry box enter a name like "Atkinson1452" and then click the save button.
After that set your measurement device and paper size and click on the save button. A new target will be generated and it will essentially be the Atkinson target.

Scan that in and I think that will do the trick!

Bill Atkinson's "Extract Monaco Lab" Application seems to be limited to only working with the 729, 918, and 1728 patch targets and ColorPort for default targets only lists 343, 729, and 1728 patch targets but it also has the TC9.18 and TC2.83 targets which have 918 and 294 patches respectively. You can pretty much do as many, or as few patches as you want, it's just that there aren't a lot of different targets to choose from as a default but you can build new ones!

Cheers, Joe
Logged

Mark Paulson

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 89
Monaco Profiler v. Profile Maker
« Reply #13 on: June 04, 2010, 08:33:05 am »

Quote from: shewhorn
No worries... good information that forced me into doing some research (and learning). Actually you can do it although not with the direct Atkinson target. You have to build and print a new target based on the Atkinson target and scan it in but it's really easy.

Open ColorPort
Click on the "Create" tab.
Under Patch Set click on the pull down menu and select "new"
Click the "Import Patches" button.
Navigate to your desired Atkinson profile and select the .txt file. In my case it would be the file named "RGB 1452 SpectroScan.txt"
Click OK, it will then say "1452 patches were imported"
In the name text entry box enter a name like "Atkinson1452" and then click the save button.
After that set your measurement device and paper size and click on the save button. A new target will be generated and it will essentially be the Atkinson target.

Scan that in and I think that will do the trick!

Bill Atkinson's "Extract Monaco Lab" Application seems to be limited to only working with the 729, 918, and 1728 patch targets and ColorPort for default targets only lists 343, 729, and 1728 patch targets but it also has the TC9.18 and TC2.83 targets which have 918 and 294 patches respectively. You can pretty much do as many, or as few patches as you want, it's just that there aren't a lot of different targets to choose from as a default but you can build new ones!

Cheers, Joe

Joe,

The issue is not with ColorPort, the issue is with MP. I think there may be some hacks out there, but the current version only allows the aforementioned patch sizes. I can read you data fine. The problem is that MP needs a reference file of the same size as the patch data to generate the profile. The only built in sizes are 343, 729 and 1728. I'm researching using a different size but have found nothing so far on modifying the patch size for Monaco.

Mark
« Last Edit: June 04, 2010, 10:17:55 am by MarkPaulson »
Logged

shewhorn

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 537
    • http://
Monaco Profiler v. Profile Maker
« Reply #14 on: June 04, 2010, 10:46:19 am »

Quote from: MarkPaulson
Joe,

The issue is not with ColorPort, the issue is with MP. I think there may be some hacks out there, but the current version only allows the aforementioned patch sizes. I can read you data fine. The problem is that MP needs a reference file of the same size as the patch data to generate the profile. The only built in sizes are 343, 729 and 1728. I'm researching using a different size but have found nothing so far on modifying the patch size for Monaco.

Mark

Ahhh... more research! I went ahead and bought Profiler... after talking with the folks at Shades of Paper they seemed to think it would suit my particular needs a little better. Now, there is a trick (which I haven't tried yet) but I called X-Rite and what they said to do is use ColorPort to read in the chart and once you're done with the chart you can do a save as Monaco Session. After you've done that you can go into Profiler and select "Open Session". That will give you access to any amount of patches you want using Monaco Profiler. So, the good news is, it's possible. Bad news is I'll have to regen, and rescan my targets but at least it's doable.

Cheers, Joe
« Last Edit: June 04, 2010, 11:16:00 am by shewhorn »
Logged

Ethan_Hansen

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 114
    • Dry Creek Photo
Monaco Profiler v. Profile Maker
« Reply #15 on: June 04, 2010, 01:43:12 pm »

Quote from: shewhorn
Ahhh... more research! I went ahead and bought Profiler... after talking with the folks at Shades of Paper they seemed to think it would suit my particular needs a little better. Now, there is a trick (which I haven't tried yet) but I called X-Rite and what they said to do is use ColorPort to read in the chart and once you're done with the chart you can do a save as Monaco Session. After you've done that you can go into Profiler and select "Open Session". That will give you access to any amount of patches you want using Monaco Profiler. So, the good news is, it's possible. Bad news is I'll have to regen, and rescan my targets but at least it's doable.

