Luminous Landscape Forum
Raw & Post Processing, Printing => Colour Management => Topic started by: Doug Gray on February 15, 2019, 04:56:01 pm
-
This will be a running commentary. Purpose is to establish where and how differences in printing occurs
My printer arrived today. No issues setting it up. Impressive printer.
IK have not run Plat Pro paper to calibrate. Just at the defaults for now
First steps will be to print targets using I1Profiler's print direct then ACPU then Null trick, then PSP using the XPS driver. Next will be running a calibration with Plat Pro Paper.
-
Why not run the calibration before you do all that, just to be sure all is in optimal shape before all that testing?
Looking forward to your results.
-
Why not run the calibration before you do all that, just to be sure all is in optimal shape before all that testing?
Looking forward to your results.
I want to compare before and after. And basically to see what differences there are between the 4 target printing approaches prior to calibrating. That is, using the default do they vary?
I expect that there will be differences after calibration (otherwise what's the point?).
What I'm curious about is how those differences are reflected. Do they only impact PSP? If so one can presume the calibration process only effects PSP. OTOH if it's not limited to PSP, then does it have the same effect on the other three target print techniques as on the PSP. Or does it differ.
Also, how much change occurred as a result of calibration?
I want to understand what's going on behind the scenes with the Canon Pro1000. I rather like their approach for easily achieving compatibility across a lot of printers using the same profiles but their technical info on what's going on and where leaves a lot to be desired. So I'm treating it as something of a black box that needs to be analyzed.
-
I want to compare before and after. And basically to see what differences there are between the 4 target printing approaches prior to calibrating. That is, using the default do they vary?
I expect that there will be differences after calibration (otherwise what's the point?).
What I'm curious about is how those differences are reflected. Do they only impact PSP? If so one can presume the calibration process only effects PSP. OTOH if it's not limited to PSP, then does it have the same effect on the other three target print techniques as on the PSP. Or does it differ.
Also, how much change occurred as a result of calibration?
I want to understand what's going on behind the scenes with the Canon Pro1000. I rather like their approach for easily achieving compatibility across a lot of printers using the same profiles but their technical info on what's going on and where leaves a lot to be desired. So I'm treating it as something of a black box that needs to be analyzed.
I am so anxious about this journey of yours with Canon! I've got a feeling it's gonna be interesting! ;)
-
I want to compare before and after. And basically to see what differences there are between the 4 target printing approaches prior to calibrating. That is, using the default do they vary?
I expect that there will be differences after calibration (otherwise what's the point?).
What I'm curious about is how those differences are reflected. Do they only impact PSP? If so one can presume the calibration process only effects PSP. OTOH if it's not limited to PSP, then does it have the same effect on the other three target print techniques as on the PSP. Or does it differ.
Also, how much change occurred as a result of calibration?
I want to understand what's going on behind the scenes with the Canon Pro1000. I rather like their approach for easily achieving compatibility across a lot of printers using the same profiles but their technical info on what's going on and where leaves a lot to be desired. So I'm treating it as something of a black box that needs to be analyzed.
Doug, you can perform color calibration at any time and enable it or disable it from the printer driver:
Printing Preferences --> Main --> Media Type --> Advanced Settings --> Calibration Value : Printer Default/Use Value/Disregard Value.
or from the operation panel:
Maintenance --> Color Calibration --> Enable/Disable adjustments values
Also some observations about PRO-1000 and PRO-4000 (and I assume PRO-2000, PRO-6000) and media types.
Both printers use the same printhead PF-10 and the same inkset.
PRO-4000 offers an expanded set of media types which almost all can be used as base to create custom media types. PRO-1000 is limited in this regard.
Both Hahnemuhle and Canson use, for its of their papers, different media types for the 1000 and the 4000.
For example Hahnemuhle for all its MK papers on the 1000 suggest "Highest Density Fine Art Paper" a MBK black only media type,
but for the 4000 and MK papers suggest (and build their profiles on) "Heavy Weight Fine Art Paper" which uses both blacks MBK and PBK.
Canson does similar. For the 4000 and MK paper Rag Photographique 310 uses, as the base of it's custom media type, "Fine Art Textured" which is also a dual black (MBK/PBK) media type but for the 1000 "Highest Density Fine Art Paper" a MBK black only media type.
From these observations (and Mark's conclusions in his review) there are differences between the desktop and the roll models despite the same head and inks and it would be interesting to investigate if color calibration can be used to "align" a desktop to a roll PRO model or it's useful only for PRO printers in the same category.
-
Look forward to the ongoing discussion. However, for me the two downsides compared to the Epson P800 are the lack of roll paper support (no pano capability) and the significantly higher weight of the printer (not easy for an 'older' man to move and set it up solo).
-
I want to compare before and after. And basically to see what differences there are between the 4 target printing approaches prior to calibrating.
OK, in that context understood. I thought the main purpose was to compare between target printing approaches, but what you are doing will also show the impact of calibration, which is useful.
-
Look forward to the ongoing discussion. However, for me the two downsides compared to the Epson P800 are the lack of roll paper support (no pano capability) and the significantly higher weight of the printer (not easy for an 'older' man to move and set it up solo).
Weight, who said weight? Are those 100+kg of the PRO-2000 enough.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
Doug, you can perform color calibration at any time and enable it or disable it from the printer driver:
Printing Preferences --> Main --> Media Type --> Advanced Settings --> Calibration Value : Printer Default/Use Value/Disregard Value.
or from the operation panel:
Maintenance --> Color Calibration --> Enable/Disable adjustments values
Thanks. Useful.
Also some observations about PRO-1000 and PRO-4000 (and I assume PRO-2000, PRO-6000) and media types.
Both printers use the same printhead PF-10 and the same inkset.
PRO-4000 offers an expanded set of media types which almost all can be used as base to create custom media types. PRO-1000 is limited in this regard.
Both Hahnemuhle and Canson use, for its of their papers, different media types for the 1000 and the 4000.
For example Hahnemuhle for all its MK papers on the 1000 suggest "Highest Density Fine Art Paper" a MBK black only media type,
but for the 4000 and MK papers suggest (and build their profiles on) "Heavy Weight Fine Art Paper" which uses both blacks MBK and PBK.
