Thus, if folks are interested in contributing their printed target pages (I will supply the Tiff images of US letter size targets, readable on my i1iSis). All you guys need to do is print them out, dry them for a few days, and mail me them.
I expect to post US letter size, 8.5" x 11" tiff targets in the next week.
Hi guys,I am in Banff on vacation ship it's a bit difficult to respond on my android tablet. Dry Creek Photo developed a windows app for printing out targets that does NOT reduce the size of the patches the way ACPU does. I have been using t this successfully. You might check with Ethan Hansen or look for it on their website.
I expect to post US letter size, 8.5" x 11" tiff targets in the next week. There will be separate sets of charts for those using Adobe's ACPU with Windows to recover most of the 3% "shrinkage" ACPU with Windows produces.
This is a bit tricky since my I1iSis charts are symmetrical with registration bars at the bottom as well as the top. This allows the chart to be read in reverse which is handy for detecting certain errors. It also provides slightly better color reading accuracy. It's important that the prints will have no less than 27mm of margin from paper edge to the registration bars on the top and bottom.
I will post a tweaked test chart, including one for Windows ACPU, so you won't waste paper if, for some reason the charts won't print with enough margin for the top and bottom registration bars.
While not the principal purpose, these charts also include a small set (25) of multiple, repeated patches. These are also randomized, to quantify paper/printer color consistency.
Scaling with ACPU on Windows isn't a problem measuring with an iSis XL if the targets are made ideally (to avoid the bug). And of course the end user properly sets up his/her printer driver for paper/size.
Actually, when I print targets 6mm x 6mm, with ACPU they scan fine, but they are shrunk to just over 5.8mm.It's like the man who goes to the doctor and says "When I do this, it hurts" and the doctor replies, "well don't do that". ;D
It's like the man who goes to the doctor and says "When I do this, it hurts" and the doctor replies, "well don't do that". ;D
We really have IMHO, two bugs. One is ACPU on Windows but the other is X-rite's and what happens when you build a patch size they believe is Kosher. Anyway, I've been scanning targets through ACPU, Mac and Windows for a very long time without issue because I made adjustments for one of the bugs. That doesn't mean user error can't rear it's ugly head so what I did was place a line on the target indicating the size it should print so the user can place a ruler and see if it's within +/- a value I know will scan. No problems.
When doing precision work, I scan charts in both directions and save the full CGATs files appending a "r" on the reverse scans.Be interesting and perhaps produce better overall data if the target were printed twice but the patches themselves be in reverse order. Yes, I know that's two instead of one page.
Be interesting and perhaps produce better overall data if the target were printed twice but the patches themselves be in reverse order. Yes, I know that's two instead of one page.Cool job.
When I was creating digital press output profiles, the variation across the page is so large, I built targets just like this and in fact, I had a total of (ugh) multiple 13x19 pages: there was a three page target with large patches and a two page target with smaller patches. The patches themselves otherwise had the same colors and as you're doing, the targets had the same patches for some special colors repeated on the sheet. One of each group was rotated 180 degrees. Yes, lots to measure (considering we ran this group of targets multiple times over the days and measured all). With large and small patches, we sample more area over the press sheet and differently with respect to the patches being measured. Same when one rotates each target. Then all that was averaged into one CGATs. Now run this test a few dozen times over the span of a few days, examine each group of averages, see if outliners should remain, average all the averages, run em through ColorAnt.... A lot of work but good pay ;D
But this is very likely overkill for inkjet work where the dE differences over the sheet are nothing like we see with digital presses. Maybe two targets with 180 degree rotation would be more than enough. But yeah, it's one more page to print (and scan).
I'm retired with time and money, a dangerous combination. :)
Hi DougThis is consistent with what I'm seeing too. My newest printer, Pro1000, needs fewer patches by almost half to achieve the same quality as my older printers, a 9800 and especially the 9500II. The latter benefits a lot from 2-3k v 1k patches while the Pro1000 gets little better beyond 1k patches.
This is really useful information to me. With far fewer tools for analysis I have played with increasing numbers of patches starting at around 500 per page and increasing the number of pages. I use a DTP70 for reading patches and it seems to read more consistently with patches >= 9.0mm square. Through general reading I had concluded that for the best RGB profiles, patch sets >= 2000 are recommended. My experience is that I generate what seem like competent icc profiles with patch sets around 1000 and that while using larger patch sets might produce small improvements in DE numbers the effect on a printed image is imperceptible.
No, I haven't seen any difference. OTOH, I scan targets forward and reverse/upside down, and average the readings while looking for large outliers. This reduces scan noise to some degree though not variation related to patch location, a somewhat larger factor.
