Luminous Landscape Forum
Raw & Post Processing, Printing => Printing: Printers, Papers and Inks => Topic started by: Shark_II on April 04, 2011, 06:00:00 pm
-
Does the software with the Colormunki allow you to tweak the profiles after the fact or is it a matter of what you get after the scans is all you get?
With the Datacolor Spyder you could load and tweak the profile, which is very useful in getting color casts out of B&W for example, but my kit bit the dust in a recent move so I am looking at alternatives.
Tom
-
there is a facility to improve the profile but I haven't tried it so I can't tell you how good it is for tweaking (my hunch is that if it's like the rest of the Munki s/w, it's pretty limited WRT 'flexibility')
-
The "tweaking" in the Munki software is called "optimization" - the following text is an excerpt from the online help in the ColorMunki Photo application...
>>>
If you have already created a printer profile and want to increase the color accuracy, select "optimize existing profile." This process will increase the accuracy of the printer profile based on colors automatically extracted from the image of your choice. This kind of optimization will improve the accuracy of the key colors and color regions extracted from your image. However, the overall profile improvements will be noticeable on all images containing similar colors. Profile optimization is completely safe for all images and can be repeated using different images to achieve even greater profile accuracy.
Optimization can only be performed on ColorMunki profiles and requires that you print and measure an additional color test chart.
...
Optimizing an existing profile:
Select "Optimize Existing Profile."
Select the printer profile that you wish to optimize.
Load the image containing the colors or color regions you wish to improve.
<<<
Kevin
-
Profiles from CM are very good and I find it hard to fault this approach. I've compared Munki profiles using a standard test print and the color rendition is spot on. Could a more expensive set up give a more refined profile; perhaps but it would be difficult to tell the difference using the naked eye test. I have use the optimization feature on a couple of images and can't tell that there is much difference. I'm a very satisfied user.
-
Thanks for the info.
Looks like the Munki is pretty severely handicapped when compared to the other lower priced option... another set from Datacolor. I will just go with the Spyder3Studio SR this time. I had the older model print calibrator only and am used to the way it works already. Great control, just tedious reading those patches.
Oh well, I was trying to save a few bucks, especially with the Munki rebate going on now but from the reading I have done in the past two days, the Munki is pretty much intentionally crippled by X-Rite and the reviews I have read have a LOT of negative comments about X-Rite's customer service regarding the Munki. Not worth saving a few bucks over that.
Tom
-
Looks like the Munki is pretty severely handicapped when compared to the other lower priced option... another set from Datacolor.
How so? The hardware itself is far more capably than the Datacolor product (it actually is a Spectrophotometer!).
-
I have used the Datacolor Spyder Print 3 print profiling system for some time.
I greatly prefer the profiles I get form it to any of the manufacturers' profiles I have used on my last three printers. However, I do have to slightly modify the "color balance" of the profiles using the profile editor that is available in the Datacolor Spyder3Print software. The unmodified profiles seem too warm for my liking, especially along the red axis. It is certainly possible that this may reflect failings in other parts of my overall system, but it must be done.
But for better or for worse, Datacolor does offer rather extensive "profile editing" in its software. Of course I have to wonder if this merely reflects their opinion that such is a thing is required for their puck! Not really qualified to cast the first stone on that one, but I have my suspicions. But I am more or less satisfied with what I've got.
Would be curious to hear some opinions about other low to medium cost printing profiling systems beyond Spyder and Munki.
Here are the Datacolor Advanced and Basic profile editing screens. The white and black points are from a OBA canvas.
-
Profile editing is useful in about three situations IMHO:
1. You have a poorly built profile. Don’t build poorly built profiles! Profiles from ColorMunki don’t need to be edited because they are good profiles.
2. For proofing situations, its sometimes useful to edit the white point tag. If you don’t understand what this means, if you don’t do cross rendering, then you don’t need to do this kind of editing.
3. You get paid by the hour and are editing profiles on someone else’s media and you are trying to squeeze blood from a rock.
