Is i1Profiler scrambling random or deterministic?

[Some Guy]

....
I have no idea what you're saying here? You can definitely set the patch width to whatever you want in 0.1mm increments. Depending on your measuring device selected you are limited to its minimum default. What size are you matching? What default patches are you referring to?
i1 Pro:7.3mm
i1 Pro 2:7mm
i1 Pro 2 with i1iO: 6mm
iSis: 6mm

Within Colorport 2.0.5.

Colorport > Target Manager > Create Target > smallest patch width is 10mm in there.  The generated ones within i1Profiler are smaller than 10mm on the four pages it generates and prints out by default.

I need to try a scramble of the gray 21 step-wedge and see what becomes of it.  A few of Keith Cooper's B&W ones are linear, but I cannot get them to work at all in Colorport 2.0.5.  They might in i1Profiler's read of a "Measure chart" where you can assign rows and also the number of patches per row in it easier.

SG

[samueljohnchia]

You can use ColorPort to scramble, save out the patch values, and load the patches into i1Profiler and build the target there.

[Some Guy]

You can use ColorPort to scramble, save out the patch values, and load the patches into i1Profiler and build the target there.

You can use ColorPort to scramble, save out the patch values, and load the patches into i1Profiler and build the target there.

Ugh!  Too much work!

Colorport is too learning intensive in Target Manager for me as it likes *.xml extensions too.  I can generate two targets:  One it might like, and the other it won't accept.  I'm working Windows 8.1 and I suspect there are serious differences between it and OS X.  I see a lot of files and folders from sundry sites designated for Windows, but they have tell-tale .DS_Store debris and clutter left behind from Apple within them too.   Apple seems to leave a big mess behind for some reason when it tries to port to Windows.

Easier for me to just read a 21 step-chart (Spot mode only!) within i1Profiler now that it can measure a chart.  Colorport I may abandon too since i1Profileir saves out all three of the Mx readings individually, where only one from Colorport.

SG

[jwlimages]

You're welcome.

I only happened to get into this due to some B&W step chart I was having issues with printing.

I was doing spot readings for so long (50 per paper change and brand) and then decided I would try Keith Cooper's 21 step-scans for the i1 software to speed up the process, and get away from slower spot reading method as used with Colorport or the spot readings in i1Profiler's newest software.   Then I found the readings were a lot lower than what I normally see in papers via the scan, way down to L=86, and someone else said that was too low on here.  L should be around L=94 or so for white borders, and it was with the spot readings.

I've been wondering if this new software is creating smaller ICC gamuts too since it seems to have issues with scanning, and probably with their own four pages (default) of color charts as well.  Dunno, but my older ICC profile wire-frames in their software comparison window are a lot larger than what I get with the newest version, almost shrunk by half too.  Seems messed up somewhere.

If you burrow into the software, the default patches in four pages of color patches for color profiling are a lot smaller than the narrowest column (patch) you can set manually too.  Seems like you should be able to match their size, but software doesn't allow it?

SG

Thanks for this. I am seeing this white point luminance bug as well. My i1Pro2 reads L* 94 for Epson Watercolor Radiant White, for example, while my original i1pro on an iO table reports L* 97 (measured with an earlier version of i1Profiler (about v.1.3?).

Even more strange, I get similar WP differences with the older & newer i1Pros now when each is driven by i1Profiler 1.5.4. When I graph profiles of the same paper made with i1Pro2 measurements vs. original i1Pro, the profiles from the latter show as clearly increased gamut when I graph them in ColorThink.

And it's discouraging to see that the flaky behavior of the software when driving an iO table continues. Apparently at random intervals, the software misinterprets clicking the specter's button to set corner points when setting up target dimensions (e.g., moving ahead two "clicks"). Sometimes I have to try 3-6 times just to set corner points successfully.

Pretty terrible performance by X-rite. I just wish there were still some competition...

BTW, I can't find anywhere on their website to reports bugs!

John