I notice that you are using a -r setting of 0.3 in Argyll's colprof instead of the default 0.5. For me, this usually increases the Gamut Volume slightly but can introduce kinks in the gamut model surface, especially in the darker areas. Have you had this experience?
I use Matlab for chart creation as well as verification charts. Verification charts typically use Lab values that are randomly picked over the printer/paper gamut using a custom program. The Lab values are converted to rgb device space using the profile(s) under test. After printing/scanning, the dE00 variations between the initial Lab values and the printed/scanned ones are gathered and stats reported. By converting the same Lab values into device space using multiple profiles one can compare the stats for the different profiles w/o the complication of small printer variations that occur like warmup drift.
I would be interested to see what settings you use for targen to generate your patch sets. In particular, do you use targen to emphasise neutrals.
For experimenting, I use Kodak Ultra Premium High Gloss paper on my Epson 3880 and Epson 7880 (COSTCO stopped selling Kirkland Glossy in Australia a couple of years ago). I bought the Epson 7880 back from the dead about 18 months ago using cheap 3rd party ink and, once I got it going properly I loaded a set of Cone inks.
I would be pleased to send you a set of prints on the Kodak paper.
Thanks for providing this data. Unfortunately, those of us who still do manual scans with an i1 Pro are not in a position to do such a high patch count.Actually the goal of this is to minimize the number of patches people need to make good profiles. I absolutely do not encourage the highest possible patch count making profiles.
I do a two step profiling with Argyll, a two page preconditioning profile followed by a four page (1848 patches) with added neutrals using the new command that Graeme added a couple of months back. This is a manageable approach in terms of manually reading patches and average errors are in the 0.2 to 0.3 range. Standard test prints come out with accurate color rendition which is the bottom line.
That should work quite well. BTW, how do you determine average dE's of your profiles?I use the 'profcheck' utility in Argyll and direct the output to a logfile. It gives the data read data for all the patches along with the deviation from what it should be. At the end of the Excel spreadsheet it lists the max error, average error, and rms error. You can easily sort the patch set according to error value and determine whether you need to re-read any of the patches. I always do two readings and average those so unless there is a very bad outlier (>2), I don't bother. It also allows for the creation of a 3-D profile that can be used for comparison purposes.
I use the 'profcheck' utility in Argyll and direct the output to a logfile. It gives the data read data for all the patches along with the deviation from what it should be. At the end of the Excel spreadsheet it lists the max error, average error, and rms error. You can easily sort the patch set according to error value and determine whether you need to re-read any of the patches. I always do two readings and average those so unless there is a very bad outlier (>2), I don't bother. It also allows for the creation of a 3-D profile that can be used for comparison purposes.
profcheck provides a way of checking how well an ICC profile conforms to the test sample data that was used to create it (or other test samples that are from the same device). This is the same sort of check done within the profile making tool (colprof), but having a separate tool provides some flexibility. The absolute forward table in the profile is used to create PCS values from the sample points, and the profiles PCS value then compared to the PCS values of the measured sample points. Note the lower delta E values are not always a better measure of how good a profile is. The aim of a profile is to model the underlying characteristics of a device, not to slavishly reproduce the sampled data point values. Sampled data point values contain device variation and instrument reading inaccuracies, and a good profiler will try and filter out this noise, resulting in some deliberate differences between the profile and the sample points used to create it.
Thanks Alan,What would you say is the optimal number of patches to check the profile against. I only use Argyll and an generate a random patch set and then see how that compares to the profile in question.
This is a good tool provided an independent set of RGB patches is compared against the profile rather than the patches used to create the profile. By way of explanation, let me quote Graeme from profcheck:
The breakthrough I made in my approach was to combine and scramble all the patches used by the different profiles I tested as well as a completely independent set which are used to determine profile accuracy.
One really cool side effect is that this same data can be plugged into any profile generating program so it's also a way to compare different products w/o the vagaries of printer variation, warmup, time since last used, temperature, drying time, humidity, and so on. These things would, of course, affect the relative values shifting dE's slightly higher or lower but they don't change the differences between the different profiles or profile making software.
What would you say is the optimal number of patches to check the profile against. I only use Argyll and an generate a random patch set and then see how that compares to the profile in question.
You can get a reasonably close estimate of overall dE with a single page or less of patches. 100 random device RGB patches should produce an average dE that is within +/-.06 dE of the actual average dE and 400 patches will drop that to about +/-.03. The important thing is that they differ from those used to create the profile. However, you may see more variation than that just printing the same patches a second time. My 9500 II is particularly bad at that and can produce .2 dE differences printing the exact same chart but on different days.It's not clear to me that I could prepare a totally random set of patches using Argyll targen command. I'll need to look carefully at the commands. Do you use MatLab to create synthetic color patch sets?
