Pages: [1] 2   Go Down

Author Topic: ProfileMaker Pro versions  (Read 10137 times)

tony22

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 105
ProfileMaker Pro versions
« on: July 09, 2011, 09:22:09 pm »

I may be wrong, but wasn't there a time where i1Pro users could use ProfileMaker Pro with the same capabilities as a device would provide in i1Match? If I'm not wrong, when did that change?
Logged

Schewe

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6229
    • http:www.schewephoto.com
Re: ProfileMaker Pro versions
« Reply #1 on: July 09, 2011, 10:44:26 pm »

As long as you have a Profilemaker dongle you can...there was a couple of tools you could take readings with but not make profiles. That part needs the dongle.
Logged

Scott Martin

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1315
    • Onsight
Re: ProfileMaker Pro versions
« Reply #2 on: July 09, 2011, 11:47:40 pm »

Sounds like Schewe is referring to a component of ProfileMakerPro called MeasureTool. If you just need basic measurement without profiling capabilities, Xrite's free ColorPort application fits the bill nicely.

ProfileMakerPro and i1Match have both been discontinued and replaced by the new i1Profiler software. There are a whole bunch of different bundles with different devices and portions of i1Profiler enabled. It can be a bit confusing at first but goto http://www.xrite.com/top_products.aspx and checkout your options.

Or, why don't you just tell us what you're trying to do?
Logged
Scott Martin
www.on-sight.com

tony22

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 105
Re: ProfileMaker Pro versions
« Reply #3 on: July 10, 2011, 07:58:56 am »

ProfileMakerPro and i1Match have both been discontinued and replaced by the new i1Profiler software. There are a whole bunch of different bundles with different devices and portions of i1Profiler enabled. It can be a bit confusing at first but goto http://www.xrite.com/top_products.aspx and checkout your options.

Or, why don't you just tell us what you're trying to do?

Yes, I do know about i1Profiler. Regardless of what X-Rite says about its ability to handle printer profiling for papers with OBAs, it does not have the software compensation specific to the non UV-cut i1Pros the way i1Match and ProfilerMaker Pro do. So for the time being I choose not to use it.

While I have i1Match, I thought I remembered versions of PM Pro earlier than 5.09 were able to support their full functionality if one had an i1Pro which was fully unlocked for the corresponding i1Match capabilities. If so I'd frankly like to try and track down a 5.08 version and compare the printer profiling results. I thought that with version 5.09 X-Rite removed that cross compatible feature.
Logged

Scott Martin

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1315
    • Onsight
Re: ProfileMaker Pro versions
« Reply #4 on: July 10, 2011, 10:45:41 am »

Yes, I do know about i1Profiler. Regardless of what X-Rite says about its ability to handle printer profiling for papers with OBAs, it does not have the software compensation specific to the non UV-cut i1Pros the way i1Match and ProfilerMaker Pro do. So for the time being I choose not to use it.

Have you actually compared i1P and PMP profiles made with UVin measurements? Are you saying there's a UV compensation problem based on experience or theory? If the later I'd really encourage you to do a test and make an educated decision on this. IMO, the improvements in image quality far outway the subtle gray balance differences you might see with UVin measurements.

While I have i1Match, I thought I remembered versions of PM Pro earlier than 5.09 were able to support their full functionality if one had an i1Pro which was fully unlocked for the corresponding i1Match capabilities. If so I'd frankly like to try and track down a 5.08 version and compare the printer profiling results. I thought that with version 5.09 X-Rite removed that cross compatible feature.

No, having an i1Match dongled EyeOne does not grant you PMP output profiling capability - that requires a paid upgrade.
Logged
Scott Martin
www.on-sight.com

digitaldog

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Online Online
  • Posts: 20630
  • Andrew Rodney
    • http://www.digitaldog.net/
Re: ProfileMaker Pro versions
« Reply #5 on: July 10, 2011, 11:59:17 am »

Regardless of what X-Rite says about its ability to handle printer profiling for papers with OBAs, it does not have the software compensation specific to the non UV-cut i1Pros the way i1Match and ProfilerMaker Pro do.

