Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: [1] 2 3 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Designjet 130 and Printfix Pro  (Read 21962 times)
BCRider
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 27


« on: January 29, 2007, 01:17:29 AM »
ReplyReply

Are there any DJ 130 users using Printfix Pro to build their profiles?  If so, how do you find it compared to the stock profiles for the Premium Plus Satin?

I have a new DJ 130 and find the stock Satin profile to be pretty good but not perfect as it has a slight yellow and a very tiny bit of green cast.   I found updated profiles (from mid last year) on the HP site for Satin (and Glossy) but sadly they weren't obviously better as they solved the green and yellow cast but introduced excess red (sigh).

So all this leads to the thought of buying Printfix Pro with the hope of improving on these profiles.   Of course, having done so, I'd also like to make good profiles for the other papers.   I'd buy the Eye One but it is pricey for an amater and perhaps not really any better.

Any help along these lines greatly appreciated!

Thanks,
Byron
Logged
GerardK
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 106


WWW
« Reply #1 on: January 29, 2007, 02:06:35 AM »
ReplyReply

Byron,

Your timing is perfect. A few months ago I wrote Fancy Graphics Galore: Some observations on Gamutvision and PrintFIX Pro which was published on this site. You may want to read that first, you can find it here:

http://luminous-landscape.com/reviews/acce..._graphics.shtml

In the very, very near future Michael will publish an update to that article which will answer all your questions, and it will be a thrilling read as well. So please return to The Luminous Landscape in the upcoming few days, check the What's New page and be surprised! You may want to hold your buying decisions until you've read the article - it will be valuable information for you.

Gerard Kingma
www.kingma.nu
Logged
Greg_E
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 113


« Reply #2 on: January 29, 2007, 09:09:45 AM »
ReplyReply

Yes you should probably wait until the update is put on the site.
Logged
BCRider
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 27


« Reply #3 on: January 29, 2007, 04:26:09 PM »
ReplyReply

Thanks for the reference to your article Gerard.  Interesting reading.  Seems you like the DJ 130 but weren't as pleased with Printfix Pro.

Given that I don't think I need to wait for further articles!   I want something that will produce better than the stock Satin profiles and this doesn't seem to be it.  Too bad, the price was almost affordable.

If others are using this combination and have different views please speak up!  All input welcome!
Logged
Greg_E
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 113


« Reply #4 on: January 29, 2007, 06:05:44 PM »
ReplyReply

Find an i1 Pro UV spectro on ebay and download and learn to use Argyll CMS.
For that matter, you could get an old Xrite Digital Swatchbook and do the same.
Logged
GerardK
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 106


WWW
« Reply #5 on: January 30, 2007, 02:02:38 AM »
ReplyReply

Byron,

Really, wait for the update. It contains a new perspective on PrintFIX Pro.

Greg, it won't be long - your patience will be rewarded as well...  


Gerard Kingma
www.kingma.nu
Logged
Ed Foster, Jr.
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 216


WWW
« Reply #6 on: January 30, 2007, 08:52:02 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Thanks for the reference to your article Gerard.  Interesting reading.  Seems you like the DJ 130 but weren't as pleased with Printfix Pro.

Given that I don't think I need to wait for further articles!   I want something that will produce better than the stock Satin profiles and this doesn't seem to be it.  Too bad, the price was almost affordable.

If others are using this combination and have different views please speak up!  All input welcome!
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Byron,
Recognizing the need for a good profile indicates wisdom, so as a suggestion while you are sorting out software and hardware for that purpose, you might look into have a custom profile made for you.  This may also give you a benchmark, so to speak, of what a good custom profile should be. There are a number of people who can make one for you, however, from personal experience I can only recommend one, [a href=\"http://www.digitaldog.net]Andrew Rodney[/url].  Remember too, it is not the type of thing that you buy on price alone, but on quality.

Good Luck,
Ed
Logged

Ed Foster, Jr.
www.edfoster.net
GerardK
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 106


WWW
« Reply #7 on: January 30, 2007, 12:56:33 PM »
ReplyReply

Byron,

Due to an unfortunate turn of events the update will after all not be published within the very near future. Please contact me privately through my e-mail so we can discuss your options re. PrintFIX Pro.


Gerard Kingma
www.kingma.nu
Logged
Jonathan Wienke
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5759



WWW
« Reply #8 on: January 31, 2007, 10:08:09 AM »
ReplyReply

To do printer profiles right, a spectrophotometer-based solution is by far the best. Scanner-based solutions like PrintFix really don't work well.
« Last Edit: January 31, 2007, 10:08:26 AM by Jonathan Wienke » Logged

BCRider
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 27


« Reply #9 on: January 31, 2007, 11:23:55 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Scanner-based solutions like PrintFix really don't work well.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=98529\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


Yes, I've played with Profile Prism enough to agree with that.  