ColorPort only exports Monaco data for color patches usable by Profiler. It gives you the flexibility to measure layouts not supported by Profiler, but the patch values need to be correct. Profiler requires the target RGB values to be at specific values. Unfortunately, none of the Atkinson RGB targets have values that follow these spacings exactly. Bill has an AppleScript that extracts the Monaco data, although the reference RGB values are not necessarily quite what was printed. For many measured values, the profiling software will be assuming the target was 1 RGB value off what was actually printed. For example, on the 1728 patch target, the print was made using RGB values of (232, 232, 232), while MonacoProfiler assumes the input was (231, 231, 231). Likewise on the 729 patch target, Profiler assumes you printed (95, 95, 95) while the actual value was (96, 96, 96). For most printers, the error induced by this rounding will range from negligible for some colors to ~1 DE for others.

Bill's 729 and 1728 patch RGB targets can be exported to MonacoProfiler with the above caveats about less-than-perfect accuracy. The 1452 target, however, does not contain the required patch data for any of the supported Profiler targets.

ProfileMaker does not require specific input values - you can feed it anything you choose. I do not recommend using the 1728 RGB patch target with ProfileMaker as it does not contain patch values near the midpoint of the RGB range; i.e. no values near 127. The midpoint is bracketed with values of 116 and 139. Depending on the printer output and linearity, ProfileMaker's algorithms often do not play well with this, making for problems obtaining decently neutral values.

Note: All of Bill's RGB targets use 16-bit images and the reference files contain fractional (i.e. 16-bit as well) RGB values. Depending on the application you use for printing the targets, your operating system, and the printer and driver, the images may be converted to 8-bits by the time they hit the printer. This introduces up to half an RGB unit of error between reference file and printed value. Whether the profiling application also allows 16-bit reference values depends on the app. If my memory is any good, ProfileMaker will. MonacoProfiler does not.

Bill's targets can be useful, but you need to be aware that there can be errors introduced by the format of the targets and how well the target values match up with what your profiling application expects.

Mark Paulson

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 89
Monaco Profiler v. Profile Maker
« Reply #16 on: June 05, 2010, 09:43:41 am »

Quote from: Ethan_Hansen
ColorPort only exports Monaco data for color patches usable by Profiler. It gives you the flexibility to measure layouts not supported by Profiler, but the patch values need to be correct. Profiler requires the target RGB values to be at specific values. Unfortunately, none of the Atkinson RGB targets have values that follow these spacings exactly. Bill has an AppleScript that extracts the Monaco data, although the reference RGB values are not necessarily quite what was printed. For many measured values, the profiling software will be assuming the target was 1 RGB value off what was actually printed. For example, on the 1728 patch target, the print was made using RGB values of (232, 232, 232), while MonacoProfiler assumes the input was (231, 231, 231). Likewise on the 729 patch target, Profiler assumes you printed (95, 95, 95) while the actual value was (96, 96, 96). For most printers, the error induced by this rounding will range from negligible for some colors to ~1 DE for others.

Could you elaborate on this more? I use Eric Chan's script since Bill's will not work with Snow Leopard. Where do you find what Monaco Profiler is assuming the input to be. I have searched my machine and cannot find the values anywhere. Are they hard wired in the software?

Quote
Note: All of Bill's RGB targets use 16-bit images and the reference files contain fractional (i.e. 16-bit as well) RGB values. Depending on the application you use for printing the targets, your operating system, and the printer and driver, the images may be converted to 8-bits by the time they hit the printer. This introduces up to half an RGB unit of error between reference file and printed value. Whether the profiling application also allows 16-bit reference values depends on the app. If my memory is any good, ProfileMaker will. MonacoProfiler does not.

I printed the Atkinson 1728 using PS and Canon 16 bit plug-in form my tests. I then read Bill's targets using Measure Tool and ColorPort with my iSis and then compared the two files using ColorThink Pro. In no case was the DE more than 0.3 and the majority where dead on. I do notice that fractional values are shown in the MP read patches window and that if you average patches the values are also fractional. Are you saying that MP truncates or rounds these values? I hope I do not sound argumentative as I know you are an expert, I'm just trying to fully understand what your are saying. It is hard to type voice inflection.

Thanks,
Mark
« Last Edit: June 05, 2010, 11:46:40 am by MarkPaulson »
Logged

shewhorn

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 537
    • http://
Monaco Profiler v. Profile Maker
« Reply #17 on: June 05, 2010, 10:31:16 am »

Thanks Ethan,

I'm trying to understand some of the technical specifics of what you said. Specifically I'm interested in where the errors are occurring.

Quote from: Ethan_Hansen
ColorPort only exports Monaco data for color patches usable by Profiler. It gives you the flexibility to measure layouts not supported by Profiler, but the patch values need to be correct. Profiler requires the target RGB values to be at specific values. Unfortunately, none of the Atkinson RGB targets have values that follow these spacings exactly.

Is this a result of the issues with resolution you mention below or is it that for whatever reason MP expects to see some kind of mathematical colorimetric distribution of the patches, and the Atkinson profile doesn't do that? Further on down you seem to suggest that MP doesn't require specific input values so I'm not sure that's it.

Quote
Bill has an AppleScript that extracts the Monaco data, although the reference RGB values are not necessarily quite what was printed. For many measured values, the profiling software will be assuming the target was 1 RGB value off what was actually printed. For example, on the 1728 patch target, the print was made using RGB values of (232, 232, 232), while MonacoProfiler assumes the input was (231, 231, 231). Likewise on the 729 patch target, Profiler assumes you printed (95, 95, 95) while the actual value was (96, 96, 96). For most printers, the error induced by this rounding will range from negligible for some colors to ~1 DE for others.

Bill's 729 and 1728 patch RGB targets can be exported to MonacoProfiler with the above caveats about less-than-perfect accuracy. The 1452 target, however, does not contain the required patch data for any of the supported Profiler targets.[i/]

Is this just with Bill's Targets or any targets that don't have a specific number of patches (that match with the MP defaults)? I'm specifically interested in this because I've notice that more patches with my printer, more often than not make things worse and I'd venture a guess that this is because the printer is linear enough that interpolating the values between patch samples does a better job than measuring twice as many patches. As to why measuring more patches wouldn't work better I'm not sure. The only explanation I can think of is that too many patches maybe starts to dip its toe into an area where you're seeing the error of the measurement device?

Quote
ProfileMaker does not require specific input values - you can feed it anything you choose. I do not recommend using the 1728 RGB patch target with ProfileMaker as it does not contain patch values near the midpoint of the RGB range; i.e. no values near 127. The midpoint is bracketed with values of 116 and 139. Depending on the printer output and linearity, ProfileMaker's algorithms often do not play well with this, making for problems obtaining decently neutral values.

I think you meant Monaco Profiler there... is having exact midtone values a requirement of MP's algorithms? If not it wouldn't seem to be of such a concern to me. I've never looked at the actual values in the Atkinson profiles so I took a look at the 1728 patch profile and it pretty much has a linear distribution and counting in base 12. It seems as if all he's done is to derive the colorimetric spacing is the following: 255/11 = ~23.181 (plus some error introduced for 16 bit floating point) and then just counting that up. I always thought there was something more specific to the Atkinson profiles but they really aren't all that special in terms of how they've been derived. That's exactly the starting point I would have used if I were to develop my own charts, and then I'd have modified it from there to target any problem areas in my printer.

Interestingly enough I generated a target from within Monaco Profiler and then extracted the color samples using ColorThink... MP is pretty much doing the exact same thing as the BA profiles so you have your same gap from 115 to 139 minus the 16 bit precision. Upon a quick inspection it doesn't seem as if MP is doing anything special with regards to chart generation.

Quote
Note: All of Bill's RGB targets use 16-bit images and the reference files contain fractional (i.e. 16-bit as well) RGB values. Depending on the application you use for printing the targets, your operating system, and the printer and driver, the images may be converted to 8-bits by the time they hit the printer. This introduces up to half an RGB unit of error between reference file and printed value. Whether the profiling application also allows 16-bit reference values depends on the app. If my memory is any good, ProfileMaker will. MonacoProfiler does not.

Scott Martin mentioned something about a 16 bit option although with regards to chart generation itself it doesn't seem as if this is possible. I don't know if that 16 bit option enables MP to using 16 bit data or if it just generates a 16 bit profile. If the latter is the case, using a chart that was derived from 16 bit data would result in truncation or rounding errors depending upon how the signal flow of the read path is laid out. I may have missed something though:

http://canonipf.wikispaces.com/message/vie...Q/19433293?o=40

Again, thanks for the info. I love the process of learning and discovery. I tend to do that best when I pull things apart myself but I usually don't get the inspiration until someone says something that lights a fire under my butt to go digging for a more specific understanding of what's going on!

Cheers, Joe
Logged

shewhorn

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 537
    • http://
Monaco Profiler v. Profile Maker
« Reply #18 on: June 05, 2010, 06:36:57 pm »

Quote from: shewhorn
Interestingly enough I generated a target from within Monaco Profiler and then extracted the color samples using ColorThink... MP is pretty much doing the exact same thing as the BA profiles so you have your same gap from 115 to 139 minus the 16 bit precision. Upon a quick inspection it doesn't seem as if MP is doing anything special with regards to chart generation.

Did a little more checking and the MP 1728 patch profile appears to be identical to the Atkinson profiles with the exception that there is no floating point precision (the floating point is simply truncated to an int). I'm kind of curious to see what Profile Maker and Argyll are doing for target generation and how things like linearization profiles and pre conditioning profiles impact target generation? I'll give that a whirl a little later.

Cheers, Joe
Logged
Pages: [1]   Go Up