Canson does similar. For the 4000 and MK paper Rag Photographique 310 uses, as the base of it's custom media type, "Fine Art Textured" which is also a dual black (MBK/PBK) media type but for the 1000 "Highest Density Fine Art Paper" a MBK black only media type.
From these observations (and Mark's conclusions in his review) there are differences between the desktop and the roll models despite the same head and inks and it would be interesting to investigate if color calibration can be used to "align" a desktop to a roll PRO model or it's useful only for PRO printers in the same category.
It's interesting that one can create a unique media type from one of the standard settings and register it with the media manager. It shows up in the driver but not in PSP.
Does anyone know how to access the actual driver settings from PSP? It appears to use the default for the selected media type.
-
It's interesting that one can create a unique media type from one of the standard settings and register it with the media manager. It shows up in the driver but not in PSP.
Does anyone know how to access the actual driver settings from PSP? It appears to use the default for the selected media type.
Don't forget to update, with the new custom media type, both the regular driver and the XPS driver. Windows treat them as separate printers. Then you must see the custom media type in PSP also.
-
The profiles all showed excellent gamut edge characteristics with very smooth, not ratty edges across the full range of L* slices. Much cleaner than my 9800 or 9500II. Black L* was good ranging from 2.8 to 3.0. Gamut volume was good as well.
Profiles all tested against each other by creating a set of 100,000 random RGB values, applying them to the profile's device space, and running them through the AtoB1 tables to produce the estimated LAB colors.
957 patch letter size target iSis scans are in. I printed and made profiles for Plat glossy:
1. PSP w/o color management
2. I1Profiler direct
3. ACPU
4. Null transform (PS)
Ave dE between any two profiles varied from .15 to .25. This is within normal variation in scanning separate but identically printed, prints. Max dE (in the 100,000 random RGB sets) was 1.1.
Then "calibrated" using Plat glossy and ran targets:
5. PSP w/o color management
6. Null transform.
These matched each other within .4 dE. So clearly the "calibration" is being echoed to the native device driver. Thus, selecting Plat Pro Glossy in PSP or direct to the driver from Photoshop should produce equally good results. At least for color management.
However, they differed from 1-4 significantly with an ave dE of 1.2 and max dE on a long tail reaching to 7.0. Examining the two profiles showed a close match except in the dark (L*<20) magenta region where sets 1-4 diverged significantly from 5-6.
Comments:
One can create a custom paper setting and calibrate it using one of the standard paper types but not generic ones like the 2000 and up printers. However, the custom type only shows up in the standard driver, and not in PSP. That's just strange.
I'm curious as the how accurate the canned Plat Pro profiles are and how much (if any) they are improved by the "calibration" process. I don't yet see an advantage to the "calibration" process per se. The neutral curves change a little but only in the midrange by about 2 dE. Black points and smoothness are the same. My take is that if you are doing your own profiles there may be no advantage to using the calibration process at all unless you have multiple printers and wish to just create profiles with one and use them on all the others. It should produce closer print results. Possibly of some value after a head change or using aging ink. Presumably, a calibration on a one of the papers that adjusts globally would be almost as good as making new profiles and uses only one piece of paper.
Also of note is that the a* and b* on the neutral axis are smooth and well behaved. Much better than the 9800 which takes a lot of work (lots of target patches) to bring their variation below 1.0
Next: Compare the effect of calibration on color print accuracy by printing in gamut LAB patches using Abs. Col.
-
The profiles all showed excellent gamut edge characteristics with very smooth, not ratty edges across the full range of L* slices. Much cleaner than my 9800 or 9500II. Black L* was good ranging from 2.8 to 3.0. Gamut volume was good as well.
Profiles all tested against each other by creating a set of 100,000 random RGB values, applying them to the profile's device space, and running them through the AtoB1 tables to produce the estimated LAB colors.
957 patch letter size target iSis scans are in. I printed and made profiles for Plat glossy:
1. PSP w/o color management
2. I1Profiler direct
3. ACPU
4. Null transform (PS)
Ave dE between any two profiles varied from .15 to .25. This is within normal variation in scanning separate but identically printed, prints. Max dE (in the 100,000 random RGB sets) was 1.1.
Then "calibrated" using Plat glossy and ran targets:
5. PSP w/o color management
6. Null transform.
These matched each other within .4 dE. So clearly the "calibration" is being echoed to the native device driver. Thus, selecting Plat Pro Glossy in PSP or direct to the driver from Photoshop should produce equally good results. At least for color management.
However, they differed from 1-4 significantly with an ave dE of 1.2 and max dE on a long tail reaching to 7.0. Examining the two profiles showed a close match except in the dark (L*<20) magenta region where sets 1-4 diverged significantly from 5-6.
Comments:
One can create a custom paper setting and calibrate it using one of the standard paper types but not generic ones like the 2000 and up printers. However, the custom type only shows up in the standard driver, and not in PSP. That's just strange.
I'm curious as the how accurate the canned Plat Pro profiles are and how much (if any) they are improved by the "calibration" process. I don't yet see an advantage to the "calibration" process per se. The neutral curves change a little but only in the midrange by about 2 dE. Black points and smoothness are the same. My take is that if you are doing your own profiles there may be no advantage to using the calibration process at all unless you have multiple printers and wish to just create profiles with one and use them on all the others. It should produce closer print results. Possibly of some value after a head change or using aging ink. Presumably, a calibration on a one of the papers that adjusts globally would be almost as good as making new profiles and uses only one piece of paper.
Also of note is that the a* and b* on the neutral axis are smooth and well behaved. Much better than the 9800 which takes a lot of work (lots of target patches) to bring their variation below 1.0
Next: Compare the effect of calibration on color print accuracy by printing in gamut LAB patches using Abs. Col.
Thanks for the information. Your investigation is very interesting. Which version of PSP did you use?
-
Thanks for the information. Your investigation is very interesting. Which version of PSP did you use?
Ver. 2.2.3
Just ran across another problem. PSP only offers Perceptual and Relative Colorimetric when using an ICC profile. Also, where's BPC option ins PSP? That's pretty useful with Rel. Col.