It's not clear to me that I could prepare a totally random set of patches using Argyll targen command. I'll need to look carefully at the commands. Do you use MatLab to create synthetic color patch sets?
The breakthrough I made in my approach was to combine and scramble all the patches used by the different profiles I tested as well as a completely independent set which are used to determine profile accuracy.So, a cross validation type approach ?
So, a cross validation type approach ?
If time is no object, then it's possible to do multiple passes of "leave N out" cross validation on such a data set, which can give some idea as to the expected accuracy of a model. Ideally it could also be used to tune the model parameters, but making such an approach computationally feasible is challenging.
Matlab is fast with arrays of Lab and RGB sets but the optimizer uses individual triplets so it can't vectorize things. Takes about 10 minutes to go through the independent RGB set to find the Lab values that match the RGB sets going thorough the B2A's. And that's for each of the profiles. Not awful but it can take many hours for the profile data sets I posted. So I'm looking at another approach that may be faster. Hoping to do in strictly in Matlab but may wind up writing a mex addin.xicclu -fib may do what you want a lot faster (i.e. msec per sample, once initialized).
Graeme, cross checking against all the unused patches may be doable.Depends what you mean by that !
I have been on holidays for a couple of weeks and didn't get around to sending the prints before I went away.
Will they still be useful? Do you have a preference for a print of the 8 Medium patch sets or the 4 Tiny patch sets?
I have two options for printing: Qimage One (Q1) or Roy Harrington's Print Tool. I believe that they produce the same results and are both designed for printing with or without colour management. I use international A4 (210 x 290 mm) size paper which is slightly longer and slightly narrower than the Letter standard used in USA. A test print with both sets of software gives patch set dimensions (for patches but not guides) of 164mm wide by 186mm high. This makes the 29 columns 5.655mm wide and the 33 rows 5.666 mm high. The distance from the leading edge of the paper to the black bar at the top is 45 mm and the distance from the black bar at the bottom of the patch set to the bottom of the paper is 43 mm. Are any of these measurements a deal breaker?
The extra page of correspondence on this topic since I last posted is rich with information. It seems like you have made progress.
Your observation of the diminishing return on improved DE as a function of patch numbers encourages me to use smaller patch sets as a starting point for profiling different papers.
I have combined your two CGATS files and added 127 extra near neutral steps to create a 627 set CGATS file. ColorPort ingests this file and creates patch sets for numerous older spectros, including my DTP70. It also lets me set the patch size so that it almost fills my A4 page size.
I will report on results using Argyll colprof defaults plus your -qh and -r0.3 settings using this patch set.
