Luminous Landscape Forum
Raw & Post Processing, Printing => Colour Management => Topic started by: Scott Martin on February 24, 2012, 09:44:28 am
-
For those of you that make QTR grayscale profiles and linearization curves, I just released an article on using XRite's free ColorPort utility (instead of Measuretool) for the 21 and 51 step grayscale measurements. I have the needed ColorPort files and a customized grayscale profiling target on my downloads page. Hopefully this ease this transition and allow people to ditch MeaureTool forever.
http://www.on-sight.com/2012/02/22/using-colorport-for-qtr-grayscale-and-alt-process-measurement-and-profiling/
Hope this is useful.
-
this is great. QTR profiling is such a unique and useful tool, amazing only Roy has concieved of and made available this resource. This kind of updating for current tools helps keep it alive... Thanks,
TYler
-
Hopefully this ease this transition and allow people to ditch MeaureTool forever.
"i1Profiler reads a sheet at least 25% faster, but we saw all too frequent (4 times out of 322 measurements or 1.3%) instances where the data were corrupted by mixing of color values between adjacent patches. Our software has detected this a grand total of 3 times out of over 12628 measurements (0.02%) made using MeasureTool."
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=54083.msg441539#msg441539
I rather use measuretool that is more reliable.
Correct me is I'm wrong but Xrite has not released any reliable softwre since merging with Gretagmacbeth, and they woke up after 5 years or so inventing XRGA when they realised that 2 different standards were used by the devices sold under Xrite name, come on were were you 5 years?
-
If you're having measurement accuracy issues in i1Profiler you might want to play around with the patch size and parameters. You didn't mention what device you're using, but there are several things worth exploring. Improving these algorithms for measurement accuracy is something that's being closely looked at right now and I suspect you'll see improvements in the near future. I1Profiler is a whole new consolidated platform built on modern code that has come out since the GMB merger. The EyeOneDisplayPro device is an excellent new device. I can only say so much here but rest assured they aren't sitting on their hands. I too was frustrated with the development lull that existed for a few years but am glad too see things on track with developing continuing to move forward at a decent rate.
But this thread isn't about i1Profiler at all. In fact the current version of i1P can't read grayscale targets at all. This thread is about reading the 21 and 51 step grayscale targets in Colorport. I'd guess that 95% of the people doing this today are using an i1Pro using spot measurements. Considering that Measuretool is discontinued, doesn't work on some systems, and that ColorPort is so nice and simple, I think people will find ColorPort to be a nice, modern solution for taking these measurements that won't result in any less accuracy whatsoever. Also, the custom targets that I've made utilize smart patch sizes and spaces between patches for increased measurement accuracy. Hope it helps!
-
Correct me is I'm wrong but Xrite has not released any reliable softwre since merging with.... come on were were you 5 years?
It might not be obvious to most users but there is some pretty amazing "under the hood" technology in i1P that took a long time to develop and there's nothing else like it in the industry. It's just a v1.2 product with the common shortcomings of a new product. It's also priced far below PMP and MP. I have a demanding color management business and it killed me to wait so long, but I now use it daily under challenging conditions. I can't use it for 100% of my work but look forward to the day when I can - and I think that day will come in the fairly near future.
-
The comment above about measurement quality is not mine it is from another thread I gave you the link.
Sure the i1Profiler is nice but some shortcomings are really killing it like the
Better Dmax with Profilemaker 5 than i1Profiler
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=61006.0
The conversions back and forth between i1Profiler modules to trick it to read CGATS data are simply amazing.
Sure I like the BW neutralizations and that my proofs pass certification at expense of some Dmax but other than that Profilemaker is way better if you have adjustable RIP and stable output.
Profilemaker - better for photographers
I1Profiler - better for proofs that must be within tolerance
ColorPort - not bad considering it is free, but very limited user interface.
These shortcomings killed the Colorport for me:
- Only after measuring I have the option to export my data.
- Not able to generate a custom target and instantly save CGATS data. (you must measure and then you get reference and sample data as one file). This kills the Colorport as the only easy and free utility to make custom targets.