What's up with that? Where's Abs. and Sat.???
I use Abs. to provide a secondary verification color management is closing the loop. It's also pretty important for replication work.
While there's a lot to like about PSP what the actual printer settings are less than clear. Going directly through the driver is much cleaner to me. Also, PSP appears to use the OS's CMM and I prefer Adobe ACE for CMM though I haven't seen much difference between the two with printer profiles, unlike RGB matrix profiles which are can produce significant conversion errors with Windows' CMM.
-
Strange. In the earlier version of PSP I reviewed it did offer Absolute Rendering Intent, if I remember correctly. It is essentially a GUI that reaches directly into the printer driver, so what you select there should also be the same thing as what you would select using the driver directly, the major difference being that the driver did not allow for turning colour management off, whereas PSP does.
-
Strange. In the earlier version of PSP I reviewed it did offer Absolute Rendering Intent, if I remember correctly. It is essentially a GUI that reaches directly into the printer driver, so what you select there should also be the same thing as what you would select using the driver directly, the major difference being that the driver did not allow for turning colour management off, whereas PSP does.
Difference between Windows and Mac or is it some issue with the current PSP or maybe option somewhere in PSP I'm missing?
-
I don't yet see an advantage to the "calibration" process per se. The neutral curves change a little but only in the midrange by about 2 dE. Black points and smoothness are the same. My take is that if you are doing your own profiles there may be no advantage to using the calibration process at all unless you have multiple printers and wish to just create profiles with one and use them on all the others. It should produce closer print results. Possibly of some value after a head change or using aging ink. Presumably, a calibration on a one of the papers that adjusts globally would be almost as good as making new profiles and uses only one piece of paper.
In the DICENet/Colorbus RIPS, we implemented a per channel calibration system at the end of the profiled workflow, and while a lot of the benefit of that was with copier output, where it compensated for day to day variation in toner density mainly due to humidity changes, the benefits for the inkjet output was in allowing us to ship a profile for a particular model that would work well with whatever instance it ended up driving, and more usefully, it let one profile work well across different printer density modes. This saved an awful lot of profiling. For day to day use, re-calibrating was much more convenient that profiling, involving reading four strips with a strip reader. (For the copier there was an even faster method using the scanner that I developed, and was used extensively by our newspaper & magazine proofing customers)
-
Difference between Windows and Mac or is it some issue with the current PSP or maybe option somewhere in PSP I'm missing?
I wouldn't know about a difference between Windows and OSX because I left the Windows world about ten years ago. In the PSP I worked with there were no hidden options. That was the whole point - all the settings one needed in the driver to make a print were laid-out very obviously to make it easy; so I'd be surprised if you are missing anything. In fact, the piece of the PSP Manual I found on-line suggests that there are only the two options: PSP Manual CM (https://ugp01.c-ij.com/ij/webmanual/PrintStudioPro/M/1.2/EN/PSP/psp-405.html) . This is truly annoying. They should definitely have ABSCOL available because it's necessary for those doing proofing work.
-
I wouldn't know about a difference between Windows and OSX because I left the Windows world about ten years ago. In the PSP I worked with there were no hidden options. That was the whole point - all the settings one needed in the driver to make a print were laid-out very obviously to make it easy; so I'd be surprised if you are missing anything. In fact, the piece of the PSP Manual I found on-line suggests that there are only the two options: PSP Manual CM (https://ugp01.c-ij.com/ij/webmanual/PrintStudioPro/M/1.2/EN/PSP/psp-405.html) . This is truly annoying. They should definitely have ABSCOL available because it's necessary for those doing proofing work.
For sure Mark. Pretty bad for replication work as well. The remaining issue is if the Rel. Col. has BPC or not. Odd it isn't selectable.
Also, I've determined that the default (no calibration) profiles have a larger gamut in the dark violets, Hue angle about 280 - 300. at low L*. This is the case on both matte and glossy. interesting.
For my purposes, I'm just going to profile based with the default settings. Exactly the same gamut except for those deep violets where the default wins out. So I'm going to stick with the same workflow that works quite well with my other two printers.
The Pro1000 does have materially more gamut overall than the 9800 or 9500II, especially at L* < 50, and a lower black point too. It's also much smoother so I don't need as many patches for a great profile.
-
In the DICENet/Colorbus RIPS, we implemented a per channel calibration system at the end of the profiled workflow, and while a lot of the benefit of that was with copier output, where it compensated for day to day variation in toner density mainly due to humidity changes, the benefits for the inkjet output was in allowing us to ship a profile for a particular model that would work well with whatever instance it ended up driving, and more usefully, it let one profile work well across different printer density modes. This saved an awful lot of profiling. For day to day use, re-calibrating was much more convenient that profiling, involving reading four strips with a strip reader. (For the copier there was an even faster method using the scanner that I developed, and was used extensively by our newspaper & magazine proofing customers)
Yep. That's the great advantage that calibration should provide. But since calibration has produced smaller gamuts in the deep violets for this printer on both matte and glossy, I'm not going to bother with it. And since PSP is crippled in Windows (no Abs. Col.) that's not something I'm going to bother with either. Sad really, as I was expecting calibration to at least not decrease gamut and provide a good way to adjust for head wear or aging ink. Color me surprised.
But let me not be too negative. It's a very good printer. Some other tests suggest better resolution. particularly where small areas are light compared to the surround. This shows up on the dark circuit board in the upper left of the Kodak PDI image. More testing to do but from initial results I expect color accuracy to be quite good.
I'm going to make a scanner profile (adjusted for large area crosstalk). I expect they will be as good or better than my other printers and the scanner profile's gamut should benefit from the larger printer gamut as well.
-
..........
The Pro1000 does have materially more gamut overall than the 9800 or 9500II, especially at L* < 50, and a lower black point too. It's also much smoother so I don't need as many patches for a great profile.
Useful to remember that the Epson 9800/9500 are quite dated by now. The Pro-1000 incorporates all of Canon's newest printer and ink technology in a series that was thoroughly re-engineered. It also produces visibly superior prints compared with Canon's own previous models.