-
...you are trying to squeeze blood from a rock.
Well fine art photographers have so well developed that particular skill that anything else seems suspect!
So, Andrew. Looks like the Munki is a pretty good way to go for quite a few of us. Could to describe what sort of printing person would want to have something better, and what would be an example of an outstanding better thing?
-
So, Andrew. Looks like the Munki is a pretty good way to go for quite a few of us. Could to describe what sort of printing person would want to have something better, and what would be an example of an outstanding better thing?
Well for one, there are additional options for building a perceptual table with higher end products, you can measure an illuminant and build that into the profile (instead of assuming D50 viewing). For devices that are not well behaved, you can output and measure more patches (but Munki’s optimization should handle that too). If you wanted an automated Spectrophotometer, you’d be spending a lot more money.
There isn’t much in terms of RGB output profiles for well behaved, modern ink jets.
-
How so? The hardware itself is far more capably than the Datacolor product (it actually is a Spectrophotometer!).
So what? I don't care what it IS, I care what it DOES and how it does it. And having wonderful hardware with crippled software sorta defeats the purpose here, eh? (That is Canadian for Huh?, I'm multilingual :) )
I have seen a bunch of your posts dating back to 2008 or so (I have been searching a lot on this stuff ;) ) and you mention that as if having a spectrophotometer is some magic wand. That's great but it seems that X-Rite took the magic wand and regressed it into a plain old stick. I duly noted all the semantics wars that went on when DataColor called their sensor a "Spectrocolorimeter". Seems like a lot of people got their panties in a wad back then... amusing reading but again, so what?
If the Munki hands you a profile with a warm cast (just for an example) in B&W prints and you cannot go back and adjust that, then it is worthless to me. If I have this all wrong, please set me straight on the follow-on adjustment capabilities.
Last, the Munki software limitations verge on the ridiculous. We have multiple printers here and having to keep the program running just to get follow-on scans read is hilarious. Seemingly because X-Rite is scared sh*tless you might actually read an off-the-plantation scan.
The Munki looks like a perfect tool to do quick profiles. And if you are happy with the hand it automatically deals you, fine. Trouble is, you can't discard and draw to the two pair you are holding to turn the hand into a full house.
Tom
PS: I note that B&H will not take returns on the Munki. Interesting, eh? But Amazon will. And they are the same price. If I have this all balled up let me know. I would be perfectly willing to buy a Munki from Amazon and test it out. Then no worky, returny. :)
-
So I have been waiting for the new i1photo pro,should I just save my money and get a Munki?
What kind of printmaking studio runs without a spectro?
Actually I am quite happy with every single oem paper profile I print with.
Metal is another story.
-
So what? I don't care what it IS, I care what it DOES and how it does it.
Because spectral data is necessary to build good ICC output profiles. Otherwise, the instrument and software have to make a lot of assumptions (you know the old saying about assumptions right?), the “fix” being you having to edit profiles.
And having wonderful hardware with crippled software sorta defeats the purpose here, eh? (That is Canadian for Huh?, I'm multilingual :) )
Crippled how?
I have seen a bunch of your posts dating back to 2008 or so (I have been searching a lot on this stuff ;) ) and you mention that as if having a spectrophotometer is some magic wand.
Since I never said that, and you are now making assumptions, I suggest you learn about using the proper tools for the proper job at hand.
That's great but it seems that X-Rite took the magic wand and regressed it into a plain old stick.
You continue to misunderstand this process, make more assumptions and IMHO look foolish in the process. Since only you have defined this product as both a magic wand and plain old stick, I suggest you clarify what it is you are trying to convey.
I duly noted all the semantics wars that went on when DataColor called their sensor a "Spectrocolorimeter".
Because its a made up word (and device) for this task.
Seems like a lot of people got their panties in a wad back then... amusing reading but again, so what?
Its the so what comments about magic wands and the like, along with made up names for instruments by marketing folks that serve little purpose here.