Profile | Patches | AveCol | AveNeuts | <10 | 10-20 | 20-30 | 30-40 | 40-50 | 50-60 | 60-70 | 70-80 | >80 |
Printer-P1000PlatPro_M5.icm | 125 | 1.16 | 1.51 | 1.60 | 1.95 | 2.67 | 2.20 | 1.32 | 1.29 | 1.26 | 0.70 | 0.62 |
Printer-P1000PlatPro_M6.icm | 216 | 0.89 | 1.13 | 1.54 | 1.85 | 2.17 | 1.20 | 0.70 | 0.85 | 0.54 | 0.65 | 0.64 |
Printer-P1000PlatPro_M7.icm | 343 | 0.74 | 1.06 | 1.46 | 1.44 | 2.14 | 0.82 | 1.14 | 0.72 | 0.59 | 0.59 | 0.63 |
Printer-P1000PlatPro_M8.icm | 512 | 0.68 | 0.90 | 1.36 | 1.31 | 1.38 | 0.76 | 0.80 | 0.72 | 0.58 | 0.59 | 0.63 |
Printer-P1000PlatPro_M9.icm | 729 | 0.61 | 0.83 | 1.37 | 1.19 | 0.99 | 0.83 | 0.65 | 0.77 | 0.55 | 0.51 | 0.59 |
Printer-P1000PlatPro_M12.icm | 1728 | 0.51 | 0.72 | 1.37 | 1.04 | 0.75 | 0.57 | 0.61 | 0.66 | 0.47 | 0.45 | 0.56 |
Profile | Patches | AveCol | AveNeuts | <10 | 10-20 | 20-30 | 30-40 | 40-50 | 50-60 | 60-70 | 70-80 | >80 |
Printer-P1000PlatPro_M5P.icm | 189 | 0.86 | 1.22 | 1.91 | 1.39 | 2.26 | 1.31 | 0.73 | 0.93 | 0.72 | 0.84 | 0.85 |
Printer-P1000PlatPro_M6P.icm | 341 | 0.68 | 0.94 | 1.52 | 1.28 | 1.53 | 0.82 | 0.78 | 0.75 | 0.59 | 0.51 | 0.63 |
Printer-P1000PlatPro_M7P.icm | 559 | 0.60 | 0.85 | 1.40 | 1.22 | 1.19 | 0.74 | 0.86 | 0.66 | 0.51 | 0.47 | 0.62 |
Printer-P1000PlatPro_M8P.icm | 855 | 0.57 | 0.76 | 1.28 | 1.02 | 0.79 | 0.71 | 0.65 | 0.79 | 0.54 | 0.46 | 0.57 |
Printer-P1000PlatPro_M9P.icm | 1241 | 0.52 | 0.73 | 1.25 | 0.98 | 0.76 | 0.81 | 0.64 | 0.68 | 0.49 | 0.46 | 0.52 |
Printer-P1000PlatPro_M12P.icm | 3059 | 0.45 | 0.61 | 1.01 | 0.76 | 0.57 | 0.61 | 0.57 | 0.63 | 0.46 | 0.40 | 0.47 |
Profile | Patches | AveCol | AveNeuts | <10 | 10-20 | 20-30 | 30-40 | 40-50 | 50-60 | 60-70 | 70-80 | >80 |
Printer-P1000PlatPro_M5PN.icm | 320 | 0.79 | 0.60 | 1.10 | 0.65 | 0.48 | 0.57 | 0.62 | 0.63 | 0.42 | 0.42 | 0.49 |
Printer-P1000PlatPro_M6PN.icm | 472 | 0.67 | 0.57 | 1.06 | 0.64 | 0.49 | 0.55 | 0.58 | 0.59 | 0.38 | 0.38 | 0.45 |
Printer-P1000PlatPro_M7PN.icm | 686 | 0.58 | 0.57 | 1.06 | 0.69 | 0.44 | 0.56 | 0.60 | 0.59 | 0.40 | 0.37 | 0.46 |
Printer-P1000PlatPro_M8PN.icm | 986 | 0.56 | 0.56 | 1.02 | 0.61 | 0.38 | 0.57 | 0.61 | 0.61 | 0.40 | 0.39 | 0.45 |
Printer-P1000PlatPro_M9PN.icm | 1371 | 0.51 | 0.57 | 1.01 | 0.61 | 0.39 | 0.61 | 0.63 | 0.60 | 0.40 | 0.38 | 0.47 |
Printer-P1000PlatPro_M12PN.icm | 3188 | 0.45 | 0.53 | 0.90 | 0.55 | 0.39 | 0.57 | 0.60 | 0.58 | 0.39 | 0.36 | 0.42 |
Profile | Patches | AveCol | AveNeuts | <10 | 10-20 | 20-30 | 30-40 | 40-50 | 50-60 | 60-70 | 70-80 | >80 |
Printer-P1000PlatPro_M5PN5.icm | 446 | 0.81 | 0.61 | 1.14 | 0.76 | 0.49 | 0.55 | 0.63 | 0.56 | 0.42 | 0.44 | 0.52 |
Printer-P1000PlatPro_M6PN5.icm | 598 | 0.68 | 0.56 | 1.07 | 0.69 | 0.43 | 0.53 | 0.56 | 0.54 | 0.37 | 0.36 | 0.48 |
Printer-P1000PlatPro_M7PN5.icm | 806 | 0.59 | 0.57 | 1.08 | 0.68 | 0.45 | 0.54 | 0.61 | 0.54 | 0.39 | 0.36 | 0.49 |
Printer-P1000PlatPro_M8PN5.icm | 1112 | 0.56 | 0.55 | 0.98 | 0.65 | 0.39 | 0.55 | 0.58 | 0.55 | 0.40 | 0.38 | 0.46 |
Printer-P1000PlatPro_M9PN5.icm | 1497 | 0.51 | 0.54 | 0.94 | 0.61 | 0.38 | 0.57 | 0.58 | 0.55 | 0.39 | 0.36 | 0.47 |
