Printing profiles: use Argyll with ColorMunki Photo?

[NAwlins_Contrarian]

For making ICC printing profiles with my X-Rite ColorMunki Photo spectrophotometer, should I take the deep-looking dive into using ArgyllCMS instead of continuing to use the X-Rite i1Studio software? Does your answer change if a substantial fraction of my prints are B&W?

Background
Not too long ago I bought myself a (used) ColorMunki Photo. It works with the X-Rite software for its replacement, the i1Studio spectrophotometer. A while back I’d rented an i1Studio for the same purpose. On the whole I’ve been happy with the printing profiles made with the i1Studio and ColorMunki Photo hardware and the i1Studio software.

But I wonder whether I can make substantially better profiles without a huge extra effort using Argyll. Also, I admit, I simply enjoy tinkering. I’ve read up a fair amount about the options, but a lot of what I found to read is a few years old (e.g., Anders Torger’s tutorial is almost four years from its last revision), and things may well have changed with the introduction of the i1Studio software (supposedly it or its version 1.5 introduced some new color engine) compared to the old ColorMunki Photo software. In case it matters, the command-line interface doesn't greatly bother me; I grew up with it, even using it for the Internet before there was World-Wide Web.

Specific questions for your additional comments
(1) Does flipping back and forth between the ColorMunki Photo using the X-Rite driver for it and using the Argyll driver for it cause problems or create much difficulty?
(2) How many patches does it take to get substantially better profile quality than the current i1Studio software delivers? How many neutral and near-neutral patches do you have to add for the Argyll profile quality for B&W to be substantially better than the current i1Studio software delivers with its special B&W profiles?
(3) How many patches can you print on a letter-size sheet before the ColorMunki’s measurement accuracy decreases and/or reading the patches becomes a lot more difficult?
(4) Do you recommend sticking close to Argyll’s defaults / not using too many command options, or is the power of / benefit to Argyll substantially due to those options?
(5) Overall, in your opinion, does it make sense for an enthusiast / amateur to switch from using the i1Studio software to Argyll to make printing profiles?
(6) Do you have any other words of wisdom, warning, or pertinent observations?

FWIW: I also use a ColorMunki Display--a different device, a colorimeter--to calibrate and profile my monitor. For that I want to stick with the X-Rite i1Studio software. Presumably having the ColorMunki Photo use the Argyll driver will not interfere with the ColorMunki Display using the X-Rite driver and i1Studio software; but if you think differently, please tell me.

Thanks!

[HarveyM43]

Most of this is my opinion/experience on my Mac- based on my limited trials in 2018/2019 . Take it for what it’s worth.  The x-rite software generates 50 patches per page (letter size), with Argyll I tried and failed to read 462 patches per page (using a guide), but could get 196 patches per page using ‘double density’ with some success. Argyll’s default for the colormunki is 98 patches, which I didn’t try- but probably should. I  used littleargyllgui as a front-end. It’s a simple program that creates a command line with the common options; you can edit the line before running it in Argyll.  I generally could  switch between Argyll & i1Studio without problem. The one time argyll grabbed the colormunki restarting the computer allowed i1studio to reclaim it.
I don’t want to say too much about the argyll profiles- I did manage to generate one but it wasn’t smooth (probably due to errors in my patch reads). After close inspection of test images the i1Studio version was slightly better, so I dropped my Argyll experiments. I’m tempted now to redo them now & see if I can get better results...

[digitaldog]

Most of this is my opinion/experience on my Mac- based on my limited trials in 2018/2019 . Take it for what it’s worth.  The x-rite software generates 50 patches per page (letter size), with Argyll I tried and failed to read 462 patches per page (using a guide), but could get 196 patches per page using ‘double density’ with some success. Argyll’s default for the colormunki is 98 patches, which I didn’t try- but probably should. I  used littleargyllgui as a front-end. It’s a simple program that creates a command line with the common options; you can edit the line before running it in Argyll.  I generally could  switch between Argyll & i1Studio without problem. The one time argyll grabbed the colormunki restarting the computer allowed i1studio to reclaim it.
I don’t want to say too much about the argyll profiles- I did manage to generate one but it wasn’t smooth (probably due to errors in my patch reads). After close inspection of test images the i1Studio version was slightly better, so I dropped my Argyll experiments. I’m tempted now to redo them now & see if I can get better results...

What you've illustrated is that the number of patches alone, or the number using two step (pre and post optimization), the color engine etc, play a big role. The bottom line is: More patches isn't necessarily better. The test you produced is the kind of test the OP should try: test each. Print color reference images from both.

[kamma1]

On the whole I’ve been happy with the printing profiles made with the i1Studio and ColorMunki Photo hardware and the i1Studio software.



FWIW: I also use a ColorMunki Display--a different device, a colorimeter--to calibrate and profile my monitor. For that I want to stick with the X-Rite i1Studio software. Presumably having the ColorMunki Photo use the Argyll driver will not interfere with the ColorMunki Display using the X-Rite driver and i1Studio software; but if you think differently, please tell me.

I've been thinking of going the same route, and have a couple of questions. 


Is the function using the new software exactly the same with both the i1 Studio and the Colormunki?
 
And second, won't the Colormunki Photo also profile the monitor?  Why stick to using the Colormunki Display?   (I have the i1 Display, but was going to sell it.)

Thanks!

[HarveyM43]

The actual devices (Colormunki Photo & i1 Studio) can use the i1 Studio software. i1 Studio is a more complete software product than ColorMunki Photo was. For one thing the ColorMunki Photo App didn't allow you to save a printer profiling session; you couldn't do print multiple paper profile patches on one day and read them on another. i1 Studio does.  The last version of ColorMunki Photo doesn't open in the current mac  osx. More info here: http://www.northlight-images.co.uk/i1studio-calibration-profiling-review/

[NAwlins_Contrarian]

Circling back to this thread, I see that it did finally get some responses--thanks!

To elaborate a bit on what I know or think:
* The driver issue (or lack thereof) probably differs a good bit between Windows (which I'm using) and Mac OS. There are reports regarding Windows of the X-Rite driver and the Argyll driver not playing nicely with each other.
* What if anything are the differences among various X-Rite devices are unclear to me. It seems to be the more common impression / suspicion that the i1Studio spectrophotometer is merely the ColorMunki Photo with a new name and a different-colored exterior shell. Likewise one might reasonably suspect that the i1Display Studio colorimeter is merely the ColorMunki Display with a new name.
* The X-Rite software clearly has changed, but I'm not up on which changes occurred in which versions. The last version of the ColorMunki Photo software is 1.2.4, and then there's the i1Studio software, currently version 1.5.1--and it skipped from 1.1 or 1.2 to 1.5.0, suggesting a semi-major change. Somewhere in there, I don't know with which program / version, X-Rite touted a new color engine.
* X-Rite still makes available for download the ColorMunki Photo software, but they also clearly tell you that you can use the i1Studio software with the ColorMunki Photo. (See https://www.xrite.com/service-support/product-support/calibration-solutions/colormunki-photo.) In fact, the i1Studio software clearly shows you upon boot that you can use it with any / all of four devices: the ColorMunki Display and i1Display Studio colorimeters and the ColorMunki Photo and i1Studio spectrophotometers.

As far as how many patches, the X-Rite software uses for color printing profiles 100 total patches (a standard 50 plus a custom-calculated 50) and for B&W profiles 150 total (a standard 50 plus a custom-calculated 100). My suspicion is that it's pretty smart, and to do better with Argyll you need to use far more than 100 or 150 patches. Argyll's defaults vary a bit between A4- and letter-size paper, but on letter I think it's 96 patches or 192 half-size patches; my suspicion is that real improvements over the X-Rite software potentially start with Argyll reading around three pages of half-size patches (i.e., 576 patches).

HarveyM43 is right about the extra functionality of the i1Studio software versus the ColorMunki Photo software--IMO a great improvement!

Is the function using the new software exactly the same with both the i1 Studio and the Colormunki?

As far as I know, yes. However, when I used a rented i1Studio spectrophotometer, it was with version 1.0 or 1.1 or 1.2 of the i1Studio software, and I've only used the ColorMunki Photo with version 1.5.0 and 1.5.1.

[W]on't the Colormunki Photo also profile the monitor? Why stick to using the Colormunki Display? (I have the i1 Display, but was going to sell it.)

Although the ColorMunki Photo spectrophotometer will profile a monitor, the general expert consensus seems to be that a colorimeter does a better job. I keep my ColorMunki Display colorimeter for that reason. You may want to keep your i1 Display for the same reason.

[kamma1]

Thanks to both of you for the quick responses.

I'd read the Northlight review, but wasn't clear that the results would really be the same for both units.  Essentially, then, they just upgraded the software and decide to rename the product, phasing out the Colormunki moniker.

I probably will keep the i1 Display, as it does seem to be the item of choice.   But I suspect I wouldn't see any practical difference between using the one or the other.  I wouldn't mess with Argyll.  That seems like one of those things where there's a possibility of a very slight improvement, but at a very great cost in effort.  i've done too much of that in the past...