If the Munki hands you a profile with a warm cast (just for an example) in B&W prints and you cannot go back and adjust that, then it is worthless to me.
Is that your experience or just your worry?
If I have this all wrong, please set me straight on the follow-on adjustment capabilities.
You seem to have a lot wrong but its difficult to read you correctly because you seem to make so many assumptions.
Last, the Munki software limitations verge on the ridiculous. We have multiple printers here and having to keep the program running just to get follow-on scans read is hilarious.
You do not have to keep the software running all the time. You do have to build a complete profile before moving on to another. If that’s a huge burden do you, pony up for another product which will make you measure a lot more patches (and depending on who’s instrument, slower with additional profile editing).
Trouble is, you can't discard and draw to the two pair you are holding to turn the hand into a full house.
Can you perhaps clearly explain yourself and stay OT?
-
So I have been waiting for the new i1 pro photo,should I just save my money and get a Munki?
Wait till tomorrow, then we can talk about the new i1Profiler which I’m told will replace i1Match (i1 Photo Pro appears be the name of this replacement, maybe that’s what you mean).
-
Um, forum will not allow multi-quoting. So this will be a bit of a patchwork.
You continue to misunderstand this process, make more assumptions and IMHO look foolish in the process. Since only you have defined this product as both a magic wand and plain old stick, I suggest you clarify what it is you are trying to convey.
Um, allegories are pretty much lost on you... OK, I will be clearer and simpler. I have been reading reviews for two days now. The people that are happy with what the Munki hands them on the first deal... oops, let me simplify that... what it hands them on the first scan or with the first scan and "optimization" scan seems like they love the thing. That is very good news if you are amongst that group. If I were there I would be deliriously happy too. My concern is that I might not be so lucky and want to adjust the profile.
Because its a made up word (and device).
Sorry, but you are now going off into the ether on me here. If a "made up" device produces good profiles, and has a lot of flexibility in the process, then a "made up" device is fine with me. I take it X-Rite does not "make up" the Munki?
If your meaning is instead that the "made up" device is not capable of producing good profiles because it (a) has a name that irritates you or (b) is just a crap device for making profiles, then say which one you mean.
By the way, I gave an example of when adjusting a profile might be handy (tones in B&W) which I note you did not address and responded:
Is that your experience or just your worry?
Since you did not care to answer the question I'll just have to muddle along with what all the other reviewers have written about the Munki... which is "no, you are pretty much stuck with what it gives you". Again, if I am wrong, please let me know how the Munki adjusts this.
Last, as for the software limitations I have been reading the last two days, I'm sorry but I am not going back and cutting/pasting them all here. Seems I even saw some of your comments in all that data that were not so rosy either but I could be mistaken.
Tom
-
OK, I will be clearer and simpler. I have been reading reviews for two days now. The people that are happy with what the Munki hands them on the first deal... oops, let me simplify that... what it hands them on the first scan or with the first scan and "optimization" scan seems like they love the thing. That is very good news if you are amongst that group. If I were there I would be deliriously happy too. My concern is that I might not be so lucky and want to adjust the profile.
Oh yes, so much clearer. So you don’t have the product. You’ve read reviews from others. They seem to say they get good results. You are worried what happens IF you don’t?
Sorry, but you are now going off into the ether on me here. If a "made up" device produces good profiles, and has a lot of flexibility in the process, then a "made up" device is fine with me. I take it X-Rite does not "make up" the Munki?
Your idea seems to be, if there are more options, in this case, options that are necessary to produce a good profile, more work for the user, with an instrument not designed for the process discussed, that’s a better solution for you? If so, by all means, go that route.
If your meaning is instead that the "made up" device is not capable of producing good profiles because it (a) has a name that irritates you or (b) is just a crap device for making profiles, then say which one you mean.
BS marketing names and poor quality profiles with a need for editing doesn’t irritate me, I don’t use such products. YOU have to decide if that’s something you want to deal with. You seem to feel that more sliders and more work to produce something unnecessary with a competing product is useful to you. If so, you should go that route.
