Pages: [1]   Go Down

Author Topic: does Profilemaker still have a place?  (Read 1569 times)

narikin

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 939
does Profilemaker still have a place?
« on: July 06, 2012, 05:59:51 PM »

Is Profilemaker completely passed over now?

I read that people are finding Profilemaker gives deeper saturation that i1 Profiler, and looking at past profiles I can see some truth to that. Definitely not smoother, but there seems to be higher maximum densities in all colors.  Any thoughts?

Logged

PhilipCummins

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 106
Re: does Profilemaker still have a place?
« Reply #1 on: July 06, 2012, 10:24:44 PM »

It looks like ProfileMaker 5 Packaging is still available if you are after it however I wouldn't count on X-Rite to keep updating it given i1 Profiler is available.
Logged

digitaldog

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Online Online
  • Posts: 11539
    • http://digitaldog.net/
Re: does Profilemaker still have a place?
« Reply #2 on: July 07, 2012, 10:24:49 AM »

I read that people are finding Profilemaker gives deeper saturation that i1 Profiler, and looking at past profiles I can see some truth to that.

It would depend on the settings in each of course and the rendering intent used for testing. Even if true, the new i1P engine is significantly better and smoother and there’s more to all this than a tad more saturation. I’m not going back to ProfileMaker Pro for that.
Logged
Andrew Rodney
Author “Color Management for Photographers”
http://digitaldog.net/

aaronchan

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 458
Re: does Profilemaker still have a place?
« Reply #3 on: July 07, 2012, 12:17:19 PM »

It would depend on the settings in each of course and the rendering intent used for testing. Even if true, the new i1P engine is significantly better and smoother and there’s more to all this than a tad more saturation. I’m not going back to ProfileMaker Pro for that.

Dear andrew,

But what i see is that the icc generated by pm5 has a higher dmax than the one which made by i1p even i use the same measurement data measured in i1p. So right now, i do sometime use pm5 to create icc with. My custom made target to get a deeper black for some specific jobs. But like what you said, i still use icc which made by i1p for 99% of my jobs.

Aaron

digitaldog

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Online Online
  • Posts: 11539
    • http://digitaldog.net/
Re: does Profilemaker still have a place?
« Reply #4 on: July 07, 2012, 12:20:01 PM »

I don’t really care about the numbers, I care about how a suite of demanding reference images and synthetic images I use to test profiles appear. And in that respect, the i1P engine is a pretty impressive advance over ProfileMaker Pro. The profile target generation engine is superior (again tested using the same number of patches with above images). The optimization engine when feed the right target can produce visibly superior gray balance.
Logged
Andrew Rodney
Author “Color Management for Photographers”
http://digitaldog.net/
Pages: [1]   Go Up