Luminous Landscape Forum
Raw & Post Processing, Printing => Colour Management => Topic started by: smthopr on March 04, 2018, 03:58:36 pm
-
I bought a used EFI ES-2000 version of the i1 pro2 for creating 3D LUT with spectro offsets for my i1 Display pro probe. This worked very well for display calibration for Davinci Resolve motion picture color correction software.
The probe is only licensed for use with the EFI profile making software for making printer profiles and I've just made my 1st printer profile using this software and it looks pretty good!
But I do have a couple questions about settings when making the profile and printing the target.
1. When printing the target I'm presented with a choice of M0, M1, or M2 (having to do with UV settings). The default was "M0" so I used that with to create the target, but I'm not sure that was the best or proper choice. I'm using an Epson 3800 printer and Innova Fiba-White_Ultra_smooth_gloss paper.
2. After measuring the target, when creating the profile, I'm given a choice of D50, D60, D65 (I assume this is the viewing environment). The default was "D50" so I used that, but also created a profile for "D65" (my display setting right now). I made a couple test prints and could not see any difference between the prints or the soft proof when switching between these profiles. Maybe there is a very subtle difference between them. Any suggestions or comments about this?
I know that not many, if any, here are using this software, but I suspect, behind the interface, it's using some version of the i1 software with added functionality for users of the Fiery system.
The first prints I've made look pretty good, and a little bit better than the profile supplied by Innova for their paper :)
-
Bruce, I think the answers to these questions are pretty generic. The Innova papers I'm familiar with, including I believe that one, are pretty rich in OBAs, so you would use M0 or M1 for the measurement condition. But you could try profiling for all three and keep the rendition you like best. You can read the paper white with your spectro and if you see a purplish spike at the 400nm end of the spectrum that's a giveaway - you have OBAs; or use a Black Light UV flashlight. The D50 versus D65 setting is more about the viewing environment of the prints. If you are viewing the prints in relatively warm lighting (such as halogens), D50 is fine. If the viewing conditions are cooler, the D65 profile may produce slightly better looking results. The differences are subtle.
-
Bruce, I think the answers to these questions are pretty generic. The Innova papers I'm familiar with, including I believe that one, are pretty rich in OBAs, so you would use M0 or M1 for the measurement condition. But you could try profiling for all three and keep the rendition you like best. You can read the paper white with your spectro and if you see a purplish spike at the 400nm end of the spectrum that's a giveaway - you have OBAs; or use a Black Light UV flashlight. The D50 versus D65 setting is more about the viewing environment of the prints. If you are viewing the prints in relatively warm lighting (such as halogens), D50 is fine. If the viewing conditions are cooler, the D65 profile may produce slightly better looking results. The differences are subtle.
Thanks Mark. It seems that one needs to print and measure a new target to change the UV setting, so a bit of work. Yes, this paper has OBAs. If I had a paper that was OBA free, would I choose a different setting? And... does this depend on the type of spectro probe that I'm using? Would it need to be UV cut or something like that?
And about the viewing conditions, I have no idea at this point what lighting would be used to ultimately view a print :)
-
I don't know your software package, or the specifics of the EFI version of the spectro you are using. I am using an i1Pro2 with i1Profiler. Using the dual scan mode, I read the target once (two passes per row of patches), and it stores data for all three M conditions. All I need to do after creating the first profile is go back to the measurement page, change the M condition to one of the others and then revert to the profile tab and recompute the profile. No more measurements, no reprinting. I don't know whether your materials work that conveniently. As for the D50-D65 business, if you are uncertain about the viewing conditions but think they are more than likely not to be daylight, based on what I see with my prints I think the D50 setting should be good. Best is to experiment and see. Only a few sheets of paper and a bit of time.
-
I don't know your software package, or the specifics of the EFI version of the spectro you are using. I am using an i1Pro2 with i1Profiler. Using the dual scan mode, I read the target once (two passes per row of patches), and it stores data for all three M conditions. All I need to do after creating the first profile is go back to the measurement page, change the M condition to one of the others and then revert to the profile tab and recompute the profile. No more measurements, no reprinting. I don't know whether your materials work that conveniently. As for the D50-D65 business, if you are uncertain about the viewing conditions but think they are more than likely not to be daylight, based on what I see with my prints I think the D50 setting should be good. Best is to experiment and see. Only a few sheets of paper and a bit of time.