-
Are you easily killed? :-] To be frank, it sounds like you're looking for faults. Still, this thread has absolutely nothing to do with i1Profiler.
-
Are you easily killed? :-] To be frank, it sounds like you're looking for faults. Still, this thread has absolutely nothing to do with i1Profiler.
I'm not looking for faults the so called "faults" or should I say shortcomings are obvious when one tries the software. The thread is about colorport so lets talk about it.
I like that it is free and unlike measuretool it allows to add custom patches to the target move them around and so on.
But let me ask you how to you save you custom targets after making them?
I find it ugly to have to Print - > measure them -> get cgats file, then edit the file and remove sample data leave only reference.
I find it more quick to make targets in excell or colorlab free app from gretagmacbeth.
Maybe I'm doing it wrong please share your workflow with colorport.
-
I hit "Save Target" when I'm done designing a new target. This saves a TIFF target at the location of your choice and it saves the reference data as an XML file (a modern day forward thinking format) in the ColorPort Resources folder. That way it shows up under "Measure Target" and you can start measuring right away. No CGATS file needed or wanted for this workflow.
As for as grayscale QTR profiling goes, I've made the needed XML files available so that people can easily install them and start measuring grayscale targets. If you have any questions about *that* workflow I'd love to entertain them. For for those few geeks wanting to measure grayscale targets, I think they'll find ColorPort to be delightfully simple and capable, especially with the instructions that I've carefully laid out in the article I've linked to. If they have trouble doing so I'd love to hear about it.
-
Why the XML "(a modern day forward thinking format)" is so good?
AFAIK it is very hard to edit, unless you have purchased something like oxygenxml editor.
Storing simple numbers in a hard editable format is not good nor user friendly.
I know the xml workflow, I was refering to CGATS files that are still industry standard (would not say so about xml, definitely not XRGA) but how do you average the data if xml is so great? What do you use, if X-rite is serious about it why i1profiler, or colorport does not have averaging utility of some sort? It's been quite a while from i1profiler release they could have wrote the average utility from scratch like adobe did with target print utility.
Clearly xrite is busy with something else. They could have improved the help file for i1profiler, I mean wrote normal help file.
-
Let's not confuse the separate rolls of the generated targets (saved as XML in CP and TXF in i1P) and *patch sets*. Patch sets are the files that you'd like to reorder, add/subtract from, play with in a spreadsheet etc and you can do that prior to making a CP target XML.
I was refering to CGATS files that are still industry standard
It's one standard. There are many standards. One of the challenges with CGATS is that there are so many different versions of it so it's difficult to keep up or stay compliant with one version or the other. XRGA is another excellent and very needed standard and CGATS supports embedding XRGA encoded measurements.
It's worth noting that CP supports saving your measurements in a variety of formats, including CGATS. The process I've outlined in the article I mentioned in the OP (did you read it?) talks about saving measurements in a particular CGATS format that QRT-Create-ICC can understand.
but how do you average the data if xml is so great?
Measurement data is never saved as XML. CP is a basic tool for creating targets and measuring them. i1P is the tool for averaging, and you can do so from CGATS files saved out of CP. Measure first in CP then average in i1P.
If you don't mind me saying, it's sounds like you're clinging to the old tools, struggling to understand all the new formats and are kinda freaked out by all the changes the industry is undergoing. Sounds like you've got a lot of emotion built up in all of this. Change is good but can be scary of course. The new tools offer lots of benefits to some users but aren't as mature and refined as the old tools. We are in a transition period. I believe we will soon be able to abandon the old tools as the new tools acquire more functionality and become more complete. MeasureTool won't even run on Mac OS 10.6.8 and higher so making the QTR targets available in ColorPort along with an article on using it would help ease this transition, at least for the niche grayscale profiling community.
-
(http://www.newstarspub.info/avatar1.jpg)I rather use measuretool that is more reliable.
It's not any more reliable for the process I've outlined in the OP - grayscale target measurement! There is no advantage to MT at all. And Mac users need an alternative to MP since it won't even launch on 10.6.8 and newer.
