Single scan or dual spot measuring?

[Jeff-Grant]

This is probably a dumb question but I haven't found anything on it. Does measuring with Dual Spot give any advantage over Single scan? I know that it takes a lot longer as it is working in spot mode. I'm interested in whether Profiler does a better job with either.

On a completely different subject. I have just had my i1io updated to support the i1 Pro 2. I assume that I now tell Profiler that it is an i1io2.

[Jeff-Grant]

I've answered the second part myself.

[digitaldog]

Does measuring with Dual Spot give any advantage over Single scan? I know that it takes a lot longer as it is working in spot mode.

Dual spot for what? You mean scan M0 and M1 (or M2)? That's covered here: http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/accessories/eye_one_pro_ii.shtml

[Jeff-Grant]

Thanks Andrew, I missed that, said he quietly falling on his sword.

[Jeff-Grant]

OK, I've read it and now I'm trying to understand how it maps to Profiler. Once I make the dual spot measurement, I can then specify which mode will be used to build the profile. From what Andrew said in the review, it looks like their is no best way. I need to print and compare. Building different profiles, they look very similar, at least on IGFS.

[digitaldog]

OK, I've read it and now I'm trying to understand how it maps to Profiler. Once I make the dual spot measurement, I can then specify which mode will be used to build the profile. From what Andrew said in the review, it looks like their is no best way. I need to print and compare. Building different profiles, they look very similar, at least on IGFS.

You have to build and compare yes. As far as the software is concerned, kind of a mess. We would hope that if we pick say M2, that's what we get without having to specify that as the software makes this very unclear what is being used and when. Manually load the data, you'll know what it's using. And if you do an optimization, last thing you want is a mismatch in the data type. X-rite has failed to build a GUI that makes this obvious to the end user. Don't get me wrong, the M series is a great move and needed. It's X-rite's i1P designers that don't have a clue as to how to provide the new tools to it's users. Just an awful mess of a GUI all over the app.

[Jeff-Grant]

Thanks Andrew. The whole product looks like all the ideas that were rejected at the first design meeting. Having done software development over many years, I'm amazed that it got out the door like that. I wonder what usability and beta testing was done.

There must be an opportunity there for someone to write the missing manual which explains what is actually happening. I'd buy it in an instant.

[digitaldog]

I'm amazed that it got out the door like that.

If you saw the first few pre-release versions, you'd fall off your chair. It was far, far worse!

I wonder what usability and beta testing was done.

I've done beta for a lot of big and small companies over the years, X-rite's process is tops for the worst. During beta all they want from the tiny group they initially assembled was to report bugs to squash (if they can, often they can't or don't). Their XRD protocol has to be the biggest waste of engineering time and money in color management history. It does absolutely nothing useful for end users and worse, keeps breaking and continuing to waste system resources. I suspect X-rite spent half their engineering time on XRD for no apparent reason, while the main application is a mess as a result.

Forget about a manual, I don't know if any single person at the company that fully understands what the product is supposed to do. It's a bloody mess. IF the color engine wasn't superior to the previous products (MonacoPROFILER and ProfileMaker Pro), and have some useful new features like the M series support, post optimization, better target generation, I'd trash this piece of crap in a split second. So it's a love-hate-hate relationship. The people at X-rite that know color science and hardware are tops. The people at X-rite that create software should be fired.

[Jeff-Grant]

Amen to that!

[Jeff-Grant]

I've gone through the dual scan process on some IGFS. The end result when comparing in ColorThink is that there is next to no difference between scanning with M0 or M1. Only 4 patches are more than 1 different. It occurs to me that you would need very good eyesight top see any difference between  a profile from either.

As usual, I would be delighted to be corrected. I'm attaching the start of the CT workflow.