-
Useful to remember that the Epson 9800/9500 are quite dated by now. The Pro-1000 incorporates all of Canon's newest printer and ink technology in a series that was thoroughly re-engineered. It also produces visibly superior prints compared with Canon's own previous models.
It (the 9800) is certainly long in the tooth but the darn thing just keeps working. And, in spite of its flaws, once one has a good profile, it is just really stable. Very little drift over the years. But, at some point it will give out and turn into a large boat anchor. The 9500 had a smoother tone curve and required fewer patches for a good profile but in all other ways was quite inferior to the 9800. Drifted. Colors had a dependency on adjacent colors. Very poor black point, amongst others. OTOH, it too still works.
-
Also, I've determined that the default (no calibration) profiles have a larger gamut in the dark violets, Hue angle about 280 - 300. at low L*. This is the case on both matte and glossy. interesting.
Doug, correct me pls if I'm wrong but this gamut gain is gone forever once you calibrate the printer, isn't it?
-
For sure Mark. Pretty bad for replication work as well. The remaining issue is if the Rel. Col. has BPC or not. Odd it isn't selectable.
Oddly enough the BPC in present in Canon's new PLL (Professional Print & layout), the PS plugin still in beta which Canon promotes as the replacement of PSP, eventually.
-
Ver. 2.2.3
Just ran across another problem. PSP only offers Perceptual and Relative Colorimetric when using an ICC profile. Also, where's BPC option ins PSP? That's pretty useful with Rel. Col.
What's up with that? Where's Abs. and Sat.???
I use Abs. to provide a secondary verification color management is closing the loop. It's also pretty important for replication work.
While there's a lot to like about PSP what the actual printer settings are less than clear. Going directly through the driver is much cleaner to me. Also, PSP appears to use the OS's CMM and I prefer Adobe ACE for CMM though I haven't seen much difference between the two with printer profiles, unlike RGB matrix profiles which are can produce significant conversion errors with Windows' CMM.
It is reassuring that PSP latest version 2.2.3 can be used to print calibration charts (despite that it says that the chart files are converted to a color space).
BPC in PSP requires Adobe CMM which is an old win 32bit application. This information is from Keith Coopers' PRO-1000 review (look at "Printing with Print Studio Pro" section):
http://www.northlight-images.co.uk/canon-pro-1000-printer-review/ (http://www.northlight-images.co.uk/canon-pro-1000-printer-review/)
-
This will be a running commentary. Purpose is to establish where and how differences in printing occurs
My printer arrived today. No issues setting it up. Impressive printer.
IK have not run Plat Pro paper to calibrate. Just at the defaults for now
First steps will be to print targets using I1Profiler's print direct then ACPU then Null trick, then PSP using the XPS driver. Next will be running a calibration with Plat Pro Paper.
Pro-1000 calibrates itself automatically while print head installation using attached sheet of HW Coated. So in fact it's already calibrated (linearised), and additional calibration with Platinum Pro will most probably not introduce any noticeable difference.
-
Doug, correct me pls if I'm wrong but this gamut gain is gone forever once you calibrate the printer, isn't it?
No, you can reset the printer in the maint. tab which brings it back to the initial installation/calibration.
However, it's a tiny effect on the gamut volume (2% or so) and almost entirely effects the darker magentas. It is very unlikely you would ever see a difference purely from gamut clipping in that area.
That said, there are fairly significant differences in other colors within the gamut if you use a profile made before a new calibration that affects your paper setting. My inclination is to not use calibration after you make your own profiles. It may be necessary after some time or with a head replacement but that's usually the case with any printer.
-
Pro-1000 calibrates itself automatically while print head installation using attached sheet of HW Coated. So in fact it's already calibrated (linearised), and additional calibration with Platinum Pro will most probably not introduce any noticeable difference.
It does, to the supplied MP101 with the corner clipped. My tests, initial installation then calibration with LU101, a luster paper. Fairly significant changes resulted.
I ran a comparison of 3 target prints on matte and glossy, before and after recal. with LU101. While the gamut limits were unchanged except for dark magentas, there was a significant shift of in-gamut colors. More so with the glossy than matte. The shifts were only very slightly visible on the Kodak PDI image viewed side by side. Viewed apart, I couldn't tell one from the other.
Here's histograms showing the differences. I generated 100,000 random RGB values. Ran them through AtoB1 tables in profiles created from 3 targets each for both matte and glossy. The delta E2000 was calculated and histograms of the differences generated. See attached.
The largest dE00 was on the glossy at RGB 35,84,248, which generated LAB values of 29.1, 32.0, -78.6 before recal and 35.3, 21.2, -73.4, 6.9 after recal with LU101.
A pretty big change well inside the gamut. Very visible comparing before/after prints. Note, this is unrelated to gamut limit changes which were largely insignificant. The largest dE changes were all inside the gamut and not from gamut limit clipping.
-
BPC in PSP requires Adobe CMM which is an old win 32bit application. This information is from Keith Coopers' PRO-1000 review (look at "Printing with Print Studio Pro" section):
It's been quite a long time since I was running 32 bits. This is really a major problem for windows installations.
-
I wouldn't know about a difference between Windows and OSX because I left the Windows world about ten years ago. In the PSP I worked with there were no hidden options. That was the whole point - all the settings one needed in the driver to make a print were laid-out very obviously to make it easy; so I'd be surprised if you are missing anything. In fact, the piece of the PSP Manual I found on-line suggests that there are only the two options: PSP Manual CM (https://ugp01.c-ij.com/ij/webmanual/PrintStudioPro/M/1.2/EN/PSP/psp-405.html) . This is truly annoying. They should definitely have ABSCOL available because it's necessary for those doing proofing work.
Mark,
I probably should point out the workaround that would be needed on the 2000 if using the driver directly from Photoshop differs from PSP in Windows. The pro1000 doesn't differ in Windows x64 so one can just go through the driver directly for Abs. Col. or BPC.
workaround:
In Photoshop, convert the image to the printer/paper profile using the desired intent and BPC setting. Then print in PSP with color management turned off just as one would print a target.