-
Onsight, thanks for doing this. You will likely be interested in this (http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=62900.msg508231#msg508231) post. There are a few other things to contend with when making and using QTR profiles with OS-X.
BTW, Measuretool works fine on 10.6.8. It's 10.7.x that doesn't support PowerPC applications. Colorlab was another great little utility for generating test charts - it too is PPC.
Note, if it were me I would order the patches in your profiling chart so as to go from dark-light-dark.
EDIT: the Colorport installer doesn't seem to work. "Install" is greyed out.
Ok this is weird. If I have the install location as my main hard disk (on which my applications are installed) it says the install requires no extra space and "install" is greyed out. If I change to another drive "install" is available and it requires 320MB of space but the application doesn't work of I install there. I have EyeOne Match, iProfiler installed and MeasureTool installed but that's it from the Gretag/X-Rite family.
Ver 2.0.1 installs just fine
-
Onsight, thanks for doing this. You will likely be interested in this (http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=62900.msg508231#msg508231) post. There are a few other things to contend with when making and using QTR profiles with OS-X.
Yes, I'm aware of the issues you've discussed in that thread. For the article above I decided to keep it simple and not discuss all the many details of profiling alt-proceses, including ABW mode. I'll working on a more lengthy article that will go into these details in greater length.
BTW, Measuretool works fine on 10.6.8. It's 10.7.x that doesn't support PowerPC applications.
MeasureTool stopped working on my 10.6.8. machines for reasons separate than Rosetta. In addition, the latest Security Update for 10.6.8 kills Rosetta completely. So MeasureTool is dead on 10.6.8 and newer.
Colorlab was another great little utility for generating test charts - it too is PPC.
I know! It's one of the few utilities I will hate to give up...
EDIT: the Colorport installer doesn't seem to work. "Install" is greyed out.... Ver 2.0.1 installs just fine
I talk with the product manager and he admits that there is a bug with the current installer that sometimes causes the install button to go gray. I've given him a list of bugs to look at - hopefully we'll see an update soon.
-
In addition, the latest Security Update for 10.6.8 kills Rosetta completely. So MeasureTool is dead on 10.6.8 and newer.
No this was corrected swiftly by Apple
I talk with the product manager and he admits that there is a bug with the current installer that sometimes causes the install button to go gray. I've given him a list of bugs to look at - hopefully we'll see an update soon.
Thanks. I am playing with the previous version. A little annoying (for my basic use) that it's moved away from a simple .txt based system. It was so easy to create a .txt file and open it in Colorlab and play from there (randomizing, adding gaps etc).
How did you force it to 3x17 for the 51 step wedge?
(BTW your Alt-Process test chart is tagged dot gain 20)
-
this was corrected swiftly by Apple
I see! Good to know.
It was so easy to create a .txt file and open it in Colorlab and play from there (randomizing, adding gaps etc).
It sure was.
How did you force it to 3x17 for the 51 step wedge?
You can make you own targets in Photoshop however you like, or modify them for ease of use. You can see I've done a bit of that. The 21 step is my primary focus for alt-processes and I've extended it a bit to make it easier for that type of printmaker. Not only is it important to get the exposure and development times just right for the highlights and shadows, there are such irregularities that a larger sampling area was needed.
(BTW your Alt-Process test chart is tagged dot gain 20)
Yes, it's just assigned (not converted) and can be reassigned if need be. More on that later.
-
You can make you own targets in Photoshop however you like, or modify them for ease of use.
But don't the TIF and .xml files need to "match"? (x rows and y observations per row)
I also find it a bit weird that it lays out the patches right-to-left and that you have to select landscape in order to get a conventional portrait layout of the chart. Weird program.
-
But don't the TIF and .xml files need to "match"? (x rows and y observations per row)
The values need to match yes, and the order one needs to measure my 51 step target may not be obvious I admit.
I also find it a bit weird that it lays out the patches right-to-left and that you have to select landscape in order to get a conventional portrait layout of the chart. Weird program.
I agree but it's a small thing in the bigger picture. I actually like to position the target vertically when taking spot measurements with the 1Pro.
-
Ok I am struggling with this little Colorport and likely because I never work in CMYK - with Colorlab I could just work with K.
In "Create Target" I define a 51 patch set with K varying 0-100 (C, M, Y all set to 0). I want it to be read by an i1Pro (which defines a minimum patch size). I select Landscape to constrain the width as ultimately I want to print it portrait and have it fit on A4 (without resizing in PS because presumably there is some sense to the minimum patch size 8x10mm). I add a row separator the same width as the default column separator. Annoyingly, because of the other guff it adds, I have to muck around with paper size and margins to trick it into setting this up as a 3x17 matrix but whatever - at least I get a tif and xml file that "match". I assume I have to read this chart (when it's reoriented to portrait and edges trimmed to fit A4) from right to left or does it not matter which way it's read?
My main problem is with the generated chart, a CMYK document (untagged). How do I get this to an untagged greyscale document without screwing up all the K values?
-
I think I can now answer my own question re converting the chart. Delete the C, M, Y channels; Image->Mode->greyscale; Edit->Assign Profile->Don't Color Manage This Document.
-
I think there are some issues to be consider here if this is to be used with QTR. First, Colorport does not output a value for K. What this means is that, unless the user wants to go through some manipulation of the data exported by Colorport, the test chart patches MUST be in order AND there must be no anomalies in the L* output. QTR Create ICC uses the GRAY value from MeasureTool's output to sort the patch data and check for anomalies. Without it, the data is simply sorted and any anomaly gets translated into a number of the patches being shuffled. So this isn't "plug 'n play".
If you are chatting with the developer, the fact that Colorport requires scans from right to left is really annoying. One can hop around it by creating a chart with patch values one way and then an xml file with the patches done so as to be read the other way but this is a PITA. But you still have the issue of the initial 100% border patches. I noticed you'd dropped these off. I had read errors if these weren't there so not sure how you get it to work without them.
UPDATE: checking Device Values (as well as Lab) provides a column for sorting by QTR Create ICC. This seems to work well and QTR does its order cross-check appropriately. So it's "plug and play" if this is done. I don't think checking XYZ is necessary.
Thanks Scott!
I've made a target and related .xml file for the previous QTR-51-random target. Roy recommends, however, using the 21x4 random step target. I've made a target and .xml file for this as well. If people are interested I can make these available.
-
Perhaps you can help me understand how can only targets built with PM5 for A4 paper fit perfectly and all other targets like from i1Profiler, Colorport, bassiccolor and others do not?
I prefer my customers not need the "fit to page" checkbox to tinker with target dimensions and aspect rations (especially for isis). With PM5 that is easy, with colorport you can't even resize the target to correct dpi, and resolution because it goes crazy (yes I tried the nearest neighbor resize).
-
Im not sure what your issue is. In Colorport, you select what measurement device you are going to use - this defines the minimum patch size in mm - color space, then the patches you want (either your own or one of the presets) and then the paper dimensions, orientation and margins. If minimum patch size is defined, and presumably for good reason, then apart from adjusting margins on A4 paper the only variable is how many rows/sheets you need. Is that a big deal?
-
BTW I received a reply from X-Rite re the latest version for Mac's installer.
"Thank you for your message. You are right. There is an issue with the installer itself. There is a workaround to install the software: Please download the installer and open the context menu on the file (right click or ctrl+click). Then select “show content”. Then go to “Contents > Packages” and start the installation by using the file “colorport20setup”. Installation should now work as expected."
-
Im not sure what your issue is. In Colorport, you select what measurement device you are going to use - this defines the minimum patch size in mm - color space, then the patches you want (either your own or one of the presets) and then the paper dimensions, orientation and margins. If minimum patch size is defined, and presumably for good reason, then apart from adjusting margins on A4 paper the only variable is how many rows/sheets you need. Is that a big deal?
My problem is that for isis for example with default settings the only target that fits in A4 sheet without borderless mode is PM5 generated targets. All other software can't squeeze the same amount of patches without forcing you to use borderless mode for printing for target to fit into A4 sheet.
No software provides means of measuring the exact printed target dimensions, and that is PITA.
I looked at various targets in PS:
For example PM5 targets are 822px x 1190px at 101.6dpi
basiccolor targets are 2480px x 3508px at 300dpi
colorport targets are 1680px x 2344px at 80dpi
Now if you know anything about image resizing you know it's near impossible to make a target like colorport to be exact dimensions of PM5 target, that is 822x1190px at 101.6dpi (one of the problems being photoshop has a linked document size and pixel dimensions, the other being that from size of 2x larger even with nearest neighbor resize I get distorted patches.)
In other words what I'm trying to say that gretagmacbeth was clever enough to make PM5 generate targets that match the
1. target dimensions in pixels
2. document size
3. resolution
-
My problem is that for isis for example with default settings the only target that fits in A4 sheet without borderless mode is PM5 generated targets. All other software can't squeeze the same amount of patches without forcing you to use borderless mode for printing for target to fit into A4 sheet.
[snip]
In other words what I'm trying to say that gretagmacbeth was clever enough to make PM5 generate targets that match the
1. target dimensions in pixels
2. document size
3. resolution
Those are the same problems we have with ColorPort. Usually impossible to reuse an older target, create one with the necessary dimensions, or optimize the patch layout. Making matters worse is ColorPort's refusal to use reference files either from legacy X-Rite applications or i1Profiler. Instead, it locks you into yet another test chart file format.
If you fiddle about enough with the settings, i1Profiler can usually be coerced into making reasonably sized and optimized targets. The best chart creation tool remains GMB's old ColorLab utility.
-
My problem is that for isis for example with default settings the only target that fits in A4 sheet without borderless mode is PM5 generated targets.
I don't understand. I can get a whole bunch of patches on an A4 target. Your using i1Profiler to generate your profiles right? If so, you can import i1P's patches into ColorPort and make your target. You're not restricted to the patch set preset in the list.
No software provides means of measuring the exact printed target dimensions, and that is PITA.
So instead of making a new target you're wanting another application to measure an existing target? CP isn't designed for that. Expect another solution for this soon.
Now if you know anything about image resizing you know it's near impossible to make a target like colorport to be exact dimensions of PM5 target,...
Why does your CP target need to be the same resolution as a PM5 target?
In other words what I'm trying to say that gretagmacbeth was clever enough to make PM5 generate targets that match the
1. target dimensions in pixels
2. document size
3. resolution
Right, CP and i1P both force the resolution and deliver final dimensions that are slightly smaller than what you requested. This just recently came up in an XRite discussion. While it's a little annoying at first, IMO it's not a deal breaker. I personally open up every target I make in Photoshop and extend the canvas size, add my own text, change the resolution if need be, etc.
-
Perhaps you can help me understand how can only targets built with PM5 for A4 paper fit perfectly and all other targets like from i1Profiler, Colorport, bassiccolor and others do not? I prefer my customers not need the "fit to page" checkbox to tinker with target dimensions and aspect rations (especially for isis).
Yep, just extend the canvas size in Photoshop afterwards...
-
Those are the same problems we have with ColorPort. Usually impossible to reuse an older target, or optimize the patch layout. Making matters worse is ColorPort's refusal to use reference files either from legacy X-Rite applications or i1Profiler. Instead, it locks you into yet another test chart file format.
CP isn't designed for these things. Hold your breath on these concepts. CP is really great for loading and measuring the QTR gray targets as per the OP :-]
The best chart creation tool remains GMB's old ColorLab utility.
Patch set modification and target generation are two different things, IMO. ColorLab was pretty decent for patch set modification and ColorPort is quite nice for target generation. As we move forward, I think i1P's patch set generator is paramount and CP is a pretty decent free utility for geeks that want to customize targets. Patch set modification and reordering will likely be left to spreadsheets and cut and paste text editing I suspect, and only for said geeks.
-
FWIW, XRite has upgraded ColorPort to 2.0.5 to address some of the issues previously discussed and to support the new i1Pro2 device. One can get it here:
http://www.xrite.com/product_overview.aspx?ID=719&Action=support&SoftwareID=1168