Luminous Landscape Forum
Raw & Post Processing, Printing => Colour Management => Topic started by: keithcooper on August 15, 2019, 04:15:15 pm
-
Arriving this morning, in a huge box...
The i1Pro 3 Plus spectro has been launched with i1Basic | i1Photo | i1Publish versions
This from the UK press info:
New in the i1Pro 3 Plus
- Larger aperture of 8mm to support new materials and substrates used in digital printing applications.
- New polarization (measurement condition M3) filterthat reduces specular highlights and shadows on fabrics and ceramics. It provides “better blacks” and richer colours on rough surfaces and glossy medias, like canvas prints and fine art photo papers.
- Simultaneously measure M0, M1 and M2 in a single pass to account for optical brighteners so prepress and print operators can quickly predict how colours printed on optically brightened substrates will look under different lighting conditions.
- Longer ruler for measuring the wider charts used in grand-format printing. The ruler includes an ISO-compliant white backer and removable magnetic strips on the top and sides for holding samples in place while measuring.
- New LED illuminant that improves device reliability. The i1Pro 3 Plus allows for four measurement conditions (ISO 13655 M0; M1: D50; M2: UV Excluded, M3 Polarized).
- Now supports transmission scanning for backlit film and materials used in signage.
- Measures high brightness, up to 5K NITs for ultra-bright displays.
The case is considerably larger than the old i1Pro2
Anyway, i'll be giving it a try when I get a chance - any questions, please let me know and I'll see what I can discover
-
Hi Keith,
I'd be interested re the differences between profiles made with M2 and M3 on Matte paper. Specifically, the L* min and overall gamut size with the same patch set. I expect the M3 gamut size to be significantly larger. It would also be interesting to print a ColorChecker image using Abs. Col. with both profiles and compare to a real ColorChecker.
I expect the printed M3 to be slightly less saturated than the real one and the M2 print to match a ColorChecker slightly closer.
I would also expect M3 profiles might make better(smoother) B&W prints on Matte using Perc. intent or Rel. Intent w BPC.
Might be interested to also compare performance on metallic papers. M3 may provide better and smoother prints.
-
Unfortunately, the i1Pro Photo 3 Plus I was sent needs to move on, so whilst I've written a lengthy overview of what it does, I've not had a chance to make any detailed analysis of the results.
The review is at
http://www.northlight-images.co.uk/x-rite-i1photo-pro-3-plus-review/
I do have some profiles built with the new kit, and have saved measurement data - email me if you'd like a look. Any results/impressions/analysis welcome!
My impression is that if it does something you specifically need (transparency/M3), then it's a good deal, but the older i1Pro 2 still has a place. Definitely an update aimed squarely at the commercial market.
The M3 mode is UV Cut, so there is that to consider in using it.
Just one other thing - if you're using the original i1Pro then get a copy of i1Profiler v1.8.x as well as the new V3, since there are some limitations in license updating. Now, I don't know the details of this, but would note that old kit (the 6+ year old i1Pro) won't be supported for ever.
-
Just one other thing - if you're using the original i1Pro then get a copy of i1Profiler v1.8.x as well as the new V3, since there are some limitations in license updating. Now, I don't know the details of this, but would note that old kit (the 6+ year old i1Pro) won't be supported for ever.
It certainly will be no surprise if X-Rite stop supporting the original i1 Pro given their past history. Since I only use ArgyllCMS for profiling, I am not too terribly concerned.
-
Is it still covered with this soft touch that ends up becoming sticky?
-
Is it still covered with this soft touch that ends up becoming sticky?
My original i1Pro 2 and i1Display Pro both had the plastic finish that turned sticky, and were replaced by X-Rite.
The i1Pro3+ has a different finish that is smoother and not so soft.
-
The review is at
http://www.northlight-images.co.uk/x-rite-i1photo-pro-3-plus-review/
Interesting but;
"The new light source and larger measurement aperture should increase accuracy, but at the cost of significantly increased minimum target patch sizes (16mm vs 7mm). With the i1Pro2 it’s easy to create reasonable printer profiles from a sheet or two of A4 paper – not many i1Pro3 Plus patches fit on one of those."
OUCH. So you'll need nearly four times as much paper ? or is that just in one axis ?
Will anyone really see any an improvement for that cost in materials and time ?
-
Will anyone really see any an improvement for that cost in materials and time ?
Considering the dE differences running the same target though the older unit multiple times, I really doubt it. Now with some kinds of materials the newer unit is targeted for measuring, maybe.
-
Considering the dE differences running the same target though the older unit multiple times, I really doubt it.
Quite, cost for no gain.
Looking at some of the figures Doug Grey has posted in the last year or two, it really takes some effort to see any difference with most packages from the last decade.
Now with some kinds of materials the newer unit is targeted for measuring, maybe.
Well if materials like transparencies and very rough surfaces couldn't be measured before, it's not just an improvement, it's a new feature entirely.
Although older kit like the Spectralino/Spectroscan could measure both....slowly..................but with tiny patches, so maybe an improvement ;-)
-
I ran into a review of the i1Pro3+ by Scott Martin of on-sight:
http://www.on-sight.com/xrite-i1pro3-review/
-
So would one be better severed buying say a rip and letting that company provide profiles for you?
I print on backlite film quite a bit EPSON, also other Epson papers for my fine art work up to 70” prints larger that that the Epson P8000 won’t print without a rip.
I have the I1 pro and I have asked Rodney before and he responded that the difference between the 1 and 2 version of the I pro was not significant for my use but the above review shows quite a difference in the backlite print.
I tend to think I should have profiles made for the papers I print and buy a spider for my monitors. Right now I my big monitor is a NEC PA302w which has its own proprietary unit for setting the monitor, then I use my 15 year old I1pro to set the Mac book to match. I don’t use custom profiles as of two years ago printing with Epson canned profiles.
The big question is would I see a major difference and what method would any of you experienced guys recommend?
Thanks
-
So would one be better severed buying say a rip and letting that company provide profiles for you?
I print on backlite film quite a bit EPSON, also other Epson papers for my fine art work up to 70” prints larger that that the Epson P8000 won’t print without a rip.
I have the I1 pro and I have asked Rodney before and he responded that the difference between the 1 and 2 version of the I pro was not significant for my use but the above review shows quite a difference in the backlite print.
I tend to think I should have profiles made for the papers I print and buy a spider for my monitors. Right now I my big monitor is a NEC PA302w which has its own proprietary unit for setting the monitor, then I use my 15 year old I1pro to set the Mac book to match. I don’t use custom profiles as of two years ago printing with Epson canned profiles.
The big question is would I see a major difference and what method would any of you experienced guys recommend?
Thanks
The review John posted is quite good. The reviewer states that the profiler for reflective material helps with PK type canvas which has specular reflections from the indented glossy surface as well as variations just from the surface roughness itself due to the small aperture (1.5mm) of standard I1Pros. The latter is also a big problem for color management on fabric printing.
I'm especially impressed with how they do transmissive profiling. It's very well done and existing approaches are pretty crude.