Luminous Landscape Forum
Raw & Post Processing, Printing => Printing: Printers, Papers and Inks => Topic started by: OCiliberti on September 13, 2007, 08:37:28 am
-
I'm thinking of buying an Eye One Photo SG Kit
Should I be also purchasing the optional UV Filter
for profiling?
Any advice would be helpful
thanks
-
Don't need it, the software will intelligently compensate for OB's.
-
Don't need it, the software will intelligently compensate for OB's.[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=139123\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Of course, that depends upon what software OCiliberti will be using. While the supplied EyeOneMatch will compensate for OBs in it's perceptual rendering, many RIPs like ColorBurst still prefer a UV filtered device (even with the new LAB linearization method). Other high end packages like MonacoProfiler will prefer a UV filter as well. Personally, I see absolutely no disadvantages to profiling with a UV filter and sometimes disadvantages when profiling without one.
Just food for thought. You may not need the UV filter at all but I've seen too many people buy an unfiltered EyeOne and be frustrated later when they had to buy a second one with a UV filter. It is smart to have asked.
-
Of course, that depends upon what software OCiliberti will be using. While the supplied EyeOneMatch will compensate for OBs in it's perceptual rendering, many RIPs like ColorBurst still prefer a UV filtered device (even with the new LAB linearization method).
For relinearization but if you do everything from scratch, you can still use the non UV.
I simply don't find putting a filter on the unit effective and there are downsides. Best thing you can do is NOT use papers with OB!
This sums it up:
http://www.ppmag.com/reviews/200702_rodneycm.pdf (http://www.ppmag.com/reviews/200702_rodneycm.pdf)
-
For relinearization but if you do everything from scratch, you can still use the non UV.
It works pretty well without a UV in 5.1 but ColorBurst still recommends and prefers a UV filter. ColorBurst was just an example. Many RIPs still require a UV filtered device.
Best thing you can do is NOT use papers with OB![a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=139140\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Even some papers without OBs profile far better with a UV filter when using MonacoProfiler's 2 step method.
-
It works pretty well without a UV in 5.1 but ColorBurst still recommends and prefers a UV filter. ColorBurst was just an example. Many RIPs still require a UV filtered device.
Even some papers without OBs profile far better with a UV filter when using MonacoProfiler's 2 step method.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=139148\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Two step? You mean pre-linearization? PMP doesn't have it, would be nice but that's not there for OB issues. Its linearization for building the profiling target.
-
Two step? You mean pre-linearization? Its linearization for building the profiling target.[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=139150\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
MonacoProfiler calls it "linearization" but I prefer to call it customized target generation. This first step has nothing to do with the linearization of a device. In fact, it comes *after* device linearization. It certainly isn't pre-linearization. I wish they would use better terminology to avoid this confusion. Anyway you've followed that discussion on the ColorSync list, I'm sure.
PMP doesn't have it, would be nice but that's not there for OB issues.[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=139150\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Regardless of OBs, some processes that aren't perfectly linear respond better to a 2 step profiling method with customized target generation, and if one doesn't use a UV filter you can get poor results. Same with some RIPs.
2 step profiling with customized target generation is a topic I suspect the general public will get to know more intimately in the future.
OCiliberti didn't mention what applications s/he will be using the EyeOne with, so this may or may not be a consideration.
-
All I can tell you is I have at least 1000 spectral data files from an EyeOne Non UV, these represent every nature of photo printer and paper combo. I use ProfileMaker Pro, and have had no issues with OBs in the resulting profile when using compensation for this. The same code exists in Match. I happen to be on the side of the geek fence that feels the solution should be taken care of in the software, not the hardware.
My iSis can do both all at the same time (well doing dual pass) and the software gives me both sets of spectral data, then does nothing to let me know what to do with both that I couldn't have done using the original software method without the UV filtration.
-
All I can tell you is I have at least 1000 spectral data files from an EyeOne Non UV, these represent every nature of photo printer and paper combo. I use ProfileMaker Pro, and have had no issues with OBs in the resulting profile when using compensation for this. The same code exists in Match.
My experiences are certainly the same as yours with PMP and EOM. It's when you stray away from these applications that you sometimes get better results with the UV filter. That's exactly the point I'm presenting to OCiliberti who hasn't stated what s/he will be using. Although it is probable, we probably shouldn't assume s/he will be using EOM.
I happen to be on the side of the geek fence that feels the solution should be taken care of in the software, not the hardware.
I'm on your side of the fence as well but I recognize that some applications can't handle it with software at this time. Thus the occasional necessity of a UV filter. While I prefer the idea of software OB handling I can't say I've ever seen a profile suffer from the use of a UV filter. In fact, I'm seeing better spot color matching via MP UV filtered profiles than from PMP unfiltered profiles. While I like the idea of software OB handling, those low Delta E variances speak for themselves.
My iSis can do both all at the same time (well doing dual pass) and the software gives me both sets of spectral data, then does nothing to let me know what to do with both that I couldn't have done using the original software method without the UV filtration.
They have setup the iSis API so that it can do either because there are legitimate reasons outside of PMP and EOM to measure one way or the other.
-
My experiences are certainly the same as yours with PMP and EOM. It's when you stray away from these applications that you sometimes get better results with the UV filter. That's exactly the point I'm presenting to OCiliberti who hasn't stated what s/he will be using. Although it is probable, we probably shouldn't assume s/he will be using EOM.
I'm on your side of the fence as well but I recognize that some applications can't handle it with software at this time. Thus the occasional necessity of a UV filter. While I prefer the idea of software OB handling I can't say I've ever seen a profile suffer from the use of a UV filter. In fact, I'm seeing better spot color matching via MP UV filtered profiles than from PMP unfiltered profiles. While I like the idea of software OB handling, those low Delta E variances speak for themselves.
They have setup the iSis API so that it can do either because there are legitimate reasons outside of PMP and EOM to measure one way or the other.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=139235\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Thank for all your advice... I ended up purchasing without UV filter