Printer-P1000PlatPro_M12PN5.icm | 3314 | 0.45 | 0.50 | 0.83 | 0.51 | 0.40 | 0.54 | 0.55 | 0.53 | 0.38 | 0.35 | 0.43 |
Profile | Patches | AveCol | AveNeuts | <10 | 10-20 | 20-30 | 30-40 | 40-50 | 50-60 | 60-70 | 70-80 | >80 |
Printer-P1000PlatPro_M5PN3.icm | 662 | 0.78 | 0.52 | 0.87 | 0.55 | 0.34 | 0.54 | 0.59 | 0.59 | 0.38 | 0.40 | 0.46 |
Printer-P1000PlatPro_M6PN3.icm | 814 | 0.67 | 0.50 | 0.87 | 0.53 | 0.34 | 0.52 | 0.56 | 0.53 | 0.37 | 0.35 | 0.43 |
Printer-P1000PlatPro_M7PN3.icm | 1022 | 0.58 | 0.50 | 0.87 | 0.55 | 0.32 | 0.53 | 0.56 | 0.54 | 0.38 | 0.34 | 0.44 |
Printer-P1000PlatPro_M8PN3.icm | 1328 | 0.56 | 0.50 | 0.86 | 0.50 | 0.34 | 0.53 | 0.56 | 0.55 | 0.38 | 0.37 | 0.42 |
Printer-P1000PlatPro_M9PN3.icm | 1713 | 0.51 | 0.50 | 0.84 | 0.55 | 0.32 | 0.54 | 0.57 | 0.55 | 0.38 | 0.36 | 0.43 |
Printer-P1000PlatPro_M12PN3.icm | 3530 | 0.44 | 0.49 | 0.81 | 0.47 | 0.34 | 0.53 | 0.57 | 0.54 | 0.37 | 0.35 | 0.41 |
I notice that you are using a -r setting of 0.3 in Argyll's colprof instead of the default 0.5. For me, this usually increases the Gamut Volume slightly but can introduce kinks in the gamut model surface, especially in the darker areas. Have you had this experience?I'll examine your chart info for this. My 9800 exhibits clumpy behavior while the 9500II and Pro1000 do not. This can be seen my examining a large qty of device space RGB values and round tripping them to Lab PCS and back to device RGB. The 9800 exhibits as well over a difference in RGB values of 50 that print the same Lab value. The math term for this is that device space RGB and in-gamut Lab PCS are not isomorphic. A well designed RGB to inking DPI algorithm will minimize this. That is, different RGB values map more or less smoothly to different Lab values.
For experimenting, I use Kodak Ultra Premium High Gloss paper on my Epson 3880 and Epson 7880 (COSTCO stopped selling Kirkland Glossy in Australia a couple of years ago). I bought the Epson 7880 back from the dead about 18 months ago using cheap 3rd party ink and, once I got it going properly I loaded a set of Cone inks.
I would be pleased to send you a set of prints on the Kodak paper.
Profile | Patches | AveCol | AveNeuts | <20 | 20-30 | 30-40 | 40-50 | 50-60 | 60-70 | 70-80 | >80 |
Printer-3880_M5.icm | 125 | 1.22 | 2.08 | 1.18 | 2.26 | 2.66 | 1.69 | 2.41 | 1.85 | 2.43 | 2.14 |
Printer-3880_M6.icm | 216 | 0.86 | 1.28 | 1.01 | 2.21 | 1.83 | 1.01 | 1.03 | 0.76 | 1.12 | 1.24 |
Printer-3880_M7.icm | 343 | 0.72 | 0.95 | 0.75 | 1.47 | 1.25 | 0.96 | 0.84 | 0.52 | 0.78 | 1.04 |
Printer-3880_M8.icm | 512 | 0.61 | 0.77 | 0.67 | 1.13 | 1.12 | 0.74 | 0.63 | 0.53 | 0.49 | 0.86 |
Printer-3880_M9.icm | 729 | 0.56 | 0.63 | 0.63 | 0.84 | 0.89 | 0.62 | 0.57 | 0.43 | 0.53 | 0.56 |
Printer-3880_M12.icm | 1728 | 0.45 | 0.51 | 0.50 | 0.64 | 0.76 | 0.59 | 0.43 | 0.37 | 0.40 | 0.43 |
Profile | Patches | AveCol | AveNeuts | <10 | 10-20 | 20-30 | 30-40 | 40-50 | 50-60 | 60-70 | 70-80 | >80 |
Printer-3880_M5P.icm | 189 | 0.82 | 1.10 | 0.80 | 0.92 | 1.53 | 1.54 | 1.22 | 1.31 | 0.71 | 1.04 | 0.82 |
Printer-3880_M6P.icm | 341 | 0.65 | 0.82 | 0.72 | 0.66 | 1.51 | 1.20 | 0.70 | 0.65 | 0.51 | 0.69 | 0.78 |
Printer-3880_M7P.icm | 559 | 0.56 | 0.65 | 0.60 | 0.44 | 0.90 | 1.15 | 0.77 | 0.61 | 0.41 | 0.43 | 0.52 |
Printer-3880_M8P.icm | 855 | 0.50 | 0.56 | 0.58 | 0.43 | 0.85 | 0.80 | 0.54 | 0.45 | 0.53 | 0.36 | 0.52 |
Printer-3880_M9P.icm | 1241 | 0.46 | 0.54 | 0.61 | 0.45 | 0.67 | 0.74 | 0.63 | 0.45 | 0.48 | 0.39 | 0.43 |
Printer-3880_M12P.icm | 3059 | 0.41 | 0.45 | 0.50 | 0.40 | 0.47 | 0.61 | 0.43 | 0.44 | 0.38 | 0.37 | 0.40 |
Profile | Patches | AveCol | AveNeuts | <20 | 20-30 | 30-40 | 40-50 | 50-60 | 60-70 | 70-80 | >80 |
Printer-3880_M5PN.icm | 320 | 0.76 | 0.41 | 0.48 | 0.40 | 0.46 | 0.41 | 0.49 | 0.38 | 0.34 | 0.32 |
Printer-3880_M6PN.icm | 472 | 0.64 | 0.41 | 0.46 | 0.45 | 0.48 | 0.41 | 0.43 | 0.39 | 0.33 | 0.34 |
Printer-3880_M7PN.icm | 686 | 0.55 | 0.41 | 0.47 | 0.41 | 0.50 | 0.42 | 0.42 | 0.38 | 0.34 | 0.32 |
Printer-3880_M8PN.icm | 986 | 0.50 | 0.40 | 0.46 | 0.43 | 0.48 | 0.39 | 0.41 | 0.40 | 0.34 | 0.32 |
Printer-3880_M9PN.icm | 1371 | 0.46 | 0.40 | 0.46 | 0.40 | 0.46 | 0.40 | 0.43 | 0.37 | 0.34 | 0.32 |
Printer-3880_M12PN.icm | 3188 | 0.41 | 0.39 | 0.45 | 0.38 | 0.45 | 0.37 | 0.42 | 0.36 | 0.34 | 0.33 |
Profile | Patches | AveCol | AveNeuts | <20 | 20-30 | 30-40 | 40-50 | 50-60 | 60-70 | 70-80 | >80 |
Printer-3880_M5PN5.icm | 446 | 0.78 | 0.43 | 0.52 | 0.39 | 0.42 | 0.43 | 0.55 | 0.45 | 0.40 | 0.32 |
Printer-3880_M6PN5.icm | 598 | 0.63 | 0.42 | 0.49 | 0.42 | 0.42 | 0.43 | 0.49 | 0.43 | 0.35 | 0.32 |
Printer-3880_M7PN5.icm | 806 | 0.55 | 0.40 | 0.47 | 0.40 | 0.42 | 0.39 | 0.46 | 0.43 | 0.34 | 0.31 |
Printer-3880_M8PN5.icm | 1112 | 0.49 | 0.40 | 0.45 | 0.43 | 0.43 | 0.37 | 0.44 | 0.45 | 0.33 | 0.32 |
Printer-3880_M9PN5.icm | 1497 | 0.46 | 0.40 | 0.48 | 0.42 | 0.42 | 0.38 | 0.45 | 0.44 | 0.33 | 0.31 |
Printer-3880_M12PN5.icm | 3314 | 0.41 | 0.38 | 0.44 | 0.37 | 0.41 | 0.37 | 0.44 | 0.38 | 0.32 | 0.32 |
Profile | Patches | AveCol | AveNeuts | <20 | 20-30 | 30-40 | 40-50 | 50-60 | 60-70 | 70-80 | >80 |
Printer-3880_M5PN3.icm | 662 | 0.77 | 0.38 | 0.46 | 0.37 | 0.38 | 0.36 | 0.46 | 0.36 | 0.35 | 0.29 |
Printer-3880_M6PN3.icm | 814 | 0.63 | 0.38 | 0.45 | 0.38 | 0.39 | 0.37 | 0.43 | 0.37 | 0.33 | 0.30 |
Printer-3880_M7PN3.icm | 1022 | 0.56 | 0.37 | 0.45 | 0.38 | 0.39 | 0.35 | 0.41 | 0.37 | 0.33 | 0.29 |
Printer-3880_M8PN3.icm | 1328 | 0.50 | 0.37 | 0.45 | 0.39 | 0.39 | 0.35 | 0.40 | 0.38 | 0.33 | 0.29 |
Printer-3880_M9PN3.icm | 1713 | 0.46 | 0.38 | 0.44 | 0.39 | 0.39 | 0.35 | 0.42 | 0.38 | 0.33 | 0.29 |
Printer-3880_M12PN3.icm | 3530 | 0.41 | 0.37 | 0.44 | 0.37 | 0.38 | 0.34 | 0.42 | 0.36 | 0.32 | 0.31 |
Profile | Patches | AveCol | AveNeuts | <20 | 20-30 | 30-40 | 40-50 | 50-60 | 60-70 | 70-80 | >80 |
Printer-3880_MALL.icm | 6616 | 0.39 | 0.37 | 0.44 | 0.34 | 0.35 | 0.35 | 0.42 | 0.40 | 0.31 | 0.31 |
Doug, you have provided me with a lot of information to work through. It is pleasing that the Kodak Ultra Gloss seems to perform reasonably well. I will print a set of medium targets (8 bit) on my Epson 7880, currently loaded with Cone Color K3 Pro ink. It will be a good comparison for me and hopefully useful for you as well.
I recently purchased some Harman 260gsm A3+ RC paper but have deferred making a profile until I was happier with my targets. Would you be interested in a set of targets on the Harman paper printed using the 3880 and 7880?
Thanks for all the profiles.
I have printed the Medium Target Set on my 7880 with Cone ink and will post them tomorrow.
In the zip file I downloaded there is a file called: Printer-3880_MALL.txt, but the ".icm" file is missing.
Profile | Patches | AveCol | AveNeuts | <10 | 10-20 | 20-30 | 30-40 | 40-50 | 50-60 | 60-70 | 70-80 | >80 |
Printer-7880_M5.icm | 125 | 1.91 | 1.90 | 1.61 | 1.40 | 2.40 | 1.74 | 1.10 | 1.40 | 2.16 | 3.41 | 1.91 |
Printer-7880_M6.icm | 216 | 1.24 | 1.28 | 1.34 | 1.25 | 1.10 | 1.26 | 1.49 | 1.72 | 1.17 | 1.30 | 0.87 |
Printer-7880_M7.icm | 343 | 1.01 | 0.87 | 1.17 | 0.66 | 0.76 | 0.88 | 0.88 | 1.10 | 0.58 | 1.04 | 0.79 |
Printer-7880_M8.icm | 512 | 0.85 | 0.95 | 1.08 | 0.76 | 0.85 | 1.04 | 1.09 | 0.99 | 0.72 | 1.05 | 0.93 |
Printer-7880_M9.icm | 729 | 0.75 | 0.73 | 1.16 | 0.88 | 0.74 | 0.68 | 0.78 | 0.68 | 0.54 | 0.63 | 0.52 |
Printer-7880_M12.icm | 1728 | 0.63 | 0.67 | 0.99 | 0.62 | 0.71 | 0.71 | 0.66 | 0.61 | 0.44 | 0.74 | 0.50 |
Profile | Patches | AveCol | AveNeuts | <10 | 10-20 | 20-30 | 30-40 | 40-50 | 50-60 | 60-70 | 70-80 | >80 |
Printer-7880_M5P.icm | 189 | 1.33 | 1.42 | 0.97 | 0.95 | 1.56 | 0.96 | 1.01 | 1.20 | 1.81 | 1.68 | 2.62 |
Printer-7880_M6P.icm | 341 | 0.92 | 0.98 | 1.13 | 0.76 | 0.97 | 1.03 | 1.38 | 1.33 | 0.65 | 0.84 | 0.75 |
Printer-7880_M7P.icm | 559 | 0.82 | 0.74 | 1.00 | 0.65 | 0.80 | 0.75 | 0.70 | 0.76 | 0.47 | 0.66 | 0.85 |
Printer-7880_M8P.icm | 855 | 0.69 | 0.76 | 0.88 | 0.76 | 0.81 | 0.91 | 1.00 | 0.73 | 0.54 | 0.67 | 0.56 |
Printer-7880_M9P.icm | 1241 | 0.64 | 0.64 | 0.86 | 0.58 | 0.68 | 0.75 | 0.82 | 0.55 | 0.51 | 0.61 | 0.37 |
Printer-7880_M12P.icm | 3059 | 0.58 | 0.59 | 0.84 | 0.55 | 0.60 | 0.68 | 0.81 | 0.55 | 0.39 | 0.56 | 0.33 |
Profile | Patches | AveCol | AveNeuts | <10 | 10-20 | 20-30 | 30-40 | 40-50 | 50-60 | 60-70 | 70-80 | >80 |
Printer-7880_M5PN.icm | 320 | 1.06 | 0.56 | 0.66 | 0.53 | 0.62 | 0.61 | 0.57 | 0.59 | 0.48 | 0.62 | 0.35 |
Printer-7880_M6PN.icm | 472 | 0.83 | 0.56 | 0.71 | 0.51 | 0.58 | 0.63 | 0.67 | 0.66 | 0.49 | 0.48 | 0.33 |
Printer-7880_M7PN.icm | 686 | 0.77 | 0.55 | 0.82 | 0.49 | 0.57 | 0.60 | 0.59 | 0.60 | 0.47 | 0.48 | 0.35 |
Printer-7880_M8PN.icm | 986 | 0.68 | 0.55 | 0.76 | 0.48 | 0.58 | 0.64 | 0.66 | 0.57 | 0.46 | 0.48 | 0.30 |
Printer-7880_M9PN.icm | 1371 | 0.63 | 0.53 | 0.72 | 0.49 | 0.56 | 0.63 | 0.63 | 0.54 | 0.43 | 0.50 | 0.29 |
Printer-7880_M12PN.icm | 3188 | 0.57 | 0.54 | 0.79 | 0.48 | 0.55 | 0.62 | 0.66 | 0.54 | 0.42 | 0.47 | 0.29 |
Profile | Patches | AveCol | AveNeuts | <10 | 10-20 | 20-30 | 30-40 | 40-50 | 50-60 | 60-70 | 70-80 | >80 |
Printer-7880_M5PN5.icm | 446 | 1.01 | 0.55 | 0.66 | 0.58 | 0.67 | 0.61 | 0.58 | 0.56 | 0.41 | 0.59 | 0.34 |
Printer-7880_M6PN5.icm | 598 | 0.81 | 0.54 | 0.72 | 0.54 | 0.63 | 0.61 | 0.60 | 0.58 | 0.42 | 0.43 | 0.33 |
Printer-7880_M7PN5.icm | 806 | 0.76 | 0.54 | 0.82 | 0.48 | 0.58 | 0.60 | 0.56 | 0.54 | 0.44 | 0.47 | 0.33 |
Printer-7880_M8PN5.icm | 1112 | 0.68 | 0.52 | 0.75 | 0.50 | 0.58 | 0.61 | 0.60 | 0.52 | 0.40 | 0.45 | 0.28 |
Printer-7880_M9PN5.icm | 1497 | 0.63 | 0.51 | 0.74 | 0.49 | 0.56 | 0.59 | 0.57 | 0.51 | 0.41 | 0.45 | 0.27 |
Printer-7880_M12PN5.icm | 3314 | 0.57 | 0.50 | 0.76 | 0.46 | 0.52 | 0.60 | 0.57 | 0.52 | 0.40 | 0.44 | 0.25 |
Profile | Patches | AveCol | AveNeuts | <10 | 10-20 | 20-30 | 30-40 | 40-50 | 50-60 | 60-70 | 70-80 | >80 |
Printer-7880_M5PN3.icm | 662 | 0.96 | 0.50 | 0.69 | 0.49 | 0.54 | 0.58 | 0.53 | 0.50 | 0.38 | 0.51 | 0.31 |
Printer-7880_M6PN3.icm | 814 | 0.79 | 0.51 | 0.79 | 0.47 | 0.52 | 0.58 | 0.55 | 0.52 | 0.39 | 0.45 | 0.30 |
Printer-7880_M7PN3.icm | 1022 | 0.74 | 0.52 | 0.98 | 0.45 | 0.52 | 0.57 | 0.52 | 0.50 | 0.39 | 0.46 | 0.28 |
Printer-7880_M8PN3.icm | 1328 | 0.66 | 0.50 | 0.79 | 0.45 | 0.53 | 0.57 | 0.55 | 0.49 | 0.38 | 0.45 | 0.27 |
Printer-7880_M9PN3.icm | 1713 | 0.62 | 0.50 | 0.80 | 0.46 | 0.52 | 0.56 | 0.54 | 0.49 | 0.38 | 0.46 | 0.27 |
Printer-7880_M12PN3.icm | 3530 | 0.57 | 0.50 | 0.84 | 0.46 | 0.51 | 0.57 | 0.54 | 0.48 | 0.37 | 0.44 | 0.26 |
Profile | Patches | AveCol | AveNeuts | <10 | 10-20 | 20-30 | 30-40 | 40-50 | 50-60 | 60-70 | 70-80 | >80 |
Printer-7880_MALL.icm | 6616 | 0.55 | 0.48 | 0.74 | 0.45 | 0.48 | 0.55 | 0.53 | 0.47 | 0.38 | 0.43 | 0.25 |
Hi DougHi Rob,
I have been travelling in outback West Australia chasing wildflowers for the past couple of weeks and haven’t had access to internet.
It seems that my 7880 isn’t as well behaved as the 3880. I look forward to being able to download the best of the 7880 profiles.
Best wishes
Rob Wignell