Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: [1] 2 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: EyeOne Printer Profiling (iPF5000)  (Read 8165 times)
Dale Allyn
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 225


WWW
« on: December 13, 2006, 04:36:59 PM »
ReplyReply

There is a current thread in the forum regarding the profiling of Epson printers, but I felt this question was better suited to a separate thread so as not to derail things over there.

For printing on a Canon iPF 5000 via the 16-bit PS plug-in, is it reasonable to assume that one can get good profiles with the EyeOne Photo and the provided GMB software? In other words, if I do not buy third-party software such as ProfileMaker 5, am I wasting time and money on building profiles myself rather that outsourcing the profiles?

I have not been making profiles myself and I'm considering adding the EyeOne Photo + iO, but the cost of ProfileMaker 5 seems over the top for my scale. The iO appeals to me very much, but I may postpone that part of the purchase until making some profiles without first.

Any input would be greatly appreciated.

--
Dale
Logged

John Hollenberg
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 763


« Reply #1 on: December 13, 2006, 05:39:18 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
There is a current thread in the forum regarding the profiling of Epson printers, but I felt this question was better suited to a separate thread so as not to derail things over there.

For printing on a Canon iPF 5000 via the 16-bit PS plug-in, is it reasonable to assume that one can get good profiles with the EyeOne Photo and the provided GMB software? In other words, if I do not buy third-party software such as ProfileMaker 5, am I wasting time and money on building profiles myself rather that outsourcing the profiles?

I have not been making profiles myself and I'm considering adding the EyeOne Photo + iO, but the cost of ProfileMaker 5 seems over the top for my scale. The iO appeals to me very much, but I may postpone that part of the purchase until making some profiles without first.

Any input would be greatly appreciated.

--
Dale
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=90355\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

My knowledge in this area is somewhat limited, Andrew Rodney would be better able to answer this question.  However, from what I know the Eye-One Match software is a subset of Profilemaker Pro.  For making RGB profiles for D50 light, I think they would probably do quite well.  With profilemaker you have the choice of several different models:  Logo Chroma, Logo Chroma Plus (what I use), and Logo Colorful (claimed to be better, but I still prefer Logo Chroma Plus).  You only get one of these with Eye One Match, not sure what the default is.

--John
Logged
ericbullock
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 67


WWW
« Reply #2 on: December 13, 2006, 06:09:52 PM »
ReplyReply

The iOne with its associated "IOne Match" software is quite good and sufficient for most people's needs. It is worth mentioning that there is currently a 50% discount on the ProfileMaker software, so that may tip the scales in favor of the more Professional software.

In fact, I would suggest the ProfileMaker Pro software with the iOne instead of the iOne with the I/O table. Money is better spent on the PMP software, IMHO!

Cheers,

-eric-
Logged
Stephen Best
Guest
« Reply #3 on: December 13, 2006, 06:20:04 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
In fact, I would suggest the ProfileMaker Pro software with the iOne instead of the iOne with the I/O table. Money is better spent on the PMP software, IMHO!
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=90381\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

As far as I could work out, the only tangible benefit of PM5 PhotoStudio over the Eye-One package for RGB work is a more sophisticated profile editor. This assumes you're happy with Match's default of LOGO Colorful which is the main attraction of this package over others, IMHO.
Logged
serf
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 42


« Reply #4 on: December 13, 2006, 06:54:44 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
It is worth mentioning that there is currently a 50% discount on the ProfileMaker software, so that may tip the scales in favor of the more Professional software.

-eric-
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=90381\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I am pondering this too.  I am a neophyte, but have had the eye-one for a few years.  It worked OK on Epson 2200, but (perhaps due to uncertainty regarding the correct media selection) I have not had as good results with the iPF5000.  

Where is the 50% discount available?  

While I'm at it (g) - what do you see as the relative value in the process of:

1. The to be released Imageprint
2. Colorthink
3. Profilemaker/Match

Thanks,

Steve
« Last Edit: December 13, 2006, 07:02:48 PM by serf » Logged
John Hollenberg
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 763


« Reply #5 on: December 13, 2006, 07:17:06 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
I am pondering this too.  I am a neophyte, but have had the eye-one for a few years.  It worked OK on Epson 2200, but (perhaps due to uncertainty regarding the correct media selection) I have not had as good results with the iPF5000. 

