i1Profiler is not working with i1Pro3+

[aaronchan]

Hi Guys,

I have attached a .mxf file and a cgats file within the message.
I would like to ask if anyone of you can use i1Profiler V3 or up and generate an ICC profile for me.
It is an RGB measurement with the brand new i1pro3+
By some how, I have measured it twice, and I couldn't make an ICC profile with it, I have tried 3 computers, 1 mac and 2 pcs.
It always stops in 56%......
The measurement is in M3 condition tho.
I am wonder weather something wrong on my side or the software has a bug which I'm pretty sure it is.... LOL

Thanks you
Aaron

[Panagiotis]

The attached zip is empty

[aaronchan]

Sorry about the empty zip file
Here is the new one

I have done a few more test and seems like i1Profiler won't be able to generate an ICC profile if the white point is not "white" enough.
I have talked to Xrite already and they say they will send the feedback to their engineer.
Hope they can fix it soon.

aaron

[Doug Gray]

The problem is that for the paper you are using, the L* of a heavy yellow inked patch is higher than the L* of an completely un-inked patch. RGB 255,255,255=L70, RGB 255,255,0=L75. While solid yellow patches have high L* relative to white on M0/2, they are always lower.

This is an artifact of the M3 process. un-inked areas reflect a lot of polarized light on metallic papers which is removed by M3. OTOH, yellow ink converts polarized light to unpolarized light and, while it reduces luminance the least of any color, the reduction in polarized light is greater leaving un-inked patches measuring lower L* than solid yellow ones.

Anyway, Argyll can make a profile though it exhibits an odd increase in area when near the white point which reflects the odd behavior on strong yellows.

Attached is the gamut slice at L*=69 and the Argyll profile in a zip file.

The white line is the gamut of a typical Pro1000 glossy profile.

Update:
Looking at the Argyll profile's internals, it's clear that the Argyll s/w is using the unprinted (RGB=255,255,255) as the actual paper white point and simply clamping L* when other measured patches exceeds that luminance. Presumably (reasonably) assuming the high values are in error. So I did the same thing to the measurement file and here is a list of before and clamped L*. They all, as expected, occurred on the yellow axis.

255 255   0  75.46 -> 70.06
255 255  28  72.06 -> 70.06
255 255  56  71.40 -> 70.06
255 255  85  70.34 -> 70.06
255 255 113  70.40 -> 70.06
255 255 141  70.36 -> 70.06
255 255 226  70.12 -> 70.06

Submitting the clamped CGATs file to I1Profiler generated a profile which I have attached in addition to the Argyll profile.

[aaronchan]

The problem is that for the paper you are using, the L* of a heavy yellow inked patch is higher than the L* of an completely un-inked patch. RGB 255,255,255=L70, RGB 255,255,0=L75. While solid yellow patches have high L* relative to white on M0/2, they are always lower.

This is an artifact of the M3 process. un-inked areas reflect a lot of polarized light on metallic papers which is removed by M3. OTOH, yellow ink converts polarized light to unpolarized light and, while it reduces luminance the least of any color, the reduction in polarized light is greater leaving un-inked patches measuring lower L* than solid yellow ones.

Anyway, Argyll can make a profile though it exhibits an odd increase in area when near the white point which reflects the odd behavior on strong yellows.

Attached is the gamut slice at L*=69 and the Argyll profile in a zip file.

The white line is the gamut of a typical Pro1000 glossy profile.

Hi Doug,

Thanks for your reply.
Actually, yea, I got the same result as you do.
But instead of Argyll, I used ProfileMaker 5 and Copra 3.
Both of the software are able to generate an ICC profile.

SO! A million dollar question:
Which measuring condition should we use for Metallic paper such as Hahnemuhle Metallic Rag, as well as Moab Metallic Silver?

aaron

[Doug Gray]

Hi Doug,

Thanks for your reply.
Actually, yea, I got the same result as you do.
But instead of Argyll, I used ProfileMaker 5 and Copra 3.
Both of the software are able to generate an ICC profile.

SO! A million dollar question:
Which measuring condition should we use for Metallic paper such as Hahnemuhle Metallic Rag, as well as Moab Metallic Silver?

aaron

M3 measurements are not colorimetric due to the distortion of cross polarized light simply not being at all similar to the print viewing conditions. That said, the benefit of M3 is for those papers/media that have significant specular reflection or coarse surfaces that make consistent spectro readings difficult. The tradeoff is loss of colorimetric accuracy.

As a practical matter, M3 profiles are close to useless for soft proofing. Skip soft proofing on M3 profiles. Printing M3 profiles should always use Relative or Perceptual intents. But unlike M0/2, you could well see large differences in the different profile engines from M3 measurements.  Metallic papers are for artistic purposes that only the print can show. So just print samples of images the different profiling software. Use the profiles that make prints you like the best. For that matter you might try other M profiles and could well find that you like their prints better. One benefit of the I1Pro3 is the larger aperture and the resulting consistency should produce smoother gradations on a print.

[BAB]

so Doug,

 is the new I1 pro3+ that much recognizable in prints printed vs the I2

[Doug Gray]

so Doug,

 is the new I1 pro3+ that much recognizable in prints printed vs the I2

One should expect metallic papers profiled with M3 to print images differently. How much they differ depends on the paper texture and reflectance characteristic. It's basically an artistic effect so choose whatever looks best with the type of image being printed.

To get metallic paper profiles even close to colorimetrically accurate requires a spherical spectro and likely hand measuring individual patches.

Here's a description comparing standard ICC specros (0/45) and spherical spectros

https://www.flexoglobal.com/blog/2017/02/20/xrite-choosing-the-right-spectrophotometer-for-metallic-packaging/

BTW, I was able to construct an I1 Profile by clamping L* to the unprinted (RGB 255,255,255) L* and have updated my earlier post to include the I1Profile ICC.

[Alan Goldhammer]

M3 measurements are not colorimetric due to the distortion of cross polarized light simply not being at all similar to the print viewing conditions. That said, the benefit of M3 is for those papers/media that have significant specular reflection or coarse surfaces that make consistent spectro readings difficult. The tradeoff is loss of colorimetric accuracy.

IIRC there was a big discussion of this some months ago when Red River Palo Duro Textured paper was released.  I think it was Chromix that did the profiling for RR and the gamut volume was really weird, being quite high for a matte paper.  The argument was the M3 measurements were preferred for textured papers because of light scattering.  While the physics may be true, it's not clear that this translates to any better image color and definition.  I ordered some of the RR paper and did my own testing of the RR profile and one created by Argyll.  No question that the gamut volume of my profile was smaller but I honestly did not see any difference between a variety of test prints using both profiles.

[Doug Gray]

Hi Alan,

IIRC there was a big discussion of this some months ago when Red River Palo Duro Textured paper was released.  I think it was Chromix that did the profiling for RR and the gamut volume was really weird, being quite high for a matte paper.  The argument was the M3 measurements were preferred for textured papers because of light scattering.

Yep, that's the argument and it is what causes the gamut expansion. Particularly at lower L*.

While the physics may be true, it's not clear that this translates to any better image color and definition.  I ordered some of the RR paper and did my own testing of the RR profile and one created by Argyll.  No question that the gamut volume of my profile was smaller but I honestly did not see any difference between a variety of test prints using both profiles.

Your observations are valid for both Perceptual intent and Relative intent with BPC. Both of these rescale the white point (WP is slightly depressed on M3, BP is greatly reduced for M3). And they both also rescale the BP. The result is that these two intents, and BPC on RelCol, produce very similar prints to M2 profiles. These are also the only options in LR.

However, because of the larger aperture of the I1Pro3, there is less reading noise and shadow rendition has the potential of more accuracy and potentially smoother gradients. This is especially true for coarse surfaces like canvas.

That said, if you print Rel. Col. and don't select BPC you will see differences in shadows between M3 and M2. The latter will block below L* Min while the former will work very similarly to selecting BPC with M2.

Metallic papers are different beasts. These are the ones that create bizarre effects like increasing L* as yellow ink is laid down thicker. It's from the way M3 attenuates reflectance from the metallic particles as they go from highly reflective metal (which is strongly attenuated by M3) and ink coated metal which gradually randomizes the polarization as the ink gets thicker which, counter intuitively, results in higher L*.as more light gets through the polaroid filters.

[Mick Sang]

The argument was the M3 measurements were preferred for textured papers because of light scattering.  While the physics may be true, it's not clear that this translates to any better image color and definition.

My tests with M3 profiles of various fine art papers have shown obvious improvements in shadow tone separation as compared against profiles generated for the same papers using M0/1/2 readings via an i1Isis-2. That said, the M3 profiles were generated from readings made with a Barbieri LFP which has a 6mm and 8 mm aperture. So, to what extent the improvement in the shadows was due to larger aperture size versus the M3 condition, I can not say.

Paul