Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5]   Go Down

Author Topic: FYI - i1Studio - the ColorMunki Photo update  (Read 23102 times)

Doug Gray

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2197
Re: FYI - i1Studio - the ColorMunki Photo update
« Reply #80 on: November 09, 2017, 12:44:42 pm »

Please no more responses on the subject of Argyll v I1Profiler on this thread. It's a diversion from the thread topic and really should be in a thread of its own. I'll start a new thread for comments and exploration.

Unfortunately, I don't have a Munki or I would be testing that as well. Since it, like the ISiS, uses a "white" led and intrinsically produces more stable, M2 measurements compared to tungsten lamps, it wouldn't surprise me at all if it doesn't produce excellent B&W prints. Perhaps someone with one can run comparisons.
Logged

keithcooper

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 414
    • Northlight Images
Re: FYI - i1Studio - the ColorMunki Photo update
« Reply #81 on: November 09, 2017, 01:12:12 pm »

Please no more responses on the subject of Argyll v I1Profiler on this thread. It's a diversion from the thread topic and really should be in a thread of its own. I'll start a new thread for comments and exploration.

Unfortunately, I don't have a Munki or I would be testing that as well. Since it, like the ISiS, uses a "white" led and intrinsically produces more stable, M2 measurements compared to tungsten lamps, it wouldn't surprise me at all if it doesn't produce excellent B&W prints. Perhaps someone with one can run comparisons.
Tricky, in that the i1Studio software doesn't allow for the saving of any measurements... :-(
Logged

Doug Gray

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2197
Re: FYI - i1Studio - the ColorMunki Photo update
« Reply #82 on: November 09, 2017, 01:18:14 pm »

Tricky, in that the i1Studio software doesn't allow for the saving of any measurements... :-(
True, major PITA. However I think Argyll can measure color values with a Munki so there is a way if tedious.  :'(
Logged

digitaldog

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 20630
  • Andrew Rodney
    • http://www.digitaldog.net/
Re: FYI - i1Studio - the ColorMunki Photo update
« Reply #83 on: November 09, 2017, 01:58:47 pm »

Look what happens when you drag and drop i1Studio profiles into i1Profiler and you're told a tale of two X-rite's:
Logged
http://www.digitaldog.net/
Author "Color Management for Photographers".

Doug Gray

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2197
Re: FYI - i1Studio - the ColorMunki Photo update
« Reply #84 on: November 09, 2017, 02:25:36 pm »

Look what happens when you drag and drop i1Studio profiles into i1Profiler and you're told a tale of two X-rite's:
;D

You might try Patchtool which has an option to extract patch profile and spectral info if it's stored in a profile. I'm guess it isn't but one never knows.
Logged

Damon Lynch

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 330
    • http://www.damonlynch.net
Re: FYI - i1Studio - the ColorMunki Photo update
« Reply #85 on: November 09, 2017, 03:20:49 pm »

Thanks although I expect my lack of charts/graphs/more charts/analysis won't go down well in some quarters, but then it's not written for the gurus ;-) :-)

I'm probably in the broad audience you were writing for in this instance. I don't need charts and graphs. But what I do need is the bigger picture stuff, which you give.

For instance, I really appreciated this observation: "remember that the best looking image on a screen does not always equate with the best looking print." I've been (re)learning that the hard way with recent print that includes a heavily saturated red girl's coat, combined with the girl and her friend having red cheeks from the cold (I'll attach it here to demonstrate what I'm talking about). Another version of the attached image that looks fantastic on my screen produced a terrible print on my Canon Pro 1000, probably because the reds are out of the printer's gamut (or at 6 months past their optimal use-by-date, my printer's original inks are breaking down!). To solve the problem of the red coat, I had to open the image in Canon's DPP (which I rarely do) and use the Faithful picture style, because anything else looks far too saturated for print. I then blended that coat with the LR / ACR rendering of the rest of the image in PS. I'm still not that happy with print. The transitions between reds in the coat are not as smooth as I'd like, and the girl's faces lack the liveliness and color differentiation in the print that is easily seen on screen.

I don't know that a custom profile of my printer (or fresher inks) would be of any help for this print. Maybe a custom profile would help. Or maybe it's more a matter of me learning how to better prepare an image for print. Anyway that point is that it's precisely because I don't know that articles of your kind are so helpful  ;)

« Last Edit: November 09, 2017, 03:36:40 pm by Damon Lynch »
Logged

Mark D Segal

  • Contributor
  • Sr. Member
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 12512
    • http://www.markdsegal.com
Re: FYI - i1Studio - the ColorMunki Photo update
« Reply #86 on: November 10, 2017, 04:08:56 am »

Preliminary results using Epson 9800 with Costco Glossy and M2 (uV cut) measurements.

I made an I1Profiler profile using defaults except for selecting V2 instead of V4 and max quality for the LUTS. This creates LUTs with 37 grid points. I also made 3 Argyll profiles. The default LUTs, "high" and "ultra." These have 17, 33, and 45 grid points respectively. Note that "ultra" is strongly discouraged. It's also very slow.

Argyll has numerous options for determining Perceptual and Saturation intent tables. The default, where no Perceptual mapping is selected, is to create identical tables to Colorimetric. I have not explored the Perceptual gamut options.

All profiles were correctly generated and didn't map paper black point to L=0. That is they did not incorporate BPC which, for instance, the canned profiles that came with my 9800 did.

All Argyll profiles produced better neutral tone tracking than the I1Profiler profile. However, the I1Profiler produced the lowest overall error for the 426 Lab patches which broadly cover the printer's gamut.

Ave dE00 for the 426 Lab patches
  Argyll -qm: 0.6709
  Argyll -qh: 0.5041
  Argyll -qu: 0.5420
  I1Profiler HighQual: 0.4815

Ave dE00 for the 37 neutral patches from L=5 to 95 in steps of 2.5
  Argyll -qm: 0.6309
  Argyll -qh: 0.4653
  Argyll -qu: 0.4811
  I1Profiler HighQual: 0.6708

Much of these errors, albeit small, are due to the 9800 printer itself. The i1iSiS is an exceptionally consistent instrument that contributes negligibly to the variance but the printer, and to a lesser degree the paper are larger intrinsic sources of error. Both programs have options, the Argyll one better described, to accommodate these errors but I have just used the defaults for this comparison.

It would appear the defaults result in better use of the additional neutral patches for the Argyll program while the I1Profiler's are better matched to the overall grid spacing.

I briefly looked at how OOG colors were mapped to the gamut surface for the two programs. They are radically different. Particularly at lower L* values. However, it isn't clear which would be preferable. There are likely big differences in how things like synthetic Grainger images would print. Significant OOG issues should always be handled by softproofing in any case.

One other oddity is that the L* tracking at low levels of L* (5 to 15) is significantly better (smoother) with the I1Profiler than Argyll. Even so, the Argyll L* tracking over the entire L* range more than made up, yielding significantly better neutral tracking.

Attached are the tif file that is i1iSiS ready and the CGATS file needed to initialize the chart reader. The CGATS file is not a target file, just a filler to initialize the patch locations. For those interested the RGB values are high resolution ProPhoto and are what produces the LAB values in the tiff image. Setup should be US letter Profile using i1iSiS defaults. The tif file should be printed just as any ordinary image using Photoshop manages color using Abs. Col., and selecting the profile/printer combo to test the accuracy of color reproduction.

Very useful Doug. Two observations: dE (76, and '00 all the more so) differences of l more or less on any axis should be imperceptible. Problems with comparisons start with patch measurements themselves. The fact is that variances occur when you measure the same patch with the same instrument on different spots of the patch, and those differences can exceed the dE differences you are reporting, so the question becomes one of which dE values are significant. It is best to ignore small differences as they are likely meaningless for most practical purposes.
Logged
Mark D Segal (formerly MarkDS)
Author: "Scanning Workflows with SilverFast 8....."

daicehawk

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 88
Re: FYI - i1Studio - the ColorMunki Photo update
« Reply #87 on: November 10, 2017, 09:07:03 am »

I'm probably in the broad audience you were writing for in this instance. I don't need charts and graphs. But what I do need is the bigger picture stuff, which you give.

For instance, I really appreciated this observation: "remember that the best looking image on a screen does not always equate with the best looking print." I've been (re)learning that the hard way with recent print that includes a heavily saturated red girl's coat, combined with the girl and her friend having red cheeks from the cold (I'll attach it here to demonstrate what I'm talking about). Another version of the attached image that looks fantastic on my screen produced a terrible print on my Canon Pro 1000, probably because the reds are out of the printer's gamut (or at 6 months past their optimal use-by-date, my printer's original inks are breaking down!). To solve the problem of the red coat, I had to open the image in Canon's DPP (which I rarely do) and use the Faithful picture style, because anything else looks far too saturated for print. I then blended that coat with the LR / ACR rendering of the rest of the image in PS. I'm still not that happy with print. The transitions between reds in the coat are not as smooth as I'd like, and the girl's faces lack the liveliness and color differentiation in the print that is easily seen on screen.

I don't know that a custom profile of my printer (or fresher inks) would be of any help for this print. Maybe a custom profile would help. Or maybe it's more a matter of me learning how to better prepare an image for print. Anyway that point is that it's precisely because I don't know that articles of your kind are so helpful  ;)
I see the usual magenta reds rendering. If you have any color target you can see for yourself. DDP and standard Adobe profiles do this. I bet the girl's coat was more scarlet.
Logged

digitaldog

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 20630
  • Andrew Rodney
    • http://www.digitaldog.net/
Re: FYI - i1Studio - the ColorMunki Photo update
« Reply #88 on: November 10, 2017, 10:24:51 am »

You might try Patchtool which has an option to extract patch profile and spectral info if it's stored in a profile. I'm guess it isn't but one never knows.
The data IS in the i1studio profile! What's so sad is it is not consistent in how X-rite must write the data in the i1P profiles so they two products don't work in tandem as they should and as they would if GMB were controlling this software design and execution.
Come on; how can X-rite build a new software host and not make it compatible internally such it's profiles are recognized in the high end product? It's just sloppy or a desire to lock the customer out of functionality they had.
Logged
http://www.digitaldog.net/
Author "Color Management for Photographers".

Doug Gray

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2197
Re: FYI - i1Studio - the ColorMunki Photo update
« Reply #89 on: November 10, 2017, 11:47:48 am »

Very useful Doug. Two observations: dE (76, and '00 all the more so) differences of l more or less on any axis should be imperceptible. Problems with comparisons start with patch measurements themselves. The fact is that variances occur when you measure the same patch with the same instrument on different spots of the patch, and those differences can exceed the dE differences you are reporting, so the question becomes one of which dE values are significant. It is best to ignore small differences as they are likely meaningless for most practical purposes.

Hi Mark,

Note that the stats quoted are averages. All would be great if all the colors were printed at, or even within a factor of 2 of the averages.  I posted histograms of the dE00 Lab crosscheck on the thread I started specifically to look at the differences between Argyll an I1P. Still not bad, Turns out 99% are 1 dE00 or less. Thus, it's unlikely any observable differences in the print output could be seen on random, in gamut images. Also, there is a post exploring the large differences in out of gamut mapping differences between the two. Check out the posts on that thread for much more detail than the preliminary results I posted here.

Further, I did reverse lookup on the profile target patchset for the two products. The results indicate I1P default does more less smoothing in modeling the data than Argyll. This has both costs and benefits as I will discuss more on that thread. I will be posting that data in that thread after I explore the impact of changing the "smooth" slider in I1P.

« Last Edit: November 10, 2017, 11:58:12 am by Doug Gray »
Logged

Doug Gray

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2197
Re: FYI - i1Studio - the ColorMunki Photo update
« Reply #90 on: November 10, 2017, 11:50:11 am »

The data IS in the i1studio profile! What's so sad is it is not consistent in how X-rite must write the data in the i1P profiles so they two products don't work in tandem as they should and as they would if GMB were controlling this software design and execution.
Come on; how can X-rite build a new software host and not make it compatible internally such it's profiles are recognized in the high end product? It's just sloppy or a desire to lock the customer out of functionality they had.
Cool! At least the data is recoverable. Patchtool is a great product from a lot of perspectives and worth the relatively small cost. It would be nice if there was a free program to extract that data but I'm not aware of any.
Logged

keithcooper

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 414
    • Northlight Images
Re: FYI - i1Studio - the ColorMunki Photo update
« Reply #91 on: November 10, 2017, 12:23:07 pm »

Cool! At least the data is recoverable. Patchtool is a great product from a lot of perspectives and worth the relatively small cost. It would be nice if there was a free program to extract that data but I'm not aware of any.
Well, here's the CxF data field from opening one of my i1Studio profiles in the Mac ColorSync Utility

Logged

Mark D Segal

  • Contributor
  • Sr. Member
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 12512
    • http://www.markdsegal.com
Re: FYI - i1Studio - the ColorMunki Photo update
« Reply #92 on: November 10, 2017, 05:01:23 pm »

It's just sloppy or a desire to lock the customer out of functionality they had.

Knowing X-Rite as we do, it's probably a combination of both.
Logged
Mark D Segal (formerly MarkDS)
Author: "Scanning Workflows with SilverFast 8....."
Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5]   Go Up