-
Mark,
I probably should point out the workaround that would be needed on the 2000 if using the driver directly from Photoshop differs from PSP in Windows. The pro1000 doesn't differ in Windows x64 so one can just go through the driver directly for Abs. Col. or BPC.
workaround:
In Photoshop, convert the image to the printer/paper profile using the desired intent and BPC setting. Then print in PSP with color management turned off just as one would print a target.
Sounds sensible to me.
-
Another few pieces of info:
Closing the loop on color accuracy, I printed the standard ISIS_CC Chart which has CC patches arranged like a CC but with each patch composed of 9, 6mm squares. This provides statistical info on printing same patches as well as good averages for each of the 24 CC colors. It also has LAB neutral strips on one edge in increments of 1 to get info on the neutral tone curve. The chart is in standard letter size iSis readable format of 957 patches. It's not a full gamut spread but is great for fast, visual comparisons with an actual CC as well as providing good info when scanned for color accuracy stats.
For Canson Photo Rag 210gsm from the standard, 1 pg default-isis target profile:
Average dE00 for all 24 CC patches: .46, Max 1.08
Average dE00 over neutral patches from L*=5 to 95 in steps of 1: .46
___
Next, does it print with 16 bits? No, it doesn't.
Results: Printed 16 bit image "black balls" which is designed show 8 bit banding.
All printing methods, xps, regular driver, or through PSP produced identical banding which was the same as if the image was converted first to 8 bits. However, setting the color settings "dither on conversion" option eliminated the banding printing the 16 bit image.
Should be noted that to actually see the difference between 16 bit and 8 bit print banding you really have to create synthetic images to have a chance. With any normal photo image the intrinsic noise (even at .1%) results in very smooth gradients. Even with synthetic images I scanned the prints and bumped up the contrast 10x to bring out the banding. Just barely visible otherwise. 8/16 bit printing is 99.9% marketing nonsense.
-
Another few pieces of info:
Closing the loop on color accuracy, I printed the standard ISIS_CC Chart which has CC patches arranged like a CC but with each patch composed of 9, 6mm squares. This provides statistical info on printing same patches as well as good averages for each of the 24 CC colors. It also has LAB neutral strips on one edge in increments of 1 to get info on the neutral tone curve. The chart is in standard letter size iSis readable format of 957 patches. It's not a full gamut spread but is great for fast, visual comparisons with an actual CC as well as providing good info when scanned for color accuracy stats.
For Canson Photo Rag 210gsm from the standard, 1 pg default-isis target profile:
Average dE00 for all 24 CC patches: .46, Max 1.08
Average dE00 over neutral patches from L*=5 to 95 in steps of 1: .46
Sorry it's late here and I am a bit slow. Is these accuracy stats with a profile made with color calibration on or off? Thanks.
-
Sad really, as I was expecting calibration to at least not decrease gamut and provide a good way to adjust for head wear or aging ink. Color me surprised.
Yes - one of the trade-offs in using calibration is choosing maximum density aim points. Aim too low, and every device can hit it, but you limit the gamut. Aim too high, and you have to cope with most devices not hitting the target, and the profile not being so accurate in those areas. A trick was to make the calibration smoothly tail off to the achievable maximum, rather than clipping abruptly.
-
Sorry it's late here and I am a bit slow. Is these accuracy stats with a profile made with color calibration on or off? Thanks.
I make accuracy tests with a regular, colorspace tagged, tiff file and print it using normal color managed settings except that use Abs. Col. for the intent. Thus, ideally, a color looked at in Lab with the info tab in Photoshop will print and read the same Lab value with a spectro.
The image file is formatted to be read with an iSis but is tagged as Adobe RGB instead of the usual untagged target image.
-
Yes - one of the trade-offs in using calibration is choosing maximum density aim points. Aim too low, and every device can hit it, but you limit the gamut. Aim too high, and you have to cope with most devices not hitting the target, and the profile not being so accurate in those areas. A trick was to make the calibration smoothly tail off to the achievable maximum, rather than clipping abruptly.
I've tried a related thing with the 9800, printing, and measuring, gradients from RGB 30 down to 0 and looking for a smooth transition to the best black point. Turned out the defaults on the 9800 were very close to optimal so I choose to leave them at default and make profiles based on that.
-
I've included the CC iSis target file I use to check color accuracy. It's in Adobe RGB and is a 16 bit tif. Also included is the RGB CGATs file that can be loaded into I1Profiler's patches as well as the spectro scan from the printed file.
The three are zipped and attached. The file should be printed at 100% using standard color management and selecting Abs. Col. intent. It can be used with any paper/printer/profile. Even without a spectro it's useful for comparing to a real Colorchecker for gross error. With an I1 Pro one can spot read each of the 24 colors. But it's ideal for reading with an iSis though you may need a little work in Excel or MATLAB (What I use) to accumulate and get the stats.
-
I've included the CC iSis target file I use to check color accuracy. It's in Adobe RGB and is a 16 bit tif. Also included is the RGB CGATs file that can be loaded into I1Profiler's patches as well as the spectro scan from the printed file.
The three are zipped and attached. The file should be printed at 100% using standard color management and selecting Abs. Col. intent. It can be used with any paper/printer/profile. Even without a spectro it's useful for comparing to a real Colorchecker for gross error. With an I1 Pro one can spot read each of the 24 colors. But it's ideal for reading with an iSis though you may need a little work in Excel or MATLAB (What I use) to accumulate and get the stats.
Thanks!
Reading your comments and GWGills' above regarding maximum density I wonder if the ink limit setting of a media type plays a role in gamut volume. If you examine the characteristics of the media types with MCT you will notice various settings on ink upper limit such as ...Standard/Medium/MediumHigh/Highest etc.
-
I wonder if the ink limit setting of a media type plays a role in gamut volume.
Yes indeed. Setting the ink limits is something of an art though. If you look at the trajectory of raw individual colorants in L*a*b* space, they typically start OK from white, but then compress and curve as they approach their maximums. Typically they end up curling back from some peak density. Dot gain can be extreme. In some printing modes, a single channel 100% can correspond to 400% ink on paper or more due to dot overlap. So a tradeoff with gamut is how much ink you are putting on the page, and whether this will run, or clog detail or take too long to dry, or result in some other undesirable artifact, such as yellow floating to the top etc.
