Averaging with i1Profiler

[digitaldog]

Before averaging any two or more data sets, it's a real good idea to run a compare on each in something like ColorThink and see what and where (and how high) the dE values are. You'll see any issues with the formatting of the data there too.

[samueljohnchia]

Having piqued my interest, I thought I'd see how hard it is to average data with Excel. Averaging two data sets took less than eight minutes from scratch.

Does it work for spectral data too?

[Rhossydd]

Yes

[samueljohnchia]

Cool, thanks!

[TylerB]

correct me if I am wrong, but I question the value of averaging, particularly with only a couple of sets, that is not weighted averaging. Measuretool used to do this, i1 does not. Any bad patch measurement can throw your standard averaging off unnecessarily. Those with more spreadsheet knowledge than I may be able to do this anyway, but i1 is simple averaging as far as I know. Many devices are averaging a number of measurements per patch as they go anyway, so other than finding problems across the width of a press, with several placed charts, I wonder what help this really is?

[Jeff-Grant]

i1Profiler has no problems parsing it and a decent profile comes out of the end.

Thanks. I'll give it a go. Does one variant of the TXT file work better than another? I have been using i1P CGATS Spectral.

[Jeff-Grant]

Before averaging any two or more data sets, it's a real good idea to run a compare on each in something like ColorThink and see what and where (and how high) the dE values are. You'll see any issues with the formatting of the data there too.

Thanks Andrew. I'll dig CT out and look at the results. That should give me an idea of how consistent the i1 is.

[Rhossydd]

Does one variant of the TXT file work better than another? I have been using i1P CGATS Spectral.

What format of data you want is a different question to how to average the numbers.

[Jeff-Grant]

What format of data you want is a different question to how to average the numbers.

Agreed, maybe I should start a new thread. What I've just discovered with CT has ruined my day.

[Rhossydd]

Any bad patch measurement can throw your standard averaging off unnecessarily.

I guess in theory it ought to reduce the effect of a bad reading. Otherwise you'd end up with a worse profile if you built from the 'bad' data.
Yes, you could add a function into a spreadsheet that looks for suspiciously different numbers and then flag up the data.

Many devices are averaging a number of measurements per patch as they go anyway, so other than finding problems across the width of a press, with several placed charts, I wonder what help this really is?

Quite agree. I've never bothered to average multiple readings myself for ordinary inkjet printers.

[darlingm]

Thanks. I'll give it a go. Does one variant of the TXT file work better than another? I have been using i1P CGATS Spectral.

I always use CGATS Custom, and check every box.  I'd rather have every field rather than hand-picked ones.

[Jeff-Grant]

Thanks, sounds good.

[Jeff-Grant]

To close this off, it looks like my UV Cut i1Pro is at fault. I just scanned the targets with my non-UV and they are fine with little difference, and build a normal looking profile. Thanks again for all the help that you have given. I really didn't expect this to be a problem with an i1Pro.

[shewhorn]

Having piqued my interest, I thought I'd see how hard it is to average data with Excel. Averaging two data sets took less than eight minutes from scratch.
The maths are as hard as =(C1+N1)/2  <you might want to work with more data sets, but this was just with two>
auto fill makes propagation of the calculation on the sheet dead simple, format the sheet to two decimal places, copy and paste the result into one of the original data sets and save it with a different name..... job done.
i1Profiler has no problems parsing it and a decent profile comes out of the end.

Also useful if you need to bias one set of data... say for example you read a chart twice, once with a polarizer and once without and a 50/50 mix isn't what you need.

Cheers, Joe

[Some Guy]

To close this off, it looks like my UV Cut i1Pro is at fault. I just scanned the targets with my non-UV and they are fine with little difference, and build a normal looking profile. Thanks again for all the help that you have given. I really didn't expect this to be a problem with an i1Pro.

Fwiw, x-rite did release an update in July for the M1 & M2 issues in the Profiler software, version 1.5.6 now.  http://xritephoto.com/ph_product_overview.aspx?ID=1913&Action=Support&SoftwareID=1455

For some reason, they jumped version 1.5.5.

SG

[poshcolor]

Is this the averaging described here ?

http://xritephoto.com/ph_product_overview.aspx?ID=1913&Action=Support&SupportID=5709