However we are talking about Printfix Pro, not Printfix.  They are completely different products (despite the similar sounding names).

Byron
Logged
Jonathan Wienke
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5759



WWW
« Reply #10 on: January 31, 2007, 11:46:03 AM »
ReplyReply

Printfix Pro's measuring device is still RGB-based; not a spectrophotometer.
« Last Edit: January 31, 2007, 11:50:09 AM by Jonathan Wienke » Logged

BCRider
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 27


« Reply #11 on: January 31, 2007, 12:20:57 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Printfix Pro's measuring device is still RGB-based; not a spectrophotometer.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=98553\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Yes it is not a spectro...neither is it a RGB device...but I'm not overly concerned with that as there are many ways to solve problems...each with their own trade-offs.

People can get tangled up in theory all too easily and forget that real world results trump theory any day.  Especially theory at the level a layman understands it.

The hardware design has enough potential that I think the question about how well it stacks up is worthwhile.  But we need actual users to answer that, or better yet experts like Andrew Rodney to really wring it through its paces and tell us the real world results.  (As far as I know he hasn't done that, which is surprising to me given he specializes in this field).
« Last Edit: January 31, 2007, 07:01:08 PM by BCRider » Logged
BCRider
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 27


« Reply #12 on: March 14, 2007, 03:48:27 PM »
ReplyReply

I see your updated article has finally appeared Gerard!  A very nice read as usual!

As a fellow DJ130 user I found the same results regarding the HP generic profiles.  They have tempermental color and very poor shadow detail.  A custom profile really makes this printer sing!

I was surprised and disappointed at the poor showing of the EyeOne profile (given they've discontinued the Xrite line) and intrigued by the good showing from Printfix Pro.  However the PFP seems quite variable as your previous print performed worse than even the stock HP profile.  I've found this same kind of variability with products like Profile Prism (scanner based profiler) which I suspect is linked to metamerism issues due to the limited spectral bands of the device.  It would be interesting to hear if you see the same variability from the Xrite profile.

It would have been nice to see less time spend in Gamutvision and more emphasis on selecting/printing real world images.   Programs like Gamutvision/Colorthink are fun to play with but aren't easily translated into real world printing results.

I've also found the satin or glossy papers to be the easiest to profile. Although I am curious how much drying time elapsed before the profiles were actually made.  In any case, it would be interesting to see how the combatants do on fine art papers!

All in all, a lot of hard work.  I can appreciate the effort involved in doing these tests including the write-ups!  So kudos to you and your profiling cohorts!  
Logged
Greg_E
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 113


« Reply #13 on: March 14, 2007, 08:06:19 PM »
ReplyReply

Well, the papers that were sent to me had however long it takes to cross the Atlantic to dry. It had to be at least 5 days in transit, plus a couple before shipping. The Xrite profile was made from the same number of patches as the PFP profile (729) the larger 1728 target might have shown slightly different results. Overall Gerard's printer showed pretty decent linearity, which you would expect from a printer that can be calibrated like the DJ130. That linearity is why I say that the larger target might produce different results.
Logged
eronald
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3645



WWW
« Reply #14 on: March 15, 2007, 12:08:51 AM »
ReplyReply

A printer like th DJ130 which can re-calibrate is a perfect candidate for custom calibration, because you'll be able to return it to its initial state whenever you want.

I really don't understand why people who jst use one paper type don't go straight for a custom profile as soon as they get the printer, rather than think about buying a cheap color management solution.


I've had one client do this cleverly - she got an HP with a money-back warranty, and asked me to profile it - intending to keep or return according to how the results looked. She kept it.

Edmund
Logged

Edmund Ronald, Ph.D. 
Panascape
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 215


« Reply #15 on: March 15, 2007, 01:05:43 AM »
ReplyReply

With all of the comparison testing I have been doing on the z3100 it was decided to use two measuring systems, the internal Eye one Spectrophotometer and the PrintFix Pro. Looking at the measurement data, I would say that the Eye one is better but only marginally as the readings from both devices are very close.
Logged
GerardK
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 106


WWW
« Reply #16 on: March 15, 2007, 03:59:52 AM »
ReplyReply

Byron, thanks for your kind words! It was a lot of work indeed.