By the way, I gave an example of when adjusting a profile might be handy (tones in B&W) which I note you did not address and responded:
I thought I made my feelings about post editing profiles clear.
-
I used the Datacolor Spyder Print for a number of years. I too found the profiles very warm, and inappropriately so. I used to spend time editing the profiles, but it was necessary. Back when I was more naive I did this under inappropriate lighting, and my edits ended up adding a different colour cast to my prints. You really don't want to be doing this by eye, as your eye so readily adapts to the white point of the lighting you are viewing in. To add to this I had instrument issues, and I no longer trust my Spyder for colour measurements. It is still fine for measuring shades of gray for my work with QTR, and very easy to use for that work.
I purchased a ColorMunki a year ago. It's simple, straightforward and it works. There is no need to edit the profiles, and I prefer this. When you optimize a profile it will extend the gamut in a range of colours, such as skin tones, greens, etc. When you view the profile you can see the difference, but it's relatively small.
Still, I like to tweak, and to get the most out of my printer. For that reason I've started using my ColorMunki with the ArgyllCMS. With Argyll I can measure a much larger number of patches, which has improved my profiles. Argyll's perceptual table generation is very good, and I have other areas where I can customize. However, the ArgyllCMS is a command line product, and you have to be comfortable working this way, and digging a bit deeper into colour management.
I also use my CM with the ArgyllCMS to measure the ambient lighting in my workspace. It's very handy to be know the ambient light level and temperature to ensure appropriate alignment with monitor brightness.
If I were purchasing today and my budget were small I would buy the ColorMunk. The CM is also well suited if you don't want to dig deep into this stuff (i.e. keep it simple). The CM with the ArgyllCMS raises the bar another level, but adds complexity. This is because the instrument is good, and the ArgylCMS improves on the CM software. The next step up would be a higher level X-Rite product, where you are working with a more accurate instrument.
That's been my journey, and what I've found, fwiw. I do wish you all the best in navigating though these sometimes murky waters.
Terry.
-
I used the Datacolor Spyder Print for a number of years. I too found the profiles very warm, and inappropriately so. I used to spend time editing the profiles, but it was necessary. Back when I was more naive I did this under inappropriate lighting, and my edits ended up adding a different colour cast to my prints.
Terry, that warmth has been my experience also. But it was so easy to fix I just did the fix and moved on. And yeah, lighting is the "forgotten" key in this to a large number of people. My booth was not an insignificant investment either.
I purchased a ColorMunki a year ago. It's simple, straightforward and it works. There is no need to edit the profiles, and I prefer this. When you optimize a profile it will extend the gamut in a range of colours, such as skin tones, greens, etc. When you view the profile you can see the difference, but it's relatively small.
Still, I like to tweak, and to get the most out of my printer. For that reason I've started using my ColorMunki with the ArgyllCMS. With Argyll I can measure a much larger number of patches, which has improved my profiles. Argyll's perceptual table generation is very good, and I have other areas where I can customize. However, the ArgyllCMS is a command line product, and you have to be comfortable working this way, and digging a bit deeper into colour management. .
I just noticed that software in my most recent searches and it sounds like a winner. And no, command line does not bother me a bit.
I also use my CM with the ArgyllCMS to measure the ambient lighting in my workspace. It's very handy to be know the ambient light level and temperature to ensure appropriate alignment with monitor brightness.
I like my ColorEyes/DTP94 setup for my main color monitor (30"HP) so the Munki would be excess to requirements there but nice to have if the DTP puck ever bit the dust.
That's been my journey, and what I've found, fwiw. I do wish you all the best in navigating though these sometimes murky waters.
Terry
Thanks for a most helpful post. And thanks to Kevin (kevk) earlier who also responded with a direct reply to my OP. I am guilty of "thread creep" even in my own thread. :)
Plus it it entertaining setting hair fires amongst those so easily ignited. ;)
Tom
-
Does the software with the Colormunki allow you to tweak the profiles after the fact or is it a matter of what you get after the scans is all you get?