-
Yes indeed. Setting the ink limits is something of an art though. If you look at the trajectory of raw individual colorants in L*a*b* space, they typically start OK from white, but then compress and curve as they approach their maximums. Typically they end up curling back from some peak density. Dot gain can be extreme. In some printing modes, a single channel 100% can correspond to 400% ink on paper or more due to dot overlap. So a tradeoff with gamut is how much ink you are putting on the page, and whether this will run, or clog detail or take too long to dry, or result in some other undesirable artifact, such as yellow floating to the top etc.
Thank you!
Canon in its Media Configuration Tool includes a procedure to determine the ink limit for a custom media type. It is a file which the user has the option to print and check it visually during the setup of the custom media type:
At the end of this page:
https://ugp01.c-ij.com/ij/webmanual/MediaConfigurationTool/W/1.3/EN/MCT/tp191034.html (https://ugp01.c-ij.com/ij/webmanual/MediaConfigurationTool/W/1.3/EN/MCT/tp191034.html)
-
Thank you!
Canon in its Media Configuration Tool includes a procedure to determine the ink limit for a custom media type. It is a file which the user has the option to print and check it visually during the setup of the custom media type:
At the end of this page:
https://ugp01.c-ij.com/ij/webmanual/MediaConfigurationTool/W/1.3/EN/MCT/tp191034.html (https://ugp01.c-ij.com/ij/webmanual/MediaConfigurationTool/W/1.3/EN/MCT/tp191034.html)
Maybe Canon provides more tools than Epson for third party media. Scott Martin published something useful (http://www.on-sight.com/how-to-determine-the-optimal-media-selection-for-any-paper/) about a decade ago that I found useful for my Epson 3880. However, Epson only has some limited choices and then one might have to fine tune things in the print driver in terms of ink lay down and dry times which is difficult and time consuming. As my 3880 nears the end of life, I'll be faced with the choice of Canon and Epson 17inch printers. Doug's comments on this thread will be useful information in that regard.
-
Maybe Canon provides more tools than Epson for third party media. Scott Martin published something useful (http://www.on-sight.com/how-to-determine-the-optimal-media-selection-for-any-paper/) about a decade ago that I found useful for my Epson 3880. However, Epson only has some limited choices and then one might have to fine tune things in the print driver in terms of ink lay down and dry times which is difficult and time consuming. As my 3880 nears the end of life, I'll be faced with the choice of Canon and Epson 17inch printers. Doug's comments on this thread will be useful information in that regard.
You can customize a range of media settings in both printer lines, but how refined the one is versus the other wouldn't be at the front line of my considerations in selecting a printer model to replace a 3880. The very first thing you need to look at is what the printers can do relative to what you want them to do. For example, if you want to print panos or prints that exceed a 26 inch length limit, if you want to print on inflexible media, then you are buying an Epson P800, not a Canon Pro-1000. If how easily the media feeds into the printer is your highest priority consideration, then you are more likely buying a Canon Pro-1000. Each model has a different way of handling maintenance/cleaning and that may be important to you. Both of them can be profiled to make excellent prints. On the whole, the Pro-1000 has slightly larger gamut volume than the P800; whether this matters to the kind of photos you will be printing is something you would need to determine and that could influence a decision. We can get all bent and twisted over the finest points of profiling and fine-tuning the media types, but in the final analysis what will matter the most to most people are usage factors and how the prints look. Some differences of file rendition just aren't noticeable enough to swing a buying choice.
-
Thanks Mark, very useful comments!
-
General observations to date:
The Pro 1000 delivers a significantly larger gamut over both the 9500 II and 9800. Especially lower black points and better rendition of darker colors.
The Pro 1000 driver has a better, and less lumpy, mapping of device RGB values than either the 9800 or 9500. Fewer patches are needed to create good profiles. The standard iSis 957 patch, letter size target creates better profiles. Good profiles for the 9800 requires significantly more patches.
However, the 9800, to my surprise, produces slightly more consistent colors. Printing random, in gamut, colors in different locations, the 9800 still produces the smallest differences. A large patch set overcomes the lumpiness of the 9800 driver so, when combined with a patch set optimized for the 9800, the 9800 delivers more precise, in-gamut, colors. However, this effect is not visible (to me anyway) though it is measureable. Says a lot for Epson's design of the rather old 9800.
The Pro 1000 prints appear to have less gloss differential and bronzing though, at this point, I don't have any good way to quantize the differences. This is an important, but highly subjective, effect.
Things I have not yet investigated:
How well the Pro 1000 prints fine textures. Does it do a better job interpolating rapid changes in pixel values? How much does the printer change over time and how much change occurs when not printing for a week or so.
-
After further refinement, I have come up with a set of patches that addresses some of the unique aspects of Pro 1000 color mapping. And have attached the CGATs file that can be loaded into I1Profiler. It consists primarily of 1914 patches that include the original default set of 957 iSis patches as well as about 600, I1Profiler "Optimized" patches created from the initial 957 set. Additionally, I added patches concentrated at small RGB values from 0 to 49 in steps of 7 as well as redundant near neutrals. This was because the Pro 1000 exhibits a strong shift in a* and b* in the range of L* from 3 to 20. Otherwise, the Pro 1000 has very smooth responses along the neutral axis and is quite well modeled by the default plus optimized sets. However, the Pro 1000 exhibits somewhat more patch variation depending on location as well as a slight "warm up" phase which mostly affects the L* shifting most of the neutral L* by about .3 L* when printing the first page in a group.
So I also duplicated the patches as two sets of 1914 patches, each set randomized differently.
The result is a 4 page iSis letter size target set attached to this post. One can just edit the patch to the first 1914 but including the full 3828 patches reduces slightly the variations from where individual patches are printed.
Using my CC data set which also includes an L* neutral tone set in increments of L*=1, resulted in the following accuracies:
Using the default set of 957 patches and measuring the printed CC target excluding the white CC patch as it's OOG : Ave. dE00 for the CC set: 0.54. Ave dE for the neutrals: .71
Using the set of 3848 patches and measuring the printed CC target excluding the white CC patch as it's OOG : Ave. dE00 for the CC set: 0.39. Ave dE for the neutrals: .44
Overall, this is similar to what I was able to achieve with the 9800, but there the 3828 patches were unique, not duplicated and randomized 1914 sets. The 9800 is a bit more consistent printing specific colors at different locations but it is also more "lumpy" and benefits more from a larger set of patches clustered around where the "lumps" are greatest.
One note: the neutrals show a somewhat higher dE00 because dE00 is much more sensitive to variations in a* and b* than even slightly saturated colors. This is why much of my efforts have been improving the neutral color's accuracy.
I don't know how applicable this set would be to the Pro 2000/4000 but since the inks are the same it might be of some use with these.
EditToAdd:
I just compared the mapping of Pro1000 and Pro2000 profiles for the same Canon Paper (210 GSM Photog rag) they are quite different. The Pro1000 exhibits the rapid change in a*b* at low L* that the patch set is optimized for, while the Pro2000 has quite a different response. So I do not recommend this patch set for anything other than Pro1000 printers. Odd that it would have a significantly different mapping.
-
After further refinement, I have come up with a set of patches that addresses some of the unique aspects of Pro 1000 color mapping. And have attached the CGATs file that can be loaded into I1Profiler. It consists primarily of 1914 patches that include the original default set of 957 iSis patches as well as about 600, I1Profiler "Optimized" patches created from the initial 957 set. Additionally, I added patches concentrated at small RGB values from 0 to 49 in steps of 7 as well as redundant near neutrals. This was because the Pro 1000 exhibits a strong shift in a* and b* in the range of L* from 3 to 20. Otherwise, the Pro 1000 has very smooth responses along the neutral axis and is quite well modeled by the default plus optimized sets. However, the Pro 1000 exhibits somewhat more patch variation depending on location as well as a slight "warm up" phase which mostly affects the L* shifting most of the neutral L* by about .3 L* when printing the first page in a group.
So I also duplicated the patches as two sets of 1914 patches, each set randomized differently.
The result is a 4 page iSis letter size target set attached to this post. One can just edit the patch to the first 1914 but including the full 3828 patches reduces slightly the variations from where individual patches are printed.
Using my CC data set which also includes an L* neutral tone set in increments of L*=1, resulted in the following accuracies:
Using the default set of 957 patches and measuring the printed CC target excluding the white CC patch as it's OOG : Ave. dE00 for the CC set: 0.54. Ave dE for the neutrals: .71
Using the set of 3848 patches and measuring the printed CC target excluding the white CC patch as it's OOG : Ave. dE00 for the CC set: 0.39. Ave dE for the neutrals: .44
Overall, this is similar to what I was able to achieve with the 9800, but there the 3828 patches were unique, not duplicated and randomized 1914 sets. The 9800 is a bit more consistent printing specific colors at different locations but it is also more "lumpy" and benefits more from a larger set of patches clustered around where the "lumps" are greatest.
One note: the neutrals show a somewhat higher dE00 because dE00 is much more sensitive to variations in a* and b* than even slightly saturated colors. This is why much of my efforts have been improving the neutral color's accuracy.
I don't know how applicable this set would be to the Pro 2000/4000 but since the inks are the same it might be of some use with these.
EditToAdd:
I just compared the mapping of Pro1000 and Pro2000 profiles for the same Canon Paper (210 GSM Photog rag) they are quite different. The Pro1000 exhibits the rapid change in a*b* at low L* that the patch set is optimized for, while the Pro2000 has quite a different response. So I do not recommend this patch set for anything other than Pro1000 printers. Odd that it would have a significantly different mapping.
Thank you. I am looking forward to use your patch set when I will have an ι1προ2.
-
You're going to have a great afternoon of manually scanning all those patches ;)
The file has it's colors in RGB space. I was under the impression that i1Profiler *really* wants
Lab and will not accept RGB values in CGAT or .cxf
-
You're going to have a great afternoon of manually scanning all those patches ;)
The file has it's colors in RGB space. I was under the impression that i1Profiler *really* wants
Lab and will not accept RGB values in CGAT or .cxf
I1Profiler requires RGB (device space) values when printing through an RGB driver. The initial patch set is used by I1Profiler on the first pass to create a profile. Once that is done I1Profiler can now map colors from Lab to close RGB triplets. It can add additional nearby colors to improve the interpolation accuracy. Added spot colors and those automatically generated are all converted to RGB and printed in device space.
Once a set of RGB values that is optimized around a printer and paper type, that complete set of RGB values can be printed, scanned, and a profile created without the need to repeat the two step process. My basic two sets are for matte and glossy types optimized for the printer.
By saving the initial and optimal RGB values at each step as CGATs files, one can concatenate them to create a single patch set for future profiling. I have scripts in Matlab that automate most all of this.
-
You're going to have a great afternoon of manually scanning all those patches ;)
Is it difficult to scan 6 A4 pages with i1pro2?
-
Is it difficult to scan 6 A4 pages with i1pro2?
Nope. Not difficult but incredibly boring and time consuming... I would probably fall asleep three times in doing that!
Keep in mind that you'd be scanning 186 lines, of 21 patches per line... TWICE! with an average of 8-10 seconds per line :o
If only I had that patience!
-
A question for Doug.
Do you believe that the media type plays a role in the quality of the profile or the gamut volume?
I ask this because I have the impression that there are different ink mixing recipes in some media settings.
For MK papers, the Fine Art Smooth media type seems to me visually that produces darker blacks that the Highest Density Fine Art paper setting. (I printed samples with the BW driver mode)
Or there are MK paper types that use both blacks PBK/MBK.
Thanks!
-
Nope. Not difficult but incredibly boring and time consuming... I would probably fall asleep three times in doing that!
Keep in mind that you'd be scanning 186 lines, of 21 patches per line... TWICE! with an average of 8-10 seconds per line :o
If only I had that patience!
Hm.. this is (186*10)/60 = at least 30 minutes. Difficult to do it multiple times.