The jury is out in terms of that being a any kind of issue in terms of the final quality of the i1P profiles.
Logged
http://www.digitaldog.net/
Author "Color Management for Photographers".

tony22

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 105
Re: ProfileMaker Pro versions
« Reply #6 on: July 10, 2011, 02:14:54 pm »

The jury is out in terms of that being a any kind of issue in terms of the final quality of the i1P profiles.

It's here that I've read the most about this discussion. And it's because the jury is still out that I'm waiting. While I love being able to produce nice color matched prints, the last thing I want to do is add one more unknown to the mix when I'm struggling through the creation of profiles. I'm happy to wait for the experts to say something definitive about this.
Logged

Scott Martin

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1315
    • Onsight
Re: ProfileMaker Pro versions
« Reply #7 on: July 10, 2011, 02:52:59 pm »

Those of us that have taken the stance that UV filtration (as opposed to software based correction) was the way to go for years now are laughing all the way to work. For years I've recommended that those purchasing EyeOnePros buy the UV Cut version, unless of course they have the need to characterize the amount of OBAs a paper has. Of course talking about this stuff can be a bit religious and the louder voices on LuLu have generally been in the UVin camp. Those that were unfortunate enough to buy a unfiltered EyeOnePro lately should do their own UVin/UVex tests with i1P. You'l find the differences to be really really small unless you're dealing with crazy, super bright white papers. As for myself, I've done exhaustive testing and the jury has long been in. I think the negative publicity from all of this has been a bit overblown.

Don't forget that the software based correction (now old, abandoned technology) was only for the Perceptual intent, not others. Devices like the DTP70 and iSis that are capable of recording both UVin and UVex data have a great approach and I think we'll see more of this in the future.
Logged
Scott Martin
www.on-sight.com

tony22

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 105
Re: ProfileMaker Pro versions
« Reply #8 on: July 10, 2011, 03:27:47 pm »

Those of us that have taken the stance that UV filtration (as opposed to software based correction) was the way to go for years now are laughing all the way to work.

Scott, some of here are dedicated amatuers, not professionals who do this for a living. And as such we need to make use of the most cost-effective tools available, sometimes for more than one thing. It turns out the UV-cut i1Pro is useless when used was not recommended as a supporting device (along with a Chroma5 colorimeter) for TV display profiling. In my case, I can't afford both versions.


(edited to be more objectively accurate)
« Last Edit: July 11, 2011, 11:22:13 am by tony22 »
Logged

Scott Martin

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1315
    • Onsight
Re: ProfileMaker Pro versions
« Reply #9 on: July 10, 2011, 03:47:13 pm »

Scott,... we need to make use of the most cost-effective tools available, sometimes for more than one thing.

I'm with you 100% on this.

It turns out the UV-cut i1Pro is useless when used as a supporting device (along with a Chroma5 colorimeter) for TV display profiling.

I've profiled a number of TV devices that are connected through a computer. Can you elaborate more on why you can't use a UVcut EyeOnePro for this?
Logged
Scott Martin
www.on-sight.com

digitaldog

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Online Online
  • Posts: 20630
  • Andrew Rodney
    • http://www.digitaldog.net/
Re: ProfileMaker Pro versions
« Reply #10 on: July 10, 2011, 03:59:42 pm »

I'm happy to wait for the experts to say something definitive about this.

Considering the hugely different degrees of OBA’s in papers, and how various software products may or may not treat this data, or the current crop of instruments, I don’t expect anything definitive.
Logged
http://www.digitaldog.net/
Author "Color Management for Photographers".

Alan Goldhammer

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4344
    • A Goldhammer Photography
Re: ProfileMaker Pro versions
« Reply #11 on: July 10, 2011, 04:06:07 pm »

Here is why NOT to buy a UV-cut spectro:  http://www.argyllcms.com/doc/FWA.html   I went down this road and have profiled several OBA containing papers successfully (though the learning curve for Argyll is pretty steep relative to a one step process such as the one X-Rite have enabled; but it is free!).
Logged

Scott Martin

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1315
    • Onsight
Re: ProfileMaker Pro versions
« Reply #12 on: July 10, 2011, 04:31:33 pm »

Here is why NOT to buy a UV-cut spectro:

I think we need to put theory aside and let the real world tests speak louder than words.
Logged
Scott Martin
www.on-sight.com

tony22

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 105
Re: ProfileMaker Pro versions
« Reply #13 on: July 10, 2011, 04:59:24 pm »

I've profiled a number of TV devices that are connected through a computer. Can you elaborate more on why you can't use a UVcut EyeOnePro for this?

