Why No linearization for RGB profiles?

[smilem]

Hello, there are few RIP packages like PrintFAB, Overdrive RIP, that work with original printer driver. These RIPs do not have linearization. Also i1Profiler does not have linearization for RGB profiles.

WHY?

[aaronchan]

Printer Drivers contain different linearization curve for each media settings such as Epson Luster, EEM, for epson printer. The RGB profile generator generate a RGB profile based on these lin curve that why you don't need to re-lin your printer.

if you are using full CMYK RIP, that means you will have to build your lin curve for each media setting. that's why you will have to do all the lin, ink limit and profile all by yourself.

aaron

[smilem]

Yes, I know that paper media settings chooses a different lin curve, ink limit for each setting.

But I do not use printer manufacturer paper !, like many others having the possibility to make profiles I free myself from the misery of using only what the manufacturer gives me.

So printer manufacturer paper lin curves, and ink ink become a limiting factor for great profiles. is the only solution RIP?
If so what you suggest to do in case of canon pro 9000, pro 9500?

[Scott Martin]

Hello, there are few RIP packages like PrintFAB, Overdrive RIP, that work with original printer driver. These RIPs do not have linearization. WHY?

Epson and Canon have moved the linearization process to the ColorBase and on-board calibration processes respectively. With these tools, the driver remains consistent and the linearization process keep the printer consistent. So a RIP that uses a driver should also rely on these tools for linearization.

Also i1Profiler does not have linearization for RGB profiles. WHY?

Monaco Profiler's 2 step profiling process with linearization was awesome but really cumbersome. Very few people used it. They have fortunately consolidated the process into a single step with i1Profiler. So just reprofiling a paper will give you a similar effect to linearizing via a profile.

Of course, it should go without saying that linearization is best doing prior to profiling - not during. And you can do that with Epson's ColorBase software or the Canon iPF on-board calibration. Make sense?

And if you've got some cheap little printer that the manufacturer doesn't offer a linearization tool for you can just make a fresh i1Profiler profile when needed and be done with it.

[digitaldog]

Monaco Profiler's 2 step profiling process with linearization was awesome but really cumbersome. Very few people used it.

In classic X-rite design/engineering, it was useful and silly. I mean, did we really need more than two options for targets (big and small)? Or even just one big target. Unless you were using a ColorTron <g>, even the largest target could be read in no time with a hand held Spectrophotometer. In X-rite classic mindset, having 8 or 10 options when one would do (and when 7 or the 10 did the same thing) illustrates product design is often generated by marketing people more than users. We see the same mindset today in their products.

[Scott Martin]

In classic X-rite design/engineering, it was useful and silly. I mean, did we really need more than two options for targets (big and small)?

Monaco Profiler has 3 RGB profiling targets, plus the option of linearization. I personally found the 2 step profiling process with linearization useful. For years it allowed me to generate better profiles than my competitors who were stuck on the inferior ProfileMakerPro.

In X-rite classic mindset, having 8 or 10 options when one would do (and when 7 or the 10 did the same thing) illustrates product design is often generated by marketing people more than users. We see the same mindset today in their products.

Well the Monaco Mindset of yesterday is quite different than the XRite mindset of today. Regardless of your feelings about the UI, all the technology under the hood allows us to generate the best profiles today hands down. And consolidating the linearization process into the profiling process in one step is a big improvement.

[digitaldog]

Monaco Profiler has 3 RGB profiling targets, plus the option of linearization.

Two more than necessary <g>. It was the CMYK linearization that added even more unnecessary target options.

I personally found the 2 step profiling process with linearization useful. For years it allowed me to generate better profiles than my competitors who were stuck on the inferior ProfileMakerPro.

It WAS useful, it was the implementation that needed work. It still does in their current product(s)!

Well the Monaco Mindset of yesterday is quite different than the XRite mindset of today. Regardless of your feelings about the UI, all the technology under the hood allows us to generate the best profiles today hands down. And consolidating the linearization process into the profiling process in one step is a big improvement.

I've never had a beef with the underlying color technology. Thank dog X-rite has James Vogh there working on that code. My beef is with user friendliness and design which isn't anywhere as well done as their underlying color technology.

As for the best technology around, I'm not certain after playing around with the ColorLogic products. I still need to see output from some CMYK digital presses to know how it stacks up to i1P. But the RGB stuff (which ColorLogic tells me isn't their speciality) seems to stack up well against i1P with output to an Epson 3880.

[digitaldog]

Monaco Profiler has 3 RGB profiling targets, plus the option of linearization.

Just booting it up on the G5, I see 8 stinkin linearization options for RGB: 5/10/15/20/25/30/35 and 40 patches. This is much like the silly 0-100 smoothness slider in the current i1P product. Even thought 1-10 would be more than enough (despite 1-8 doing nothing <g>), 0-100 sounds like more. What engineer (not Marketing) came up with that many options and why on earth would I pick 5 patches over 10, or 30 over 35? Like I said, even with a hand held Spectrophotometer, would anyone really not use 40 patches instead of 5?

My take is this: Marketing is working on a competitive analysis for an ad or something. Saying that the product has a linearization option isn't enough to sell the product, they have to state there are no less than 8 options (3 beter than 5 options the competitor might provide). Doen't matter that having to decide which target to pick is correct or that the manual doesn't help, the bottom line for this company is: more options are always better! For those selling, not using the product.

This mindset hasn't changed over the years.