Where is the 50% discount available? 

While I'm at it (g) - what do you see as the relative value in the process of:

1. The to be released Imageprint
2. Colorthink
3. Profilemaker/Match

Thanks,

Steve
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=90395\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Colorthink of interest, but at the bottom of the list.  The PC version of Colorthink Pro is still quite buggy, I think the regular Colorthink is fairly stable.  Don't know about Mac.  The keys with Imageprint may be the linearization and pattern of ink laydown.  Don't know if it is optimal with non-Canon papers (or even Canon papers) and best settings are hard to come by.  In the past, I got best results with Imageprint plus custom profilemaker for Imageprint with Profilemaker Pro.  Eye-One Match would probably do as well.  This was for Epson 2200.  For Epson 2400, didn't bother to use Imageprint much, as I thought it was a lot better.  The Canon is a bit of an unknown re: Imageprint.  Since I have 6.0 for a 13 inch printer, I might upgrade to the 17 inch printer size depending on price of upgrade.

--John
Logged
serf
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 42


« Reply #6 on: December 13, 2006, 11:16:07 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Colorthink of interest, but at the bottom of the list.  The PC version of Colorthink Pro is still quite buggy, I think the regular Colorthink is fairly stable.  Don't know about Mac.  The keys with Imageprint may be the linearization and pattern of ink laydown.  Don't know if it is optimal with non-Canon papers (or even Canon papers) and best settings are hard to come by.  In the past, I got best results with Imageprint plus custom profilemaker for Imageprint with Profilemaker Pro.  Eye-One Match would probably do as well.  This was for Epson 2200.  For Epson 2400, didn't bother to use Imageprint much, as I thought it was a lot better.  The Canon is a bit of an unknown re: Imageprint.  Since I have 6.0 for a 13 inch printer, I might upgrade to the 17 inch printer size depending on price of upgrade.

--John
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=90400\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Very helpful.  Thanks.
Logged
Dale Allyn
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 225


WWW
« Reply #7 on: December 14, 2006, 01:30:53 AM »
ReplyReply

Thanks, all, for the feedback. Maybe Andrew will have time to chime in too. This is all very helpful.

I had the impression that the iO can read sample charts with greater than 918 patches, and in so, would contribute to better profiles. This may be entirely in error.

The idea of ProfileMaker at a 50% discount is great, but I missed it as today was the last day for the promo. I wasn't up to speed in time to take advantage, and the past two days have been crazy for me, with no time to work on this.

Certainly, I can continue to have profiles made by the reputable sources available, but I'd like to experiment more with various papers and ordering quality profiles for each could really add up. I'm trying to learn if it's worth making my own profiles if I only use the EyeOne Photo with Color Match. If I need to spend $3,000 or more for software and spectrophotometer to achieve quality profiles, then I think I'll simply order custom profiles on my most important papers. If, with a meticulous workflow, one can produce accurate profiles for the iPF5000 with moderate equipment and software then I think it would make sense for me to do it "in house'.
Logged

ericstaud
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 384


WWW
« Reply #8 on: December 14, 2006, 02:31:56 AM »
ReplyReply

Well, I went for the sale today.  It did include the SG color chart as well.  I supose after the holidays I will get to know how to make good printer profiles.  I am also going to experiment with the camera profiles as well.

If it doesn't work out for me I'd be happy to sell you my PM5 for a real steal.... 50% off list!  
Seriously, I thought PM5 at 50% off may not be too big a risk because I thought I could get $1250 off ebay if it becomes too involved for my workflow.

-Eric
Logged
photographist
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 71


WWW
« Reply #9 on: December 14, 2006, 11:21:12 AM »
ReplyReply

I'm using the Eye-One (non-UV) with the IPF5000 and am reasonably happy with the profiles I've generated.  I too am new to profiling for myself, but am making some progress.  

 I've seen a couple of prints off of ImagePrint and the IPF5000 and my impression is that it's going to be great.  The "softness" that many have commented on with the IPF seems to be remediated by the RIP algorithms used within ImagePrint.  

 As for profiles... ImagePrints profiles are usually very good to excellent, though  I'll sometimes make my own.