One of the best enthusiast (although still not cheap by many standards) higher end TV display calibration packages is CalMAN. It has the ability (like some others) to use a spectrophotometer as a reference source against a colorimeter. As you may know, a good colorimeter has much better low light performance than a spectro in this price bracket. The Chroma5 (which I use) is especially good in this area. I can use the i1Pro to create a correction curve for the range where the spectro shines. This is a great way to deal with the drifting of colorimeters over time - although the C5 is quite good in this regard. In order to use this feature the i1Pro cannot be a UV-cut model.
Logged

Alan Goldhammer

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4344
    • A Goldhammer Photography
Re: ProfileMaker Pro versions
« Reply #14 on: July 10, 2011, 05:34:02 pm »

I think we need to put theory aside and let the real world tests speak louder than words.
But the Argyll system is not just theory; it is a real world tool that one can use.
Logged

digitaldog

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Online Online
  • Posts: 20630
  • Andrew Rodney
    • http://www.digitaldog.net/
Re: ProfileMaker Pro versions
« Reply #15 on: July 10, 2011, 05:59:48 pm »

I can use the i1Pro to create a correction curve for the range where the spectro shines.

So you’re using this in a reflective (non emissive) mode?
Logged
http://www.digitaldog.net/
Author "Color Management for Photographers".

tony22

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 105
Re: ProfileMaker Pro versions
« Reply #16 on: July 10, 2011, 07:05:31 pm »

No Andrew. They way it works is the i1Pro is used to measure the chromaticities at a 75% or 100% luminance value. Then the Chroma5 takes the same measurements (it takes a small bit of skill to do it right), and the chromaticity measures are corrected after a comparison is made to the i1 measurements. Only the chromaticities are corrected. It (in theory) gets you a more color accurate colorimeter with the great low luminance level performance you need for a quality TV display calibration. In my discussions with people who do that for a living, everyone has commented that it has improved that part of the Chroma5's performance. The C5 is a great unit, but over the course of a good year or so it will drift a bit in color accuracy. This is a great way to bring it back in line if you don't want to go the route of getting it recalibrated against a NIST certified standard.

All assuming your i1Pro is itself accurate, of course.
« Last Edit: July 10, 2011, 08:18:33 pm by tony22 »
Logged

PhilipCummins

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 133
Re: ProfileMaker Pro versions
« Reply #17 on: July 11, 2011, 05:50:39 am »

In order to use this feature the i1Pro cannot be a UV-cut model.

Odd - The i1Pro's UV filter only impacts reflective samples taken with the internal light source. Emissive samples should not be affected by the filter so either version of the i1Pro should be usable. AVSForum Link to where Derek discusses this (the creator of Calman), so I'm surprised you can't do it?
Logged

tony22

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 105
Re: ProfileMaker Pro versions
« Reply #18 on: July 11, 2011, 07:48:26 am »

Hmm, I hadn't seen that Philip. When I asked SpectraCal via email a while back they indicated that the non UV-cut what what I needed. Maybe it was to cover the spot measurement capability, or maybe like Derek said it was because that's what they offer as part of their packaged solutions. I certainly apologize for the confusion.
Logged

digitaldog

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Online Online
  • Posts: 20630
  • Andrew Rodney
    • http://www.digitaldog.net/
Re: ProfileMaker Pro versions
« Reply #19 on: July 11, 2011, 09:05:36 am »

When I asked SpectraCal via email a while back they indicated that the non UV-cut what what I needed. Maybe it was to cover the spot measurement capability, or maybe like Derek said it was because that's what they offer as part of their packaged solutions. I certainly apologize for the confusion.

That’s why I asked. It should make zero difference in emissive mode.
Logged
http://www.digitaldog.net/
Author "Color Management for Photographers".
Pages: [1] 2   Go Up