With the Datacolor Spyder you could load and tweak the profile, which is very useful in getting color casts out of B&W for example, but my kit bit the dust in a recent move so I am looking at alternatives.
Tom
Tom, you didn't say whether you want to build profiles for dye-based inkjet or only for pigmented inkjet printers. I ask this question because I think the Datacolor system is reasonably well suited for both in terms of low-cost profiling options, whereas the Colormunki's iterative target making process is only well suited to pigmented inks. Pigmented inks "dry down" to accurate color state relatively fast. Dye-based systems can sometimes take days to reach an accurate color state (depends on media, temperature, and humidity). If you jump the gun and measure the second dye-based image target required by the Colormunki approach within an hour or so after the first target measurement, any debates about instrument accuracy (ie., is a "spectrocolorimeter" as accurate as a spectrophotometer?) becomes a moot point. The image dyes are still diffusing and print color can drift by several delta E in some color patches after a few hours or sometimes days.
In my tests comparing two different Datacolor Spyderprint 3 units to measurements made on my two venerable Spectrolinos over several hundred patches, the worst patch discrepancy was approximately 5 delta E in a vivid green patch and with 95% under 2 dE and all neutral patches less than 1.0 (except in whitepoint on high OBA content papers...which has to do with UV content in the device illumination), hence closer instrument agreement than the the considerable dE drift caused by continuing dye diffusion after initial printing.
Lastly, I would add that with any hand held device, operator fatigue/error is quite common such that one or two color patches out of hundreds may be off by 3-5 delta E or worse if you really mess up. Only way to make sure these errors don't get baked into the profile is to measure all patches at least twice, compare both sets of measurements, and for better accuracy, then average if the two independent measurements agree to within normal instrument error. Instrument error is generally far less than 1 dE on most photographic media, may between 1 and 2 on more strongly "textured" or high gloss media. And yes, both software packages undoubtedly have internal checks for operator error since they know roughly what color to be expecting for any given patch number, but that type of built-in error checking only works when the patch measurement misses by a mile :o
cheers,
Mark
http://www.aardenburg-imaging.com
-
Thanks Mark, very informative. We use Canon large format printers, pigment inkset BTW.
Tom
-
Shark,
I have both the datacolor and the Munki. I bought the datacolor first, and while I got decent profiles from it I almost always had to tweak things, as profiles were indeed on the warm side to start with. In addition, measuring each patch by hand was taking quite a while, and often resulted in some re-measuring due to errors.
Since I got the Munki, I am happy with the results, I waste little of my time on profiling and get to enjoy my printer by creating what to me are lovely images.
Profile 'tweaking' (optimization in munki terms) is still possible, just more automated (which has the side effect of being faster). I have evaluated prints side by side from the same printer (epson 4900) on the same paper profiled with both the munki and the datacolor. In the end, after tweaking, editing, optimizing etc I was able to produce pleasing and accurate images. Going forward, I plan to rely mostly, if not exclusively, on my munki as it gets me there in less time and with less feet of paper used to create profiles and test images.
Of course, my experience does not have to match any other and my goals in profiling my printer might be different from yours.
Happy printing,
stefano
-
Thanks Mark, very informative. We use Canon large format printers, pigment inkset BTW.
Tom
Then either Colormunki or SpyderPrint3 will work quite well. That said, if you are a professional printing for others and seriously into color managed workflows, I'd strongly recommend stepping up to the i1 pro spectrophotometer. While others may disagree with me, I prefer the non UV-cut i1 because Xrite has good profile correction for OBAs in its Pro software, and UV-included readings will identify the OBA content in your media which can be very useful to know. While there is no international standard on OBA measurement that I'm aware of, the gas-filled tungsten lamp in the i1 is a good candidate for reliable detection of OBA Fluorescence. Colormunki and SpyderPrint are UV-cut or at the very least UV deficient in their illumination source. Also, more software choices available to extend usefulness of the i1 spectro (e.g. Babelcolor, MeasureTool, etc.).
