Erratic scanning results with i1Profiler and i1io

[Jeff-Grant]

I've been scanning various papers to build profiles for a new 3880. I am using an i1io with i1Pro and i1Profiler 1.5.0. I have run i1Diagnostics on the spectro and table and they pass. When I load the saved files into ColorThink Pro, I get weird results. Most patches are excellent, but some are wildly out. I have no idea what is causing this. Here's a link to  a screenshot of CTP displaying a de. http://www.jeff-grant.com/photo21385664.html

[darlingm]

I've been scanning various papers to build profiles for a new 3880. I am using an i1io with i1Pro and i1Profiler 1.5.0. I have run i1Diagnostics on the spectro and table and they pass. When I load the saved files into ColorThink Pro, I get weird results. Most patches are excellent, but some are wildly out. I have no idea what is causing this. Here's a link to  a screenshot of CTP displaying a de. http://www.jeff-grant.com/photo21385664.html

Something went horribly wrong creating the file in the imddle column ("...VFA 1440 #3_M2.txt")

The L columns are the L* component to the LAB colorspace.  It refers to brightness, ranging from 0 (pure black) to 100 (pure white.)  The left and right columns in the screenshot are showing the columns on the screen as being fairly light (77% brightness and up.)  But, the middle ("...VFA 1440 #3_M2.txt") column shows all those as very dark, almost near black (8% brightness and down.)

Hopefully the spectrophotometer wasn't seated right in that read.  If the distance between it and the target was more than it is supposed to be, it would see less light reflect back and measure everything significantly darker.

Just throw out the middle column and pretend it never happened... Unless it happens often.  Then, perhaps, if you know the spectrophotometer was seated right, it might be having intermittent light source problems.  Any type of self-diagnostic will only see how an instrument is acting during the test, and intermittent issues wouldn't show up.

[darlingm]

(And, yes, this is going to be what's causing the wacky profile you ran into.)

[Jeff-Grant]

Thanks Mike. Here's what I get on the other 2: http://www.jeff-grant.com/photo21386419.html Much better but still weird. I'll go through the io setup and make sure it's right. I have hardly used it for a couple of years.

[Jeff-Grant]

Well, that was illuminating. I have two i1Pros, a non UV and a UV which I bought when I bought ColorBurst. I have been scanning with the UV cut in the io. I swapped it for my old non-UV one and scanned the same patches three times. Looking at the output in CT, the largest delta e that I found was one patch with 1.06. I guess that shows why averaging isn't such a big deal, and that my UV model needs attention.

I just used the three files, averaged to build a profile. It looks fine.

[darlingm]

Thanks Mike. Here's what I get on the other 2: http://www.jeff-grant.com/photo21386419.html Much better but still weird. I'll go through the io setup and make sure it's right. I have hardly used it for a couple of years.

Yeah, something still went wrong in the #2 read as well, can see that now since it's sorted differently.  The R/G/B columns, only in the context of measurement files such as this, are the values sent to the printer.  High values such as those first three will produce MUCH higher L* values than 5-6.  As you can see in the rightmost column, L* values of 81-88.  Those 3 patches will get averaged and throw the profile off.

Well, that was illuminating. I have two i1Pros, a non UV and a UV which I bought when I bought ColorBurst. I have been scanning with the UV cut in the io. I swapped it for my old non-UV one and scanned the same patches three times. Looking at the output in CT, the largest delta e that I found was one patch with 1.06. I guess that shows why averaging isn't such a big deal, and that my UV model needs attention.

I just used the three files, averaged to build a profile. It looks fine.

UV model either is having intermittent light or read problems, or perhaps it was just a fluke.  It's always possible if you were to re-read 3 times with it that it could come out OK.

Any time you get larger deltaE's on a single patch for measurements of the same target (taken near the same time) there was a measurement read error.  Having a largest of 1.06 happens.

[Jeff-Grant]

Thansk Mike. I'll try a few more tests but it's looking like a visit to the repair shop is in order.

[Wayne Fox]

Maybe the bulb is dying?  I didn’t look at the data, but is it just getting bad readings on a certain set of patches in a similar location?  I fought the i1i0 for quite some time, and finally gave up and bought an iSis.

Have you tried cleaning the I1?  I’ve seen dust buildup, and removing the cap and a gentle puff with a pocket blower resolved it.

[Jeff-Grant]

Thanks Wayne, I just tried cleaning with a blower but it's still bad. X-Rite is advising me to buy a new i1Pro 2and have my i1io converted. That will cost around 2K but I'm struggling to understand what I would get from going to the Isis. The i1io gives pretty much repeatable results from scan to scan. Is there a compelling reason that would make the Isis worth the extra cost?

[Wayne Fox]

I think the iSis is a better device, and I couldn’t get repeatable results with the i1i0 The table died, and rather than do what they are suggesting and drop 2k to get it fixed/upgraded and buy a new i1Pro 2, i went for an iSis.  Influencing that decision greatly was the fact I’m a retailer and could get the iSis at cost, closing the gap between the 2k upgrade and the new iSis quite a bit.

The iSis does have a downside, it can struggle with thick media.  I’ve never tried canvas in it but guessing some wouldn’t work at all.

I think you are right, the i1i0 with a good device can work quite well.

[Jeff-Grant]

If I were making money out of this, I would probably cough up for the Isis too, particularly if I were a dealer. I'm happy with the results and repeatability of the i1io so I think that that is the way to go for me.