-
And you're not including any time for setting the page up or G*D FORBID that i1P croaks or throws errors during the scanning and you.have.to.start.over.again :(
-
Nope. Not difficult but incredibly boring and time consuming... I would probably fall asleep three times in doing that!
Keep in mind that you'd be scanning 186 lines, of 21 patches per line... TWICE! with an average of 8-10 seconds per line :o
If only I had that patience!
My Argyll profiles require four letter size pages. I think my scans per line are about 1/2 the time mentioned above.
-
My usual i1Profiler 2371 patch set requires 4 letter-size pages and usually takes about 12 minutes to scan all of it with an i1Pro2. This is doing a two-pass scan per row in dual scan strip mode. I make sure not to scan too quickly in order to assure the reading of an adequate number of samples per patch. If there is an error in a row the software notifies it immediately and one simply rescans the row.
-
Thanks Alan and Mark. Sounds easier now.
-
A question for Doug.
Do you believe that the media type plays a role in the quality of the profile or the gamut volume?
I ask this because I have the impression that there are different ink mixing recipes in some media settings.
For MK papers, the Fine Art Smooth media type seems to me visually that produces darker blacks that the Highest Density Fine Art paper setting. (I printed samples with the BW driver mode)
Or there are MK paper types that use both blacks PBK/MBK.
Thanks!
While you asked Doug, I have some understanding of this I could share here. The Media Type choice does influence the density of ink laydown and whether the Black is to be PK or MK. It also affects other media settings in the printer driver. Profile quality and gamut volume should be driven more importantly by other factors. Insofar as gamut volume is related to Black density, one could say that the Media Type influences it, insofar as the combination of matte surfaces and MK ink has grayer maximum black and less reflectivity the gamut volume would be smaller than for luster or gloss papers using PK ink. But the primary influence on gamut volume is the kind of paper and ink. If by profile quality you mean the accuracy of colour rendition relative to the image file values and smoothness of tonal gradation, I don't believe the choice of Media Type in and of itself is a factor.
-
While you asked Doug, I have some understanding of this I could share here. The Media Type choice does influence the density of ink laydown and whether the Black is to be PK or MK. It also affects other media settings in the printer driver. Profile quality and gamut volume should be driven more importantly by other factors. Insofar as gamut volume is related to Black density, one could say that the Media Type influences it, insofar as the combination of matte surfaces and MK ink has grayer maximum black and less reflectivity the gamut volume would be smaller than for luster or gloss papers using PK ink. But the primary influence on gamut volume is the kind of paper and ink. If by profile quality you mean the accuracy of colour rendition relative to the image file values and smoothness of tonal gradation, I don't believe the choice of Media Type in and of itself is a factor.
Thanks Mark.
I asked because there are so many choices in the Canon driver. If someone wants to build a custom media type for a PK or MK paper it is difficult to choose where to start from. And the choices of the major paper brands (Hahnemuhle, Canson) are confusing. For the same paper they choose for Pro-1000 different media type than the Pro-4000. I guess extensive experimentation is needed.
-
Thanks Mark.
I asked because there are so many choices in the Canon driver. If someone wants to build a custom media type for a PK or MK paper it is difficult to choose where to start from. And the choices of the major paper brands (Hahnemuhle, Canson) are confusing. For the same paper they choose for Pro-1000 different media type than the Pro-4000. I guess extensive experimentation is needed.
Go back to my earlier POST (https://forum.luminous-landscape.com/index.php?topic=129108.msg1096379#msg1096379) on this thread. It links to a good test chart from Scott Martin that can help you choose what media setting to use.
-
Go back to my earlier POST (https://forum.luminous-landscape.com/index.php?topic=129108.msg1096379#msg1096379) on this thread. It links to a good test chart from Scott Martin that can help you choose what media setting to use.
I show that. Thanks! I believe this is mainly a chart for choosing the ink load. To check if there is any bleeding.
The thing is that for every base media type (and there are many) you can set the ink load in 5 steps, so the original question remains: What other differences (if any) are there?
-
Thanks Mark.
I asked because there are so many choices in the Canon driver. If someone wants to build a custom media type for a PK or MK paper it is difficult to choose where to start from. And the choices of the major paper brands (Hahnemuhle, Canson) are confusing. For the same paper they choose for Pro-1000 different media type than the Pro-4000. I guess extensive experimentation is needed.
+1 I share your confusion.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
Thanks Mark.
I asked because there are so many choices in the Canon driver. If someone wants to build a custom media type for a PK or MK paper it is difficult to choose where to start from. And the choices of the major paper brands (Hahnemuhle, Canson) are confusing. For the same paper they choose for Pro-1000 different media type than the Pro-4000. I guess extensive experimentation is needed.
Canon designed the Pro-4000 driver to work somewhat differently than the Pro-1000 driver - primarily to speed up the head travel because of the much larger paper width. This in turn required other adjustments that motivated them to create different profiles for the two printer models, and from my own testing back in the days when I reviewed the Pro-2000, it makes a difference. You can narrow your options by using the Media Types they recommend for the particular driver you are using. I think you know this already, but the key thing is to make sure that the Media Type you use for printing your profiling targets should be the same Media Type that you will use for making your prints with the profile so created. As long as the Media Type between profiling and printing is matched, whether you use one Media Type or another within the same family of papers is less consequential to the usefulness of the results. That said, a bit of experimenting can be helpful; but I don't think you need to take it too far.
-
Canon designed the Pro-4000 driver to work somewhat differently than the Pro-1000 driver - primarily to speed up the head travel because of the much larger paper width. This in turn required other adjustments that motivated them to create different profiles for the two printer models, and from my own testing back in the days when I reviewed the Pro-2000, it makes a difference. You can narrow your options by using the Media Types they recommend for the particular driver you are using. I think you know this already, but the key thing is to make sure that the Media Type you use for printing your profiling targets should be the same Media Type that you will use for making your prints with the profile so created. As long as the Media Type between profiling and printing is matched, whether you use one Media Type or another within the same family of papers is less consequential to the usefulness of the results. That said, a bit of experimenting can be helpful; but I don't think you need to take it too far.
It make sense. Thanks.