-
I prefer the non UV-cut i1 because Xrite has good profile correction for OBAs in its Pro software
Ah, it used to <g>. For Mac users with Lion coming soon, without Rosetta assistance, PMP will be a burdensome move. This nice functionality isn’t ported to the new software.
Better than an i1Pro would be an iSis so one can measure both UV and Cut AND use the OBC software (or module in i1P). The OBC software is universal, i1P has the same functionality built into it, but this requires an iSis.
-
Ah, it used to <g>. For Mac users with Lion coming soon, without Rosetta assistance, PMP will be a burdensome move. This nice functionality isn’t ported to the new software.
Better than an i1Pro would be an iSis so one can measure both UV and Cut AND use the OBC software (or module in i1P). The OBC software is universal, i1P has the same functionality built into it, but this requires an iSis.
Aaargh...the story of Color management technology since the very beginning....two steps forward, two steps back, and only work arounds to get us through the day. Yeah, I'd love to buy an iSis - not. It is a great productivity tool for profiling, but not an all around workhorse spectro like the hand helds which is what I need for many of my print monitoring and research needs.
-
Aaargh...the story of Color management technology since the very beginning....two steps forward, two steps back
I’m not sure why X-Rite didn’t update i1P to use the OBA compensation found in ProfileMaker Pro, seemed to work quite well.
-
Mark, I'd argue that its really nice to have both UV and non UV filtered EyeOnes. Different devices for different purposes. If you had to go with one for profiling on a desert island, I'd got for the UV Cut, personally. I can see why you'd like to examine the unfiltered data seperately from making profiles! Me too.
As for PMP's OBA correction not being present, i1P represents a continuation of Monaco PROFILER (and now Munki) technology that some of the LOGO technology just can't fit into.
-
As for PMP's OBA correction not being present, i1P represents a continuation of Monaco PROFILER (and now Munki) technology that some of the LOGO technology just can't fit into.
Ouch. And again, two steps forward two steps back...and also a good reason for avoiding papers with moderate or high OBA content all together in which case UV-included or UV-excluded measurements draw very close together.
That said, in our currently OBA-intoxicated world, your point about owning both UV cut and UV included Eye Ones is well taken... and why I still love my Spectrolinos! Can any of you Xrite NDA-signers out there tell us if the venerable Spectroscan/spectrolinos are supported by Xrite's new profiling software directly, or will one have to reformat/import the data?
cheers,
Mark
-
Mark, I'd argue that its really nice to have both UV and non UV filtered EyeOnes. Different devices for different purposes. If you had to go with one for profiling on a desert island, I'd got for the UV Cut, personally. I can see why you'd like to examine the unfiltered data seperately from making profiles! Me too.
As for PMP's OBA correction not being present, i1P represents a continuation of Monaco PROFILER (and now Munki) technology that some of the LOGO technology just can't fit into.
Desert Island, I know the name is ambiguous, but to me it says a lot of UV even if it lies at the Scottish west coast. I would take the UV enabled spectrometer and papers without FBA with me and will not use a compensation. The ArgyllCMS approach of measuring with UV and taking out the UV part in software to simulate the non-UV spectrometers is more sound than adding UV data to a non-UV measurement in my opinion. The first method at least measured the FBA effect before it flattens the FBA effect in the measurements based on what it measured in that range. UV filters affect not only the UV light but visible short wavelengths too. The ColorMunki does an almost cynical job of non-UV measurements, it only measures from 430 to 730 Nm in reflective mode and copies the 430 measurement down to 380 Nm. UV compensation there puts an arbitrary average of FBA effects on top of blind data.
http://www.freelists.org/post/argyllcms/ColorMunki-or-i1pro-for-CM,8
In general I think that UV compensations could be improved for both methods, there are certain categories of FBA papers. The safest method remains using non-FBA papers and measuring with an UV enabled spectrometer.
met vriendelijke groeten, Ernst
New: Spectral plots of +250 inkjet papers:
http://www.pigment-print.com/spectralplots/spectrumviz_1.htm
-
The ColorMunki does an almost cynical job of non-UV measurements, it only measures from 430 to 730 Nm in reflective mode and copies the 430 measurement down to 380 Nm. UV compensation there puts an arbitrary average of FBA effects on top of blind data.
Some time ago, I apparently read the Colormunki emissive specs which claim measurement down to 400nm at 10nm intervals and mistook for total unit performance. Just checked and Ernst is right. Reflective lower limit on the munki is claimed at 420nm. If 420nm is copied from the 430nm reading and then further filled in at other measurement intervals down to 380nm, this is a pretty compelling reason to step up to a non UV-cut i1Pro and simply avoid using problematic high OBA content papers, IMHO. Because the Spyderprint3 unit also uses LED source, I doubt it's any better in the 380-420mn range, but I guess we have to cut the manufacturers some slack due to the very low price point of these instruments.
-
Can any of you Xrite NDA-signers out there tell us if the venerable Spectroscan/spectrolinos are supported by Xrite's new profiling software directly, or will one have to reformat/import the data?
i1Profiler only supports EyeOne devices (including the iSis). ColorPort (CP) is the free utility that supports legacy devices. With CP you can make a measure targets with a huge variety of devices and save them in a variety of formats and proceed with profile generation elsewhere. I like to measure with CP even when I'm using EyeOne devices because CP allows me to simultaneously measure other targets while i1P (or MP or PMP) is busy generating profiles. CP's support for the Lino is basic relative to MeasureTool so you might download it and get started with it to see if you'd be happy with it for your needs.
The ArgyllCMS approach of measuring with UV and taking out the UV part in software to simulate the non-UV spectrometers is more sound than adding UV data to a non-UV measurement in my opinion.
I totally agree Ernst! But the reality of a color consultant is that you've got to be able to walk into any shop and work with any software and RIP and make things look incredible. With the current state of today's tools and applications, the UV filtered device would be the one to have, if you only have one. I travel with a pair of colorimeters and two pairs of spectros so my bases are covered. Argyll's handling of UV data is impressive but that's often moot because the perceptual rendering isn't. i1P's capabilities and final image quality trump the UV handling limitations (if you wan to call it that).
-
Some time ago, I apparently read the Colormunki emissive specs which claim measurement down to 400nm at 10nm intervals and mistook for total unit performance. Just checked and Ernst is right. Reflective lower limit on the munki is claimed at 420nm. If 420nm is copied from the 430nm reading and then further filled in at other measurement intervals down to 380nm, this is a pretty compelling reason to step up to a non UV-cut i1Pro and simply avoid using problematic high OBA content papers, IMHO. Because the Spyderprint3 unit also uses LED source, I doubt it's any better in the 380-420mn range, but I guess we have to cut the manufacturers some slack due to the very low price point of these instruments.
Well you do have a sample for testing from a ColorMunki profile that I submitted. ;D As I've noted before, I get very good profiles from CM that lead to a good match against the Outback standard test print. Would it be better if I had a more sophisticated device? I don't know since I really wonder how to test a real world print (as opposed to a series of test plots of different colors).
Alan
-
Well you do have a sample for testing from a ColorMunki profile that I submitted. ;D As I've noted before, I get very good profiles from CM that lead to a good match against the Outback standard test print. Would it be better if I had a more sophisticated device? I don't know since I really wonder how to test a real world print (as opposed to a series of test plots of different colors).
Alan
And the samples you have sent me for testing are well made indeed. I think both the Datacolor and ColorMunki units are outstanding at their respective pricepoints. And they really do help printmakers build better quality profiles compared to generic ones supplied by the media manufacturers. It's almost impossible to figure out exactly what settings were used with generic profiles, and add to that the printer/ink/media drift in different working environments, and it's easy to demonstrate that most custom profiles are superior. That said, the profile building learning curve is steep for many people, and if not using a variety of media, paying someone to build a custom profile is probably the way to go. Yet, I know countless amateurs that have chased their tails for weeks with a new paper rather than pony up 25 or 30 dollars for a custom profile. Hand held spectros have many other useful purposes in terms of print process monitoring, but once you start making more sophisticated evaluations of a printing workflow, then an i!Pro is worth the difference compared to SpyderPrint3 or colorMunki.