 Good luck!
Logged
John Hollenberg
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 763


« Reply #10 on: December 14, 2006, 11:55:51 AM »
ReplyReply

There is a post on the Wiki discussion forum detailing how to trick Eye-One match into making a profile using the 4096 patch target from Bill Atkinson.  This gets around at least one limitation of Eye-One Match compared to Profilemaker Pro.  Apparently the result was quite good:

http://www.canonipf5000.wikispaces.com (Discussion Forum link from there)

--John
Logged
Dan Wells
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 333


WWW
« Reply #11 on: December 14, 2006, 01:24:52 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
There is a post on the Wiki discussion forum detailing how to trick Eye-One match into making a profile using the 4096 patch target from Bill Atkinson.  This gets around at least one limitation of Eye-One Match compared to Profilemaker Pro.  Apparently the result was quite good:

http://www.canonipf5000.wikispaces.com (Discussion Forum link from there)

--John
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=90537\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I'm the person who tricked EyeOne Match into using the big Atkinson target, and it's not hard to do (well, the hard part is reading the huge target in, not making the profile).

1. Download target and reference file from www.billatkinson.com (I used the 4096 patch option, because it was the biggest target that would fit on a 17 inch roll without going lengthwise and wasting paper (he also has a 5200+ patch target, but that one is on 3 12x19 inch sheets!).

2. Print target from photoshop plugin

3. Use MeasureTool (from ProfileMaker Pro, but functions in demo mode) to read the target in - it is on 3 12x17 inch sheets, and is so large that you actually have to turn the sheets around in the EyeOne backing board to read the last 15 or so strips on each sheet (the darn target is longer than the backing board). Remember that when reading those last 15 strips with the target upside down, you have to read from right to left instead of left to right. MeasureTool cares about orientation!  I'll eventually build a bigger backing board! Measure Tool has a number of settings for reading targets, and here's what I used:

     In the Configure dialog box: EyeOne found automatically-spectral ON (default)

     In the measurement window: Strips with gaps (it lets you choose between individual patches (yeah, right!), strips without gaps (which requires a scrambled target with a lot of contrast between adjacent patches) and strips with gaps (which is what the Atkinson target is)

All settings correct, spend about 45 minutes reading in 128 strips of patches and wishing you owned an iO or an iSIS...

4. Save the measurement file - Save As in the MeasureTool file menu - save it anywhere you like, although I drop it in EyeOne Match's measurement files folder.  

4. Trick EyeOne Match. Remove the original reference file for the 918 patch target to a safe place, then replace it with the Atkinson target reference file, renaming the Atkinson file to the exact name of the 918 patch file. Note that you are playing with REFERENCE files, not the measurement file you just made. EyeOne Match will use an arbitrarily named measurement file, but is picky that the reference file describing the target is in exactly the right place, with the right name.

5. Select the "918" patch reference file - you'll know you have the imposter loaded because EyeOne Match will show a picture of the Atkinson target.

6. Load the measurement file and build the profile...


I'm going to try replacing other reference files - I just appear to have replaced the "easy CMYK" test chart (with about 100 patches) with a 1788 patch CMYK chart - I wonder if THAT will work - guess I'll try profiling the laser printer and find out!

It looks like EyeOne in "photo" license mode is limited to four test charts (three RGB and one CMYK, but they can be any four charts you want if you're willing to use MeasureTool to read them)... I haven't tried profiling with any of these except the Atkinson 4096 yet, but my copy of EyeOne Match now thinks that its fout test charts are:

Its original 918 patch RGB chart
Atkinson's 1728 patch chart - the biggest chart that will fit on letter paper
Atkinson's 4096 patch chart

A 1788 patch CMYK chart replacing the sub-100 patch "Easy CMYK" chart.

                                    -Dan
Logged
Dale Allyn
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 225


WWW
« Reply #12 on: December 14, 2006, 02:35:57 PM »
ReplyReply

Thank you very much for the info. This is very helpful.

Dan, thank you very much for the detailed description of your approach. I'm having a hard time justifying the cost of ProfileMaker at this time, though may add it eventually. In the mean time, I'd like to make useful profiles with the EyeOne, but if it was better to outsource the profiles for this printer when using the plug-in, I'd take that approach.

I've not yet purchased the EyeOne Photo, but it sounds like one can make good profiles for the iPF5000 via plug-in with a bit of patience.

