Luminous Landscape Forum
Raw & Post Processing, Printing => Colour Management => Topic started by: tony22 on June 06, 2011, 12:46:49 pm
-
I guess I can chalk this up to bad timing, but I'm still annoyed about it. At the start of May I got my hands on a new old stock (unused) i1Photo LT for a really great price. I was happy to get it. It's an i1Pro device without the UV-cut filter (which is what I wanted since I'll also use it for plasma display calibration). At the time I figured I'd get the upgrade for RGB Advanced and maybe Scanner so I could get a fully managed calibration solution using i1Match (for PC use - another tool is used for the plasma display).
You can guess the rest. When I called X-Rite I was (politely) told that the upgrade modules for i1Match are no longer offered - as of April 30th! :'( I begged and pleaded - I want to pay for the upgrade I want! But they could only offer me Upgrade B. Upgrade B does me no good. It has no scanner capability (and I was told there is currently no plan to support one), and without the software OBA compensation in it like i1Match has for the i1Pro (non UV-cut), I can't even use it to effectively profile papers with OBA. I tried to make sense of the whole thing. I basically asked them "look, I understand you pulled the old upgrade capability from the system, but it's not like you destroyed it. You could probably re-enable it if someone were ready to pay for such an upgrade". No go. So when I asked "so what is somebody like me supposed to do? I have no use for the i1Profiler printer capability (I use a lot of papers with OBAs), and there is no scanner capability to even speak of". I want to stay with an i1 solution! Nothing I could say would change their minds.
Yes, I know I can use Argyll CMS, and I guess that's what I'll have to do. But am I wrong to be just a little unhappy about this?
Sorry about the rant.
-
It's an i1Pro device without the UV-cut filter (which is what I wanted since I'll also use it for plasma display calibration).
Water under the damn, but you could have got the UV cut which would have no effect on calibration of the display.
Maybe X-Rite will allow you to swap the non cut for cut unit?
-
I'm s@rewed no matter which way I go. The UV-cut model will not work with CalMAN, which is my go to software for (TV) monitor calibration. I cannot use that one with CalMAN to profile my Chroma5 colorimeter (which is my primary TV display calibration tool - much better low light performance than the i1Pro).
-
I can't even use it to effectively profile papers with OBA.
Read back through the various threads here on i1Profiler and you'll see most people are profiling papers with OBAs without any serious problems.
It seems to be compensating for OBAs behind the scenes.
Certainly many of the papers I've profiled have OBAs in them and the profiles delivered by i1Profiler are excellent.
But yes, no scanner profiling now could be a pain.
Paul
-
It seems to be compensating for OBAs behind the scenes.
Actually, at least according to X-Rite, it doesn’t.
-
Actually, at least according to X-Rite, it doesn’t.
The proof is in the profiles.
I didn't read you complaining about the lack of OBA compensation as being a problem in your review of i1Pr here on LuLa.
-
The proof is in the profiles.
Where would that proof be? You mean how you see the results of the profile? That’s not proof. There is no OBA algorithm compensation in the product like ProfileMaker Pro. There was no compensation in PROFILER either. Now if you have actual proof that there’s some compensation happening in i1P, I’ll quarry the product manager again who made it quite clear to us beta’s that there was no such compensation. Provide proof.
-
There is no OBA algorithm compensation in the product like ProfileMaker Pro.
Could you please elaborate on that? So what was that "Correct for Optical Brightener" option?
-
Could you please elaborate on that? So what was that "Correct for Optical Brightener" option?
It should read, there is NO OBA compensation in i1P LIKE ProfileMaker Pro. PMP had it, PROFILER and i1P don’t.
-
I spoke with Bruce and a woman (whose name I didn't get), both at X-Rite Tech Support. Bruce was directly involved with the engineering team in their development of i1Profiler (as the lead Tech Support person). He (and she) confirmed more than once that there is no software OBA compensation in the i1Profiler printer profiling routine when using the i1Pro. The only way to get an OBA compensated printer profile using i1Profiler is with the i1Isis device. There was no ambiguity in this information.
I would pay pretty well to have been able to upgrade my i1Match solution with the desired modules. It had software OBA compensation (again confirmed by Bruce), along with the scanner which I had already said I wanted too. They just lost (what would have been) a happy paying customer.
-
Where would that proof be?
'Proof' as in "Do the profiles work well ?"
To quote from your review;"Yet the underlying color engine and the qualities of the profiles it generates are such that I can’t imagine using either PMP or PROFILER to build my output profiles" suggests they do.
-
I spoke with Bruce and a woman (whose name I didn't get), both at X-Rite Tech Support. Bruce was directly involved with the engineering team in their development of i1Profiler (as the lead Tech Support person). He (and she) confirmed more than once that there is no software OBA compensation in the i1Profiler printer profiling routine when using the i1Pro. The only way to get an OBA compensated printer profile using i1Profiler is with the i1Isis device. There was no ambiguity in this information.
I would pay pretty well to have been able to upgrade my i1Match solution with the desired modules. It had software OBA compensation (again confirmed by Bruce), along with the scanner which I had already said I wanted too. They just lost (what would have been) a happy paying customer.
Tony,
I think we have been there before:
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1003&message=38456792
I had it wrong there for the i1Match software.
I find the term "OBA compensation" confusing if it describes the (automatic) process to cut out the measured OBA effect of a spectrometer that measures into UV so it resembles a UV-cut spectrometer. Automatic in this case meaning that it is not a choice in the software and done without the user being informed of it. ArgyllCMS gives at least the choice. Why this is called "OBA compensation" is unclear to me. I would call an addition of the OBA effect to UV-cut spectrometer measurements "OBA compensation". However both routes would be better described with "simulating UV-cut spectrometer measurements" or "simulating UV-included spectrometer measurements". That was the main reason in that dpreview discussion why I could not grasp the fact that i1Match takes out the measured OBA effect of a UV-included spectrometer automatically. In the i1Match docs and some reviews of i1Match it is mentioned though.
Seems the other guy had it wrong on the i1Profiler features then.
That profiling OBA media with an UV-cut spectrometer delivers the profiles most people like and is seen as the normal, the right way to do it, is another thing I can not accept easily. I see an analogy to the ostrich myth in that method. It is of course related to my confusion described above.
met vriendelijke groeten, Ernst
New: Spectral plots of +250 inkjet papers:
http://www.pigment-print.com/spectralplots/spectrumviz_1.htm
-
To quote from your review;"Yet the underlying color engine and the qualities of the profiles it generates are such that I can’t imagine using either PMP or PROFILER to build my output profiles" suggests they do.
What’s that got to do with the price of cheese? I have an iSis for one. I can measure with and without UV. But that’s not the point. The point is, you said (incorrectly I’ll add):
It seems to be compensating for OBAs behind the scenes.
No, its not. You are incorrect. Your proof of this lies in the profiles you use from god knows what papers and their level of OBA, the print viewing illuminant etc. You have a premise you can’t prove because your premise is incorrect. There is no OBA compensation algorithms in i1P. At least that’s what the engineers who wrote the software told me. But you have a premise that you can’t prove other than to quote me about my satisfaction with the profiles I’ve built.
So other than that, and other than I believe what the engineers have told me, do you have anything to back up your claim that It seems to be compensating for OBAs behind the scenes?
-
do you have anything to back up your claim that It seems to be compensating for OBAs behind the scenes?
Other than the profiles are great regardless of any OBAs in the paper being profiled, no I'm not party to the inner most working of the prism engine.
The real question that needs to be asked is "Is the lack of any OBA compensation feature in i1Profiler a cause for concern ?"
I'd say no. Your review makes no mention of it, so I'm assuming it's not an issue that should worry any potential purchasers.
-
Other than the profiles are great regardless of any OBAs in the paper being profiled, no I'm not party to the inner most working of the prism engine.
OK so the bit about ‘It seems to be compensating for OBAs behind the scenes‘ you agree is false.
The real question that needs to be asked is "Is the lack of any OBA compensation feature in i1Profiler a cause for concern ?"
I'd say no.
Like your original premise, you need a lot more data to back up the claim.
Your review makes no mention of it, so I'm assuming it's not an issue that should worry any potential purchasers.
There’s lots of stuff I didn’t mention in the review. The lack of any missing data points is not to be taken as an endorsement or criticism. I’d suggest you not assume anything in terms of what wasn’t mentioned.
-
There’s lots of stuff I didn’t mention in the review. The lack of any missing data points is not to be taken as an endorsement or criticism. I’d suggest you not assume anything in terms of what wasn’t mentioned.
On that basis we can’t draw much from your review when so much is unqualified.
To cut to the core of the issue; can you give a simple yes or no answer to the following question.
To successfully profile papers with OBAs in i1Profiler do you need to use a UV-cut spectrophotometer ?
-
On that basis we can’t draw much from your review when so much is unqualified.
We or you?
No, you can draw a basis from what was mentioned and discussed. You can’t from what wasn’t mentioned and discussed. Get it?
To cut to the core of the issue; can you give a simple yes or no answer to the following question.
To successfully profile papers with OBAs in i1Profiler do you need to use a UV-cut spectrophotometer ?
You want a simplistic and most likely incorrect answer to a simplistic question?
It depends. On a lot of factors. The instrument itself, its light source, the paper and its OBAs, the illuminant under which the paper is viewed etc.
No, I can’t give you a yes or no answer.
-
It depends. On a lot of factors..........................
No, I can’t give you a yes or no answer.
Prevarication isn't much help for the majority of readers like the OP who want basic "buy/don't buy" answers.
Go on, see if you can actually bring yourself to answer the simple question; "To successfully profile papers with OBAs in i1Profiler do you need to use a UV-cut spectrophotometer ?"
Most people asking it will be using the standard i1pro with retailed papers in common lighting conditions.
-
Prevarication isn't much help for the majority of readers like the OP who want basic "buy/don't buy" answers.
Got nothing to do with the OP. The OP has a an upgrade issue. My first post simply stated that UV or UV Cut has no bearing when the instrument is used as a spectroradiometer. But the OP stated too that for whatever reason, the software he has to use (CalMAN, whatever that is) will not work with a UV Cut i1Pro.
Go on, see if you can actually bring yourself to answer the simple question; "To successfully profile papers with OBAs in i1Profiler do you need to use a UV-cut spectrophotometer ?"
I’ve already addressed a simplistic question, rephrasing it in an equality simplistic way will not change that.
IF you really want to know about the advantages and disadvantages of buying a Spectrophotometer that cannot provide both UV Cut and no Cut, its been discussed to death (because it is a complex subject) on the ColorSync list. The most current discussion, this year is entitled Do I need to upgrade to i1Profiler? With respect to UV
One of the most salient points on the topic is from the current chair of the ICC (Tom Lianza) who wrote: The whole UV issue is like a wound that won't stop itching.
-
Got nothing to do with the OP. The OP has a an upgrade issue.
Thank you Andrew for bringing this point back. I'm a little sorry I started this whole thing. I just wanted to rant because I felt like X-Rite was ignoring a poor low end user of their product (which they really were not, I just felt like I got the short end of it).
CalMAN, BTW, is one of the best software packages out there for calibrating a HT display.
-
It should read, there is NO OBA compensation in i1P LIKE ProfileMaker Pro. PMP had it, PROFILER and i1P don’t.
Strange enough, I've got almost identical prints between PM5-made profiles with "Correct for Optical Brightener" on and i1Profiler ones. I compared them with 3 different highly-OBA-charged papers and used the same measure data to build the profiles. I can't proof i1Profiler has OBA compensation though. I'm just saying it behaves like that.
-
Strange enough, I've got almost identical prints between PM5-made profiles with "Correct for Optical Brightener" on and i1Profiler ones. I compared them with 3 different highly-OBA-charged papers and used the same measure data to build the profiles. I can't proof i1Profiler has OBA compensation though. I'm just saying it behaves like that.
Be sure to test this with the perceptual table where the compensation will (if necessary) kick in.
-
Got nothing to do with the OP. The OP has a an upgrade issue. My first post simply stated that UV or UV Cut has no bearing when the instrument is used as a spectroradiometer. But the OP stated too that for whatever reason, the software he has to use (CalMAN, whatever that is) will not work with a UV Cut i1Pro.
Please read the first post again. It specifically refers to a requirement for printer profiling with i1Pr;
"and without the software OBA compensation in it like i1Match has for the i1Pro (non UV-cut), I can't even use it to effectively profile papers with OBA"
I've said, like a few others here, don't worry it works fine.
You've said I haven't enough data to say that, but you do say that it works fine in your review, so what's going on ?
Does it deliver good profiles from papers containing OBAs with the supported instruments or not ?
(Print viewing shouldn't be an issue as that's compensated for within the profiling engine and there's only a small number of supported instruments.)
Are you saying there are some supported instruments that don't work correctly with i1Pr ? or that there are some papers that are unable to be profiled by i1Pr ? If the answer to the either of the last two is yes, you really need to add that to your review.
-
Are you saying there are some supported instruments that don't work correctly with i1Pr ? or that there are some papers that are unable to be profiled by i1Pr ? If the answer to the either of the last two is yes, you really need to add that to your review.
From the beginning of this thread I made and continue to make two points: 1. A UV Cut i1Pro can be used to profile a display just as a No-Cut i1Pro can be used to profile a display and 2. i1Profile does not have an OBC compensation algorithm as PMP had (and Match). This was the premise you made which is unsubstantiated and backed up by the simplistic notion that because you are happy with profiles from papers with presumably (and undefined) “high” OBA’s without UV Cut, the software must be doing something the engineers have told a group of us it isn’t doing.
The best possible solution for handling OBA is an instrument that can measure with and without a filter. I have two, a Spectrolino and an iSis. Even with the iSis, X-Rite has provided another OBA compensation tool with a target and software that one uses to visually adjust the resulting profile!
The next best possible solution is to have two devices with each option. I have two, an i1Pro with and an i1Pro without UV Cut filter.
The last option is one in which someone has to purchase a single instrument either with or without a filter. In such a case I’d recommend a device with a cut filter but THIS IS NOT IDEAL. That’s WHY manufacturers have instruments that can handle both modes of measurement!
I’ve seen cases where high OBA papers (high after viewing under a black light AND reading the bStar values around -6) produced better results in terms of a profile using a NO CUT filter! There is no simple answer here which you seem to desire. Sorry, its a very complex area of colorimetry. The light source of the instrument, how it may filter UV, the papers, the viewing booth or viewing illuminant ALL play a role in which mode of measurement will produce the ideal results.