To be on the safe side, I let all targets dry for at least twelve hours before packaging and shipping them to Jan and Greg, or before I measured them myself with PrintFIX Pro.


Gerard Kingma
www.kingma.nu
Logged
Ernst Dinkla
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2726


« Reply #17 on: March 15, 2007, 06:23:20 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
With all of the comparison testing I have been doing on the z3100 it was decided to use two measuring systems, the internal Eye one Spectrophotometer and the PrintFix Pro. Looking at the measurement data, I would say that the Eye one is better but only marginally as the readings from both devices are very close.
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


The Z3100 gamut/profiling discussions on LL intrigued me for several reasons. First of all that people were comparing the Z3100 prints with Epson prints based on different profiling solutions for the last. The Z3100 I have for two weeks now got its firmware upgrade right away so I can not comment on the old firmware. It works for me because I did read all the discussions as well. I have to thank you and Julian Mussi for that. Using the Litho-realistic media choice for HM Photorag (+ Bright White) and a tweak to the profile I made in Kodak's Custom Tools profile editor to get sky color correct to my monitor, they are very, very close to the Epson 4000 prints on EAM they have to match this time.

While reading the discussions I noticed you use the PrintFix Pro profiler as the reference. I had seen Gerard's review of PFP and Gamutvision  before (good review Gerard !) and wondered whether there was relation between that observation and the Z3100 issue. There's more going on in theory though with all the profile creation packages and hardware used in the discussions but I will keep it limited in this thread. Between the PrintFix Pro Colori/Spectro hardware and the Z3100 spectrometer hardware: the Z3100 uses one white light LED as the lightsource that doesn't go beyond 380 Nm so in practice a UV filter is on the light source (there are also Spectrometers with a UV filter on the sensor, there are ones without any UV filtering like my SpectroCam). The PrintFix Pro most likely isn't adding UV light either with its 6 colored LEDs. What I'm more concerned about is whether the 6 color LED readings it performs cope well with N-Color printers like the Z3100, like the iPF9000. Apart from the wider gamuts it has to cover in some cases, there's also the three extra hues/pigments in the mix that may not be measured like the CcMmYK mixes the PFP solution probably was still based on when in development. Then there's the drying time of targets, HP is quite correct that the color is stable very fast after printing (all the printers and inks I have used in the past didn't show that behaviour) but I will test for any shifts that drying time could add. There's another thing, the HP solution measures with the black tablet behind the paper, that's theoretically correct for many uses but for art reproduction and photography the use of two or three extra layers of the same paper behind the target to be measured is now common practice. The Z3100 uses a patch reading system instead of rows and the black/dark patches reading is taken longer than the lighter patches. The patch reading happens with the Datacolor/PFP hardware too but I guess no extra time is taken for the darkest patches. Then there's the classification of the Eye One in the HP Z3100, it is closer to another GM model with its white LED light (can't recall the name) than to the normal Eye One spectrometer so even there some differences in measuring internally and externally could occur.

While we would like to get matching prints at the end of the day there's a lot that has to be compensated or matched in software and user's routines to get to that goal. In the end there still is a difference in color mixing, the Z3100's mixes are cleaner in most mixes compared to any Epson target patches I have gathered here. A good observer will see that difference while the spectrometer has to take an average of the area measured and the different gamut 3D renderers add their different routines to shape the data: there's no web equivalent for comparing two prints on a table. Matching the Z3100 prints to the Epson 4000 under different Kelvin light sources is a revelation too. If they are equal in 5500 K light I call it a day, the Z3100 prints behave far better in the rest of the light sources. I don't think the discussions will end soon and I am very happy with what I get right now from the Z3100.

Ernst Dinkla

try: [a href=\"http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Wide_Inkjet_Printers/]http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Wide_Inkjet_Printers/[/url]
Logged
BCRider
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 27


« Reply #18 on: March 15, 2007, 09:24:32 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Looking at the measurement data, I would say that the Eye one is better but only marginally as the readings from both devices are very close.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=106730\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

It would be very useful (I think) to actually compare the readings for each patch and compute the differences.  Supposedly the big "weakness" of printfix pro is the limited hardware...but how limited is it really?  This would tell us.  The rest would then be software (which can always be improved).
Logged
Greg_E
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 113


« Reply #19 on: March 16, 2007, 10:48:32 AM »
ReplyReply

The Datacolor 1005 colorimeter is limited in that it can not measure spectral information, so improvements in the software are limited to what PFP can do with the measurements.
Logged
Pages: [1] 2 3 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad