Luminous Landscape Forum
Raw & Post Processing, Printing => Colour Management => Topic started by: smilem on April 16, 2012, 03:58:35 pm
-
Hi, why X-rite decided that for their new spectrophotometer i1Pro2 they shall use Tungsten light bulb (like old i1Pro) and UV Led. They should had used 2 Leds like in i1isis or like barbierielectronic SpectroPad. Now because the SpectroPad is portable and is ISO 13655-2009 measurement condition: M1 and additionally M0, M2 (UVCut) certified. I would have serious thinking what to buy if I was looking for a spectro.
The only advantages of i1Pro2 is you can measure light (with ambient head), make profiles for monitors. That is about it. But if longevity is your main concern than barbierielectronic SpectroPad is AFAIK better.
Perhaps somebody has some data how long the i1Pro tungsten lamp lasts, the i1Diagnostics shows total burning time in sec at the report it makes as (Lamp burning time). I heard that total lamp life is about ~40 hours (137855). And the (Reflectance drift test) is acceptable up to 0.2.
-
Longevity of i1pro1 tungsten light bulb never seemed to be a real problem.
I'm not so sure that LED is so durable - what if the LED spectra is not constant over time? Not sure if tungsten light bulb is better or not, but there may be just other factors to consider.
To my eye i1Pro2 has much more advantages - it's compatibile with i1pro1, so it works with virtually anything on the market. It has wavelenght calibration, temperature drift and noise compensation, easy cleaning, robust housing, convenient spot measurement...
-
Now because the SpectroPad is portable and is ISO 13655-2009 measurement condition: M1 and additionally M0, M2 (UVCut) certified.
So is the i1Pro 2.
-
The only advantages of i1Pro2 is you can measure light (with ambient head), make profiles for monitors. That is about it. But if longevity is your main concern than barbierielectronic SpectroPad is AFAIK better.
I'd say Integration with i1Profiler (and just about everything else) is a huge advantage. Getting the best possible profile quality is paramount for my business and nothing beats i1P. As far as longevity goes, my i1Pro Rev A units are still working fantastically well with an incredible amount of usage under their belts.
Seems to me, being able to do a M0 measurement in a single scan is an advantage and the consistency of this lightsource has been proven over time. The pricepoint of the i1Pro2 (vs SpectroPad) is nice and the form factor small and portable.
The hands free wifi nature of the SpectroPad is nice - I wish XRite would come up with an answer to that. Anyway, it's nice to have options! Tip of the hat to Barbieri for that.
-
Seems to me, being able to do a M0 measurement in a single scan is an advantage and the consistency of this lightsource has been proven over time.
Seems today, the only real advantage of M0 is for legacy uses. Might as well spend the extra time and get more useful data about the process with M1. I suspect this is just one reason why X-rite stuck with the tungsten Lightsource it’s been around a long time and most M0 devices used just that kind of illuminant.
-
I talked with several people involved with this decision that tell me the reasons are many:
1) Although they are great for flashlights and room lighting, LEDs are a total pain to implement in spectros. Consistency, spectral drift, and the sourcing of high quality LEDs make them extremely difficult to implement, especially in a handheld instrument. Too many downsides with essentially no upsides. The UV LED in the i1Pro2 is different in this respect.
2) consistency with legacy measurements and best possible inter-model-agreements
3) consistency of high quality M0 measurements over the lifespan of the device
4) the ability to take M0 measurements with a single scan
5) to meet the M0 spec (using anything but tungsten is not recommended by the spec)
6) to create a best of class instrument at an affordable price
7) the combination, flexibility and speed of this design gives them an excellent model moving forward
Their priority is building high precision instruments, and with that in mind, everything clearly points to dual measurement tungsten/UV LED combination.
-
1) Although they are great for flashlights and room lighting, LEDs are a total pain to implement in spectros. Consistency, spectral drift, and the sourcing of high quality LEDs make them extremely difficult to implement, especially in a handheld instrument. Too many downsides with essentially no upsides.
Then why i1isis uses LED light source, SpectroPad uses LED light source too. Is is because they are non portable and how does this relate to quality LEDS being outsourced?
I think if you use Hi quality leds then it makes no difference where you put them.
2) consistency with legacy measurements and best possible inter-model-agreements
X-rite XRGA should take care of this inter-model-agreements thing no matter what light source is being used.
How many hours is the X-rite Tungsten light bulb used in i1Pro/ i1Pro2 rated for then?
-
There is a difference between plain UV emitting LEDs and White LEDs, the last still show all kinds of artefacts you have to control. Some of that is discussed in a document that I have no link for, so do a google for: LpR10_Instrument_Systems_web.pdf
With all light sources you have to build up experience in the design of instruments and integrate feedback from practice. X-Rite probably finds it too early to abandon the well known tungsten light source for the Eye1 Pro range and integrated an UV LED to make M1 measurement conditions possible.There are other light sources that could deliver M1 measurements like the Xenon flash used in the old SpectroCam. I still think that a redesign of that instrument with modern electronics and more internal calibration would deliver a good instrument for the tasks requested. Bundle it with a display colorimeter in the US to avoid patent issues (if still active) and it could go for half the price of the X-Rite and Barbieri alternatives. No need to bundle it in the rest of the world. Someone should talk with Avantes. One Neo Spectrocam posted to Graeme Gill will deliver a driver for good software, there are still profile creators around that support it right away. The measurement software that was in the old SpectroCam bundle had some nice tools too.
Edit: is it a coincidence that an Alberto Barbieri was involved in the development of White LEDs and the use of White LEDS in Barbieri spectrometers?
--
Met vriendelijke groet, Ernst
340+ paper white spectral plots:
http://www.pigment-print.com/spectralplots/spectrumviz_1.htm
update april 2012: Harman by Hahnemühle, Innova IFA45 and more
-
I think if you use Hi quality leds then it makes no difference where you put them.
It obviously makes a difference - Konica-Minolta FD-7 with LEDs and M0-M1-M2 measurement is 6-7x more expansive than i1pro2.
-
It obviously makes a difference - Konica-Minolta FD-7 with LEDs and M0-M1-M2 measurement is 6-7x more expansive than i1pro2.
Define "expansive". And what real world differences would one see when making display or printer profiles? Do you have experience with the i1Pro2?
That's a very difference device for very different purposes at 7x the price. Hard to compare don't you think?
-
Define "expansive". And what real world differences would one see when making display or printer profiles? Do you have experience with the i1Pro2?
That's a very difference device for very different purposes at 7x the price. Hard to compare don't you think?
Ups - I meant "expensive" ;)
I belive that i1pro2 is kind of "more affordable FD-7", and I expect there will be no difference in real world use.
Similar case like X-Rite i1Display pro and basICColor DISCUS - similar design, similar real world results, different price.
-
Ups - I meant "expensive" ;)
I see! LOL! Yes, at that device is a spectrodensitometer, not even a spectrophotometer.
-
Yes, at that device is a spectrodensitometer, not even a spectrophotometer.
AFAIK it's a spectrophotometer - it's supported by basICColor catch and basICColor display, there's a scanning ruler, and optional ColorScout A3+ (XY table), you can save spectral measurements, create ICC profiles, calibrate the display and set viewing booth.
-
in addition to this topic.. im lately using a DTP70.
i love the small patches and the fastness. and use the abilitiy to change between UV or not for fogra profiles.
what advantage would i have with that new Ipro2 ?
-
in addition to this topic.. im lately using a DTP70. what advantage would i have with that new Ipro2 ?
The DTP70 is great. You can take i1Profiler patches and make targets with them in ColorPort that are formatted for your DTP70. Then measure in CP and drag and drop your measurements onto i1P for profiling. A great workflow.
The i1Pro's advantages are it's small size, the ability to take spot and ambient measurements, can measure super thick processes that hte 70 cannot, display calibration and OBC profiling. That said, DTP70 UVex measurements have unusually excellent gray balance to begin with, IMO. The DTP 70 is far faster for measuring printer targets so having one of each could be a nice professional solution for those that work with these devices daily.