I'll need to check out the dual scan mode. I'm not sure it's available in my software when making RGB as opposed to CMYK profiles. And RGB profiles seem to be limited to one patch set (about 960 patches)... There is a later version of the software, but my license does not allow me to use it...
-
If I had a paper that was OBA free, would I choose a different setting? And... does this depend on the type of spectro probe that I'm using? Would it need to be UV cut or something like that?
No you do not need a UV cut spectro for OBA free papers. However, such a spectro won't work on papers with OBA as the UV light is needed to excite the fluorescent dyes so that you can measure the impact of the OBA to prepare an accurate profile.
-
No you do not need a UV cut spectro for OBA free papers. However, such a spectro won't work on papers with OBA as the UV light is needed to excite the fluorescent dyes so that you can measure the impact of the OBA to prepare an accurate profile.
Generally yes, but one qualification: the spectro would "work", but it will just ignore the OBA aspect. How much of a practical, visible impact this has on prints would vary from case to case.
-
Generally yes, but one qualification: the spectro would "work", but it will just ignore the OBA aspect. How much of a practical, visible impact this has on prints would vary from case to case.
Yep. The biggest difference between M2 and M0-1 will show up using Absolute Colorimetry and only then if the paper has OBAs. Differences can easily exceed 10 dE on papers with a lot of OBAs. However, Abs. Col. is rarely used outside of reproduction work and most of that uses OBA free paper so it doesn't even matter there.
There are relatively small differences with Rel Col, Perceptual, and Saturation intents because these are normalized to paper white which is always the same OBAs or not, M2 or M0-1. That is white, and near white, colors will print the same. So the differences are how the colors shift elsewhere. It turns out the shift is very small, visually hard to see even side by side in most cases. There are options in I1Profiler that amplify the differences. Mostly in how the neutral tones are tweaked in Perceptual mode. But the default settings don't vary much between the M's. This is why the ColorMunki, which only works in M2, is still a decent profiling instrument.
-
Interesting that you raise the distinction of Absolute RI, because in this condition I've seen an additional issue with M0 and M1 profiles for papers that are very high in OBA. It is that printed with Absolute Intent, there can be over-compensation of blue, resulting in yellowish shading of light gray/off-white target test areas that should print neutral. However, once the same target is printed in Relative or Perceptual Intent, the yellowish shading disappears and the neutrals look neutral. So to avoid the yellowish tint using Absolute Intent, one would choose the M2 profile which is blind to the OBA altogether. Papers without OBAs don't exhibit this issue in Absolute Intent.
-
Interesting that you raise the distinction of Absolute RI, because in this condition I've seen an additional issue with M0 and M1 profiles for papers that are very high in OBA. It is that printed with Absolute Intent, there can be over-compensation of blue, resulting in yellowish shading of light gray/off-white target test areas that should print neutral. However, once the same target is printed in Relative or Perceptual Intent, the yellowish shading disappears and the neutrals look neutral. So to avoid the yellowish tint using Absolute Intent, one would choose the M2 profile which is blind to the OBA altogether. Papers without OBAs don't exhibit this issue in Absolute Intent.
I agree and you can throw out any rules here and the best approach is to measure both ways, build a profile each way and run tests on suites of reference images.
-
Interesting that you raise the distinction of Absolute RI, because in this condition I've seen an additional issue with M0 and M1 profiles for papers that are very high in OBA. It is that printed with Absolute Intent, there can be over-compensation of blue, resulting in yellowish shading of light gray/off-white target test areas that should print neutral. However, once the same target is printed in Relative or Perceptual Intent, the yellowish shading disappears and the neutrals look neutral. So to avoid the yellowish tint using Absolute Intent, one would choose the M2 profile which is blind to the OBA altogether. Papers without OBAs don't exhibit this issue in Absolute Intent.
That's the typical effect printing Abs. Col when viewed indoors under most lighting conditions. Costco Glossy has the highest OBAs of any paper I have. When printing an image of a ColorChecker with M1 or M2 profiles using Abs. Col. the M1 images appear quite yellow. It's especially intense comparing them side by side with an actual Colorchecker. Indoors, the Costco M1 print looks yellow while the M2 print looks fairly close to the Colorchecker. Take them both outside and the M1 matches while the M2 print looks bluish.
My household lighting is LED and office, high CRI LED and they have little to no uV. The few incandescents I still have show a slight amount of uV but the M2 profiles still provide a better Costco match with a ColorChecker.
This suggests that it may well be better to use M2 unless displaying outside. At least with OBA media.
Here's the layman's explanation for the yellow tint on high OBA media printed with M2 profiles.
Absolute Intent with M1 profiles prints such that the reflected color matches the requested color in daylight. So a very light gray, Lab=90,0,0, when printed in Abs. Intent on a high OBA paper with an M1 profile, will actually add a considerable amount of yellow ink. This is needed because otherwise the uV will shift the printed color, viewed in daylight, quite a bit on the blue side. When viewed indoors, even in daylight through a window, there is still a yellow tint because of the high degree of uV attenuation from regular window glass. Nearly all normal illuminants have much lower uV levels than are used in M0 or M1 profiles.
-
I don't know your software package, or the specifics of the EFI version of the spectro you are using. I am using an i1Pro2 with i1Profiler. Using the dual scan mode, I read the target once (two passes per row of patches), and it stores data for all three M conditions. All I need to do after creating the first profile is go back to the measurement page, change the M condition to one of the others and then revert to the profile tab and recompute the profile. No more measurements, no reprinting. I don't know whether your materials work that conveniently. As for the D50-D65 business, if you are uncertain about the viewing conditions but think they are more than likely not to be daylight, based on what I see with my prints I think the D50 setting should be good. Best is to experiment and see. Only a few sheets of paper and a bit of time.
I made a profile today with the M1 setting and the dual measurement. But, it seems, with my software, I can not use the same measurement data to make an M0 profile. It seems I need to print another chart under M0 and measure a single pass. (perhaps I could just make a .pdf of the new chart and that would fool the software though, but I'd need to measure the chart one more time as M0)
I did notice the the M1 profile does not allow a preview of paper white. Does that make sense? But, the M1 profile shows a significant difference between "perceptual intent and Relative color intent" where the M0 profile seems to make a Perceptual intent that is identical to Rel Col using black point compensation... Does this make sense?
Thanks!
-
I made a profile today with the M1 setting and the dual measurement. But, it seems, with my software, I can not use the same measurement data to make an M0 profile. It seems I need to print another chart under M0 and measure a single pass. (perhaps I could just make a .pdf of the new chart and that would fool the software though, but I'd need to measure the chart one more time as M0)
With the i1Pro Spectrophotometer, you need to measure with the specific M-Series you wish.
In terms of what is shown and available in the i1Profiler software, (depending on the instrument):
M0 (No Filter, UV-included)-single pass with i1Pro 2
M1 (No Filter, D50 UV-included)-dual pass with i1Pro 2
M2 (UV cut, UV-excluded)-dual pass with i1Pro 2
-
Yep. The biggest difference between M2 and M0-1 will show up using Absolute Colorimetry and only then if the paper has OBAs. Differences can easily exceed 10 dE on papers with a lot of OBAs. However, Abs. Col. is rarely used outside of reproduction work and most of that uses OBA free paper so it doesn't even matter there.
There are relatively small differences with Rel Col, Perceptual, and Saturation intents because these are normalized to paper white which is always the same OBAs or not, M2 or M0-1. That is white, and near white, colors will print the same. So the differences are how the colors shift elsewhere. It turns out the shift is very small, visually hard to see even side by side in most cases. There are options in I1Profiler that amplify the differences. Mostly in how the neutral tones are tweaked in Perceptual mode. But the default settings don't vary much between the M's. This is why the ColorMunki, which only works in M2, is still a decent profiling instrument.
Hi, Doug...
So, if not using Absolute Col, you seem to say that using different Mn’s does not make much discernible difference. Am I understanding that correctly?
-
With the i1Pro Spectrophotometer, you need to measure with the specific M-Series you wish.
In terms of what is shown and available in the i1Profiler software, (depending on the instrument):
M0 (No Filter, UV-included)-single pass with i1Pro 2
M1 (No Filter, D50 UV-included)-dual pass with i1Pro 2
M2 (UV cut, UV-excluded)-dual pass with i1Pro 2
Thanks Andrew for your reply. I only have a license for the EFI software, and not the i1. I'm using the ES-2000/i1 Pro 2 spectro. The EFI manual is very sparse and doesn't address the issue.
