reposting : BasiCColor Input 5... now with DCP

[AlterEgo]

http://www.basiccolor.de/basiccolor-input-5


from translate.google.com :

featured

    Creation DCP and ICC profiles
    Profiled scanners and digital cameras
    Multi-target profiling
    4 types of profiles: Art Repro / Archival; photography; Capture One; scanner
    Spot Color Correction
    Supports all common Scanner and Camera targets, eg IT8 / 7.1, IT8 / 7.2 HutchColor target ColorChecker, ColorChecker DC, Digital ColorChecker SG and basICColor dcam target +
    Ability to add individual color plates / targets

[Bip]

yes, but expensive
Dcamprof stay a good solution 

[AlterEgo]

yes, but expensive
Dcamprof stay a good solution 

so true (and dcamprof has a magnitude+ more capabilities)

[digitaldog]

http://www.basiccolor.de/basiccolor-input-5-en/
English, more details, download (14 day trial). See for yourself it's worth the $$.

[Bip]

Many improvements over version 3 I tried, Input 3 was well done, input 5 has certainly advanced and above all easy to use even for beginners.
There is now a manual in English (it lacked much to input 3, there was only one in German).
It remains to find the "right target", I personally think it is more useful to put $ purchase of a target with data measured with a spectro.

It's good that there is a company that is interested in this topic, maybe it will give ideas to Xrite (?)

[kers]

http://www.basiccolor.de/basiccolor-input-5-en/
English, more details, download (14 day trial). See for yourself it's worth the $$.

en also download the target...

http://www.basiccolor.de/basiccolor-dcam-target-en/

[tho_mas]

yes, it's pricy. On the other hand you are paying the sophisticated way target-colors get extrapolated (so the "guesswork" that you always deal with when creating camera profiles).
I've tried an early version of basICColor Input (back then in conjunction with Capture One 3-something). I was shocked how accurtate the profile worked for the respective lighting conditions (visually). On the other hand the profile was pretty unusable under different lighting conditions.
Now in version 5 with much more control and the option to "merge" the data of different targets it may very well be possible to also create good "generic" profiles (that work well enough under differing lighting conditions).
basICColor provides top notch stuff ... worth to take a look at it.

[AlterEgo]

the option to "merge" the data of different targets

this is not new... you can merge raw data and measurements from various shots for argyll utilities for icc/icm or dcamprof for both dcp and icc/icm - input files for them are just a text data - granted in a more manual way, but then you have more freedom as you do not need to feed full raw files, you can process raws with rawdigger and then separately manipulate with the output before feeding further down the pipeline...

[Alexey.Danilchenko]

so true (and dcamprof has a magnitude+ more capabilities)

It looks good but unlike dcamprof does not let you use sensor SSF for profile building and target simulation (dcamprof does  ).

[Iliah]

It looks good but unlike dcamprof does not let you use sensor SSF for profile building and target simulation (dcamprof does  ).

So far, I was able to generate quite usable profiles with Input 5 in a matter of seconds.

From photographer's perspective, things that I would like to see included:
- an option to enter the light spectrum (especially important for LED and HMI lights, and for profiling under "available daylight")
- an option to use flat field (shot of a uniform gray sheet covering the target)
- an option to use CGATS/XML data instead of an image file
- an option to create icc profiles from raw files, including those with linear gamma (just matrices)

[AlterEgo]

So far, I was able to generate quite usable profiles with Input 5 in a matter of seconds.

but when somebody spends a lot of time just properly shooting a target and checking that it was in fact shot OK does "matter of seconds" actually matter ?

and how BasiCColor can possible make a non usable matrix (for example DCP from cc24/passport) profile from a usable target shot ?

[Iliah]

> when somebody spends a lot of time just properly shooting a target and checking that it was in fact shot OK

Not sure how do you mean. Shooting targets takes me couple of minutes.

[AlterEgo]

Shooting targets takes me couple of minutes.

quite dis·in·gen·u·ous, Iliah... some people can assemble Rubik's cube under 10 sec.

[Iliah]

quite dis·in·gen·u·ous, Iliah... some people can assemble Rubik's cube under 10 sec.

I can disassemble it in less than 10 secs

If the manual includes good shooting instructions and flat field is implemented, shooting a target does not take time for anyone.

Few things:
- competition is good, does not matter if it is between a free product and an expensive product
- user feedback is essential
- there will be always some photographers who prefer drag'n'drop profiling
- there will be always internal standards and recommended software policies.

[Redcrown]

Got the trial. Generated several profiles. Compared then to my DNGPE profiles.

I just don't get it. My DNGPE profiles win every comparison. Of course that's due to my personal taste and analysis and I understand YMMV. Maybe my tastes or analytical skills are deficient.

So, somebody please show me the benefits. Show a side-by-side comparison. Point out some details that you think are better and tell why you think they are better. Hue? Saturation? Smooth gradients? Dynamic range? What do you find superior in BasicColor?

I'm not concerned with ease-of-use or speed, just results.

[AlterEgo]

So, somebody please show me the benefits.

nope

Point out some details that you think are better and tell why you think they are better. Hue? Saturation? Smooth gradients? Dynamic range? What do you find superior in BasicColor?

BasicColor Input 5 makes matrix DCP profiles from your target (was it passport ?)... with ProfileToneCurve for "art repro" type as they call it (to compensate the hidden deeds of ACR/LR inside the code... however they do not supply the recipe for ACR/LR UI parameters - like Process 2010/2012, etc and they shall I believe list that) or pure matrix for "non repro"...

it makes DCP profiles with color transform stored in CM* tags, not CM* (for WB related calculations) + FM* (for actual transform), it does not allow you to use a precise baseline exposure compensation value (unless you mod profile manually) and you can't (unless again you do it manually with other tools) change/inject the ProfileToneCurve...

nobody seriously pointed the advantage to use it (we can't count fancy UI as an advantage - but granted grid placement looks quite slick UI wise when I tested with my raws, I usually illuminate target orthog. to the target and then camera is @ 45 degrees to the target... so how grid can placement can work matters - I wish rawdigger can handle such angles better )

I think Iliah simply likes BasiCColor for its Discus wundermeter and some other, really useful, software that they make...

PS: and 500 Eu ? for that amount they actually shall include the physical DCam+ target and lifetime license to the Input.

[Iliah]

> My DNGPE profiles win every comparison.

Have you run dE tests on a separate target shot?

My point is - if you have some time, provide basICColor with feedback.

[Bip]

It looks good but unlike dcamprof does not let you use sensor SSF for profile building and target simulation (dcamprof does  ).

Yes, only I know, Decamprof generates a profile from a SSF

[Bip]

PS: and 500 Eu ? for that amount they actually shall include the physical DCam+ target and lifetime license to the Input.

For input 5 (soft) the price is  € 500,  for the target( Dcam target+* ) must be added € 416 

With the Dcam target +, you only have a measuring lab and spectral datas for a lot of target ( a "target group"  I don't know, if if I am understandably  ), I understood it

[Chris G]

So, somebody please show me the benefits. Show a side-by-side comparison. Point out some details that you think are better and tell why you think they are better. Hue? Saturation? Smooth gradients? Dynamic range? What do you find superior in BasicColor?

I did a little online research and found some very interesting results when compared Input 5 to the previous version Input 3.
You will find this comparison test here:http://couleureticc.com/wp/2016/04/19/faut-il-passer-a-basiccolor-input-5/