-
As for PMP's OBA correction not being present, i1P represents a continuation of Monaco PROFILER (and now Munki) technology that some of the LOGO technology just can't fit into.
Well X-Rite is getting some crap for this one day after release!
http://forums.adobe.com/message/3600386#3600386
X-Rite was able to clone (fuse) Colorful and Saturation settings into i1P. I wonder why OBA was killed off, it seemed to work pretty well.
-
X-Rite was able to clone (fuse) Colorful and Saturation settings into i1P. I wonder why OBA was killed off, it seemed to work pretty well.
Well, you'll notice that the perceptual rendering controls are *exactly* the same as in MonacoProfiler. In i1P "Colorful" and "Saturation" are simply presets for these controls that give you something similar. The results that you get aren't the same since LOGO's (PMP's) algorithms aren't being used. In fact, if you write down the settings that the "Colorful" and "Saturation" presets give you and apply them in MP you'll get identical results! So the "Colorful" and "Saturation" technologies haven't been fused in i1P at all, simply mimicked, and the results are better, IMO, but of course, so was MonacoProfiler. That Monaco technology was really ahead of it's time and now it's finally becoming mainstream.
-
So the "Colorful" and "Saturation" technologies haven't been fused in i1P at all, simply mimicked, and the results are better, IMO, but of course, so was MonacoProfiler. That Monaco technology was really ahead of it's time and now it's finally becoming mainstream.
They may be mimicked but the question still remains and hasn’t been answered. Why no OBA compensation? Not possible? Didn’t work well? Conflicted with some legacy code from PROFILER?
-
... the question still remains and hasn’t been answered. Why no OBA compensation?
Right! It could also be a marketing decision. "Need OBA correction? Upgrade to a i1 UV Cut or iSis!" ... I'd like to hear them clarify their decision and what their plans are for the future.
-
Right! It could also be a marketing decision. "Need OBA correction? Upgrade to a i1 UV Cut or iSis!" ... I'd like to hear them clarify their decision and what their plans are for the future.
The dilemma for X-Rite is deciding if they are a hardware or a software company (they would like us to believe both). But that’s usually not the case. I have far more ‘issues’ with them as a software company than a hardware company. Either way, the idea was (or should have been) to take the best of both PMP and PROFILER and merge them. IF OBA compensation was useful to some AND they can code it, they should. They should not expect someone to upgrade to new hardware (thinking solely as a hardware company).
-
The dilemma for X-Rite is deciding if they are a hardware or a software company (they would like us to believe both).
I vote for them being a great hardware company. The software has always been half baked at best. Very simple user-unfriendly issues not corrected after many years. For example, in Measuretool, hand measurement with the short, and long timing settings are absurd, but if you pick "manual" the setting doesn't stick, so you spend time resetting "manual" on every new sample you want to measure. Or in Colorport. you can choose Spectroscan but not Spectrolino. I could go on and on but you get the idea. Adds up to a lot of frustration and a wish that Xrite would allow more third parties to develop software for these otherwise very cool instruments. My two cents, but of course, Xrite doesn't need my advice :P :(
-
Very simple user-unfriendly issues not corrected after many years. For example, in Measuretool, hand measurement with the short, and long timing settings are absurd, but if you pick "manual" the setting doesn't stick, so you spend time resetting "manual" on every new sample you want to measure.
Don’t get me started! We are in agreement on all your points. Its simple stuff too, small engineering.
-
OK Munki people checked out a while ago, so moving the new conversation to a more appropriately titled thread would be a good idea.
Thanks for all the replies to those that helped out in the decision making process.
Tom