Might you be able to comment on my post a little more?
"I did notice the the M1 profile does not allow a preview of paper white. Does that make sense? But, the M1 profile shows a significant difference between "perceptual intent and Relative color intent" where the M0 profile seems to make a Perceptual intent that is identical to Rel Col using black point compensation... Does this make sense?"
-
Hi, Doug...
So, if not using Absolute Col, you seem to say that using different Mn’s does not make much discernible difference. Am I understanding that correctly?
From my limited experience here I've found that the M0 profile is significantly different than the M1 profile for both Relative intent and perceptual. And the M1 profile doesn't soft proof the paper white, while the M0 profile does. As to which is the "better" profile (and intent setting), it seems to depend on the image. The soft proofs for each profile is accurate to the print, but effect can be quite different depending on the image content.
-
"I did notice the the M1 profile does not allow a preview of paper white. Does that make sense?
Not to me. Nor does this: And the M1 profile doesn't soft proof the paper white, while the M0 profile does.
-
The soft proofs for each profile is accurate to the print, but effect can be quite different depending on the image content.
You really should always soft proof each image with Perceptual, RelCol and maybe Saturation (Absolute isn't at all useful outside of proofing). The choice is subjective and image specific. ICC profiles know nothing about color in context. They 'see' and deal with one pixel at a time and have zero data about others. Open a high resolution image in Photoshop, zoom in to 1600% and toggle the rendering intents and you'll get some idea of what I'm talking about; you can't make a judgment about the image because you're viewing a screen of individual pixels not in context. Now if you held a gun to my head and demanded I pick on RI blindly, I'd pick RelCol. But I don't have such a gun to my head and I can view each image in total, with differing RI's and pick the one I visually and subjectively prefer.
-
Not to me. Nor does this: And the M1 profile doesn't soft proof the paper white, while the M0 profile does.
Didn't make sense to me either, but that's how the EFI software builds the profiles. Is there some other software I should consider that doesn't cost over $1000?
-
Thanks Andrew for your reply. I only have a license for the EFI software, and not the i1. I'm using the ES-2000/i1 Pro 2 spectro. The EFI manual is very sparse and doesn't address the issue.
Might you be able to comment on my post a little more?
"I did notice the the M1 profile does not allow a preview of paper white. Does that make sense? But, the M1 profile shows a significant difference between "perceptual intent and Relative color intent" where the M0 profile seems to make a Perceptual intent that is identical to Rel Col using black point compensation... Does this make sense?"
This is extremely odd. M1 is much closer to M0 with the I1Pro 2 (and iSis for that matter) so you should see less difference between M0 and M1 than M0 and M2. No idea what you mean by "I did notice the the M1 profile does not allow a preview of paper white." Is this some "feature" of the Fiery" software? Makes no sense to me.
Photoshop's view proof lets you select show paper white with all Intents and doesn't care about how a profile was created.
-
This is extremely odd. M1 is much closer to M0 with the I1Pro 2 (and iSis for that matter) so you should see less difference between M0 and M1 than M0 and M2. No idea what you mean by "I did notice the the M1 profile does not allow a preview of paper white." Is this some "feature" of the Fiery" software? Makes no sense to me.
Photoshop's view proof lets you select show paper white with all Intents and doesn't care about how a profile was created.
Well... With the M1 profile from the EFI software, the "show paper white" box in photoshop is grey and can not be checked. I did not try to make an M2 profile as my paper has a bit of OBAs.
-
Well... With the M1 profile from the EFI software, the "show paper white" box in photoshop is grey and can not be checked.
For all Rendering Intents? Sounds like a simple matrix profile....
-
For all Rendering Intents? Sounds like a simple matrix profile....
Does any printer profiling s/w even have the option of making matrix profiles? They are completely inappropriate for printer profiles.
This is getting weirder and weirder.
-
Does any printer profiling s/w even have the option of making matrix profiles? They are completely inappropriate for printer profiles.
Yes but that's the only way I can get the same behavior as reported whereby the check box is grayed out.
-
Yes but that's the only way I can get the same behavior as reported whereby the check box is grayed out.
I don't think there was any option about matrix profiles in the software...
Perhaps EFI is not the best software, but it's all I have a license for. I originally bought the spectro used to create i1 display pro offsets for creating accurate 3d display LUTs and it works well for that, so I got my money's worth :) For me, the printer profiles are a bonus, but now that I'm making them, they seem quite good, but with a few quirks :) ;) :)
-
I don't think there was any option about matrix profiles in the software...
It's a major assumption and a stretch and without having access to the profile, that's the best I can do. I can't replicate what you report about this inability to check the box for paper simulation with any profile but a matrix profile. So maybe you can upload the profile?
-
Does any printer profiling s/w even have the option of making matrix profiles? They are completely inappropriate for printer profiles.
Sure - if it's RGB then you can generate a matrix printer profile using ArgyllCMS if you choose the right option, but it's not the default. No, I wouldn't expect the result to be anything other than a curiosity.
-
It's a major assumption and a stretch and without having access to the profile, that's the best I can do. I can't replicate what you report about this inability to check the box for paper simulation with any profile but a matrix profile. So maybe you can upload the profile?
I've tried attaching the profile here. Hope it works :)
-
I've tried attaching the profile here. Hope it works :)
It doesn't which is really, really odd! And when I try to look at some of the profile tags in the ColorSync Utility, it crashes (repeatedly). If I run Profile First Aid, it crashes. IF I delete your profile and run it again, it doesn't crash. Something here isn't Kosher. But heck, this is EFI, one messed up company....
-
It doesn't which is really, really odd! And when I try to look at some of the profile tags in the ColorSync Utility, it crashes (repeatedly). If I run Profile First Aid, it crashes. IF I delete your profile and run it again, it doesn't crash. Something here isn't Kosher. But heck, this is EFI, one messed up company....
It's a "standard" LUT printer profile operating out of LAB PCS. And that's about the only thing that makes any sense.
I'm able to examine the profile with Profile Inspector from color.org. This is the most insane profile I've ever seen! There are 10 points on each axis for the AtoB1 tables and 62!!!! points on the BtoA1 tables. OK, that's pretty weird, but get this. The media white point tag has Y at 1.15. That is simply crazy. 100% reflectivity is Y=1.00 (L*==100) and most media comes in between .85 and .93.
My guess is that Photoshop grays out the view paper white because it is outside any real life range.
You might want to consider making profiles with Argyll. It works. It's free.
-
It's a "standard" LUT printer profile operating out of LAB PCS. And that's about the only thing that makes any sense.
I'm able to examine the profile with Profile Inspector from color.org. This is the most insane profile I've ever seen! There are 10 points on each axis for the AtoB1 tables and 62!!!! points on the BtoA1 tables. OK, that's pretty weird, but get this. The media white point tag has Y at 1.15. That is simply crazy. 100% reflectivity is Y=1.00 (L*==100) and most media comes in between .85 and .93.
My guess is that Photoshop grays out the view paper white because it is outside any real life range.
You might want to consider making profiles with Argyll. It works. It's free.
Hmmm. seems pretty weird, even if I don't know what AtoB1 and BtoA1 are!
Crazy thing is of course, that the prints look pretty darn good and match the softproof very well. (of course without the paper white preview, but I keep my display down to 60 white level when printing.)
I've looked at Argyll, and it looks, to me, like a big challenge as I'm not familiar with working with the command line interface. So a pretty darn good learning curve here. I do use DisplayCal though for display calibration for video and even with it's GUI, the documentation is confusing as .... heck.
Anyway, all is pretty strange as the EFI software has so few settings to choose from when making a profile, it's hard to believe it just doesn't make a correct, though simple, profile.
-
Hmmm. seems pretty weird, even if I don't know what AtoB1 and BtoA1 are!
Crazy thing is of course, that the prints look pretty darn good and match the softproof very well. (of course without the paper white preview, but I keep my display down to 60 white level when printing.)
I've looked at Argyll, and it looks, to me, like a big challenge as I'm not familiar with working with the command line interface. So a pretty darn good learning curve here. I do use DisplayCal though for display calibration for video and even with it's GUI, the documentation is confusing as .... heck.
Anyway, all is pretty strange as the EFI software has so few settings to choose from when making a profile, it's hard to believe it just doesn't make a correct, though simple, profile.
The media white point is of importance to Abs. Col. but not the other intents, which just go to full scale. Abs. Col. is used to show paper white. That is, normally Lab 100,0,0 doesn't print anything so is automatically at the media white point. Abs. Col. reads the media white point tag and corrects the requested printed color to match. Your profile is saying that the media white point is around L*=105 or so which, of course, isn't possible.
As for the BtoA1 tables, these are huge, really huge, and completely inconsistent with the reverse table sizes which are less than 1% as big byte wise. They are used to lookup and convert Lab values to the device RGB values for printing. That they are so large doesn't mean they don't work. It's just really odd.
-
There are 10 points on each axis for the AtoB1 tables and 62!!!! points on the BtoA1 tables.
11 on A2B0 and A2B1
31 on B2A0
62 on B2A1
16 on B2A2
Some of these seem a bit high for a 918 patch chart.
All the cLUTs are XYZ that make use of the XYZ matrix. This is a little unusual, since
many profilers opt for Lab PCS for printers, which trades a little linearity within
interpolation cells for better overall control of the conversion.
(I have heard of HP print profiles using the XYZ cLUT with matrix approach.)
The media white point tag has Y at 1.15. That is simply crazy. 100% reflectivity is Y=1.00 (L*==100) and most media comes in between .85 and .93.
I've come across measurement values > 100% in some circumstances - typically high OBE containing paper, with an instrument that has drifted somewhat, but the CGATS data shows that there is something strange going on - the spectral data shows reflectivities up to 120% at long wavelengths.
-
11 on A2B0 and A2B1
31 on B2A0
62 on B2A1
16 on B2A2
Some of these seem a bit high for a 918 patch chart.
All the cLUTs are XYZ that make use of the XYZ matrix. This is a little unusual, since
many profilers opt for Lab PCS for printers, which trades a little linearity within
interpolation cells for better overall control of the conversion.
(I have heard of HP print profiles using the XYZ cLUT with matrix approach.)
I've come across measurement values > 100% in some circumstances - typically high OBE containing paper, with an instrument that has drifted somewhat, but the CGATS data shows that there is something strange going on - the spectral data shows reflectivities up to 120% at long wavelengths.
While I don't understand all this detail yet, I'm going to attach the M0 profile. Is this one so strange as well?
And a stupid question: I read the patches in a room with the shades closed and the lights off. But there was still some leakage through the window and the computer displays were on. I did have the patches on the table near the displays. Might those light sources have contaminated the measurements? Should I always take the readings in the most dark possible room?
-
I re-measured the target one more time being careful to minimize stray light on the target. This profile seems a bit better and the "simulate paper white" now works.
Would any of you mind to take a quick peek and let me know if this looks like a normal profile?
Thanks
-
I re-measured the target one more time being careful to minimize stray light on the target. This profile seems a bit better and the "simulate paper white" now works.
Would any of you mind to take a quick peek and let me know if this looks like a normal profile?
Thanks
Yep, Big differences and this one looks fine. Media white point Y=.86, which is pretty typical. Also works fine in Photoshop.
I also verified that it was the media white point XYZ values that were preventing Photoshop from showing paper white. I edited the numbers by multiplying each one by .7 and the profile worked fine in Photoshop. Very similar to your new one.
I had missed the header tag that they use XYZ as the PCS instead of LAB. I've never seen a printer profile that does that though it is completely legal. It also explains why there is such a large difference in 3DLUT points but are needed going from XYZ to device RGB. XYZ is a huge colorspace but, unlike ICCLAB, contains all physically realizable colors. ICCLAB does not due to a* and b* clipping.
-
Yep, Big differences and this one looks fine. Media white point Y=.86, which is pretty typical. Also works fine in Photoshop.
I also verified that it was the media white point XYZ values that were preventing Photoshop from showing paper white. I edited the numbers by multiplying each one by .7 and the profile worked fine in Photoshop. Very similar to your new one.
I had missed the header tag that they use XYZ as the PCS instead of LAB. I've never seen a printer profile that does that though it is completely legal. It also explains why there is such a large difference in 3DLUT points but are needed going from XYZ to device RGB. XYZ is a huge colorspace but, unlike ICCLAB, contains all physically realizable colors. ICCLAB does not due to a* and b* clipping.
Thanks so much Doug!
I think that, maybe, stray light from the computer display effected the measurements. This time I measured in the darkest room possible and turned the computer display away from the target print.
I made one print with the new profile and it looks correct :) Now to go back and re-measure my two other papers...