Does the iO table handle the large sheets used for the larger targets better? I know that Bill Atkinson uses another spectro. scanning tool for really long targets. I guess I'll get the EyeOne Photo and see how it all flows.

Eventually, it sounds like ProfileMaker will be needed (wanted), but I'd love to hold off the expense for a while.

Thank you, all, for the help.

Dale
Logged

John Hollenberg
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 763


« Reply #13 on: December 14, 2006, 02:48:48 PM »
ReplyReply

Dan,

Your post added to Wiki (link from main page) as a separate article (with attribution, of course!).  Feel free to edit, expand on, etc.

Thanks for a great contribution!!!  

--John
Logged
Dan Wells
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 333


WWW
« Reply #14 on: December 14, 2006, 05:12:55 PM »
ReplyReply

In the interest of proper attribution, I should mention that I got the procedure for tricking EyeOne Match from something called ColorWiki (www.colorwiki.com/wiki/more_targets_for_i1match). I had the idea of trying to use the Atkinson target, and googled EyeOne Match Atkinson Target to see if anyone else had done this before. The detailed description of procedure is mine, as is the idea of replacing more than one target in EyeOne. As far as I know, I'm the first to apply this to the Canon printers or using the 4096 patch target. The original question was on using the Atkinson 1728 target on an unspecified printer. I have not seen another test of the iPF 5000 with a similarly large target, and I hope others here and on the Wiki will experiment along these lines.

        -dan
Logged
David White
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 272



WWW
« Reply #15 on: December 14, 2006, 06:28:24 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
As far as I know, I'm the first to apply this to the Canon printers or using the 4096 patch target. The original question was on using the Atkinson 1728 target on an unspecified printer. I have not seen another test of the iPF 5000 with a similarly large target, and I hope others here and on the Wiki will experiment along these lines.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=90592\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Have you actually been able to get the 16-bit driver to print with a 4096 patch profile?  

Every time I tried it the driver crashed.  It didn't matter whether it was a V2 or V4 profile or whether the profile had been generated in the large or default format by Profilemaker.
« Last Edit: December 14, 2006, 09:04:32 PM by gvdavewh » Logged

David White
madmanchan
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2101


« Reply #16 on: December 14, 2006, 06:53:27 PM »
ReplyReply

Also note that another excellent profiling package is MonacoPROFILER. I actually prefer the perceptual intent profiles that PROFILER builds over PM5, for most of my images. You can use an Eye-One Photo (both UV and non-UV versions) with PROFILER, too, and PROFILER gives some options for tweaking how much compression is applied to the color gamut. You can use MeasureTool to read the Atkinson targets and then export the LAB data to be read in by MonacoPROFILER.

Eric
Logged

John Hollenberg
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 763


« Reply #17 on: December 14, 2006, 08:54:02 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Have you actually been able to get the 16-bit driver to print with a 4096 patch profile? 

Every time I tried it the driver crashed.  It didn't matter whether it was a V2 or V4 profile or whether the profile had been generated in the large or small format by Profilemaker.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=90603\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Mac or PC?  Haven't gotten that far yet myself, just seeking more information.  What version of the Plugin?  On PC, 2.00 comes with the printer, but Canon Europe has 2.01.

--John
Logged
Dale Allyn
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 225


WWW
« Reply #18 on: December 14, 2006, 08:55:57 PM »
ReplyReply

This thread is continuing to inform. Thank  you.

It seems that the iO allows for reading smaller patches on the targets because of it's precision, which allows for using targets with more patches on smaller paper. Note that Bill offers targets in separate sizes for the EyeOne Pro and the iO.

I've also been told that the iO averages three readings from each patch to increase accuracy (theoretically?).

It's also helpful to know that we can, in addition to using Match and MeasureTool, also use MonacoPROFILER. Thank you, madmanchan.

--
Dale
Logged

David White
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 272



WWW
« Reply #19 on: December 14, 2006, 09:04:06 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Mac or PC?  Haven't gotten that far yet myself, just seeking more information.  What version of the Plugin?  On PC, 2.00 comes with the printer, but Canon Europe has 2.01.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=90614\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

PC.  V2.0.0 of the plug-in.
Logged

David White
Pages: [1] 2 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad