Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: [1]   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: 16 bit Profiling?  (Read 4746 times)
Scho
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 85


WWW
« on: September 30, 2008, 06:20:30 PM »
ReplyReply

The latest Mac OS 10.5x driver for my Canon iPF 6100 supports both 8 and 16 bit printing.  When I print a profiling target from ColorMunki directly to the driver does it matter which option (16 bit or 8 bit) is used?  In other words, does ColorMunki export 16 bit or 8 bit data when sending a target to the printer driver?
Logged
digitaldog
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 9093



WWW
« Reply #1 on: September 30, 2008, 07:13:01 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
The latest Mac OS 10.5x driver for my Canon iPF 6100 supports both 8 and 16 bit printing.  When I print a profiling target from ColorMunki directly to the driver does it matter which option (16 bit or 8 bit) is used?  In other words, does ColorMunki export 16 bit or 8 bit data when sending a target to the printer driver?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=225886\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Doesn't really matter. And while the driver may have this option, few applications (certainly not Photoshop CS3, which you'd want to use to output the targets) doesn't send 16-bit data to the print driver. When using an Export Module (for your Canon), its probably prudent to use the 16-bit option although again, when rubber hits the road, its probably not going to make a difference. In terms of ColorMunki itself, I can pretty much guarantee its sending 8-bit data.
Logged

Andrew Rodney
Author “Color Management for Photographers”
http://digitaldog.net/
Scho
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 85


WWW
« Reply #2 on: September 30, 2008, 08:59:34 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Doesn't really matter. And while the driver may have this option, few applications (certainly not Photoshop CS3, which you'd want to use to output the targets) doesn't send 16-bit data to the print driver. When using an Export Module (for your Canon), its probably prudent to use the 16-bit option although again, when rubber hits the road, its probably not going to make a difference. In terms of ColorMunki itself, I can pretty much guarantee its sending 8-bit data.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=225900\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Thanks Andrew.  I'll just leave the driver in 8 bit mode.
Logged
Schewe
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5474


WWW
« Reply #3 on: September 30, 2008, 11:23:07 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Doesn't really matter.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=225900\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Actually, I disagree, it "might" matter. Ideally, you'll ALWAYS want to print out the target EXACTLY the way you'll want to print out images using the resulting profile. Yes, from Photoshop you use No Color Management, in Photoshop, but that has nothing to do with the driver. The driver (or export plug-in) should be in the exact same state that you'll be using for printing as you do for printing the target when making the profile. I don't KNOW for an absolute fact the the 8 bit and 16 bit pipeline used in export plug-ins will be exactly the same. If there's ANY question, then you would be better off taking the most conservative approach and print out the target exactly the way you'll be printing out image. And if that means two targets and two profiles, then so be it. You can check the profiles in a utility and see if there's any difference in the profiles to determine whether you'll want to do this for other papers...
Logged
Scho
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 85


WWW
« Reply #4 on: October 01, 2008, 07:38:07 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Actually, I disagree, it "might" matter. Ideally, you'll ALWAYS want to print out the target EXACTLY the way you'll want to print out images using the resulting profile. Yes, from Photoshop you use No Color Management, in Photoshop, but that has nothing to do with the driver. The driver (or export plug-in) should be in the exact same state that you'll be using for printing as you do for printing the target when making the profile. I don't KNOW for an absolute fact the the 8 bit and 16 bit pipeline used in export plug-ins will be exactly the same. If there's ANY question, then you would be better off taking the most conservative approach and print out the target exactly the way you'll be printing out image. And if that means two targets and two profiles, then so be it. You can check the profiles in a utility and see if there's any difference in the profiles to determine whether you'll want to do this for other papers...
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=225943\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I could make two profiles, but they would both have to use the 8 bit target that ColorMunki sends to the driver.  I don't if there is a way of getting a 16 bit target file out of ColorMunki.
Logged
digitaldog
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 9093



WWW
« Reply #5 on: October 01, 2008, 08:40:56 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
I could make two profiles, but they would both have to use the 8 bit target that ColorMunki sends to the driver.  I don't if there is a way of getting a 16 bit target file out of ColorMunki.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=226003\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

You don't even have to make two profiles. Save both data files and examine them in a text editor or plot the deltaE in something like ColorThink.

The data is either identical (within the slight variations of instrument measurements) or its not. I'll but dollars to doughnuts its the same in either case of the bit depth used.

In the case of ColorMunki, its sending 8-bit data. Now the Canon export module, that will send out more than 8 bits of data if so set. But I'll bet after you measure them both ways, you'll get the same data (again note that if you measure a target twice, you'll never get a zero deltaE between the two values. They should average well below 0.1 on a decent device).
Logged

Andrew Rodney
Author “Color Management for Photographers”
http://digitaldog.net/
neil snape
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1432


WWW
« Reply #6 on: October 02, 2008, 12:44:25 PM »
ReplyReply

Although I think you're right Andrew that the file sent will align into the same output levels regardless of the bit depth of the CM chart, There may be differences introduce in the masking at a different bit depth of the export module.

Probably as you say there will be no difference, but it's always best to eliminate any possible source of discrepancy.
Logged
Scho
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 85


WWW
« Reply #7 on: October 02, 2008, 02:05:40 PM »
ReplyReply

I made a few profiles using ColorMunki for the Canon iPF 6100 16 bit driver (NOT the export module) and they work very well printing from LR 2.0 in 16 bit mode.  Based on Andrew's comments, I assume that ColorMunki sent 8 bit data to the driver when I made the profiles, but the targets were printed with the driver set to 16 bit.  Didn't seem to matter and I'm happy with the results.
Logged
neil snape
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1432


WWW
« Reply #8 on: October 03, 2008, 12:07:29 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
I made a few profiles using ColorMunki for the Canon iPF 6100 16 bit driver (NOT the export module) and they work very well printing from LR 2.0 in 16 bit mode.  Based on Andrew's comments, I assume that ColorMunki sent 8 bit data to the driver when I made the profiles, but the targets were printed with the driver set to 16 bit.  Didn't seem to matter and I'm happy with the results.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=226398\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


The important thing is that it works for you and is consistent.
If the target is 8 bit depth, nothing says that it cannot be passed through the print data stream in a 16 bit width channel workflow. For many years you have been able to print directly 16 bit depth images to drivers that are 8 bit. The driver converts the 16 bit to 8 bit with a simple math calculation. IF the driver is  true 16 bit width then your 8 bit depth documents are simply populating the levels with a crude but simple and efficient conversion.

Many people confuse 16 bit profiles vs 8 bit which are an entirely different topic.
Logged
digitaldog
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 9093



WWW
« Reply #9 on: October 03, 2008, 08:15:17 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
If the target is 8 bit depth, nothing says that it cannot be passed through the print data stream in a 16 bit width channel workflow. For many years you have been able to print directly 16 bit depth images to drivers that are 8 bit. The driver converts the 16 bit to 8 bit with a simple math calculation.

Actually since the introduction of Lightroom 2.0 (for some alpha and beta testers, that's been awhile), we've used a 16-bit savvy application with profiles built using 8-bit target path (targets printed out of Photoshop that until CS4, only sent 8-bit to the driver). Speaking for myself, I get identical output using the same profile in Photoshop or LR.
Logged

Andrew Rodney
Author “Color Management for Photographers”
http://digitaldog.net/
neil snape
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1432


WWW
« Reply #10 on: October 03, 2008, 08:47:32 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Actually since the introduction of Lightroom 2.0 (for some alpha and beta testers, that's been awhile), we've used a 16-bit savvy application with profiles built using 8-bit target path (targets printed out of Photoshop that until CS4, only sent 8-bit to the driver). Speaking for myself, I get identical output using the same profile in Photoshop or LR.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=226557\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Yes exactly , the first case scenario, send 8 bit data through the 16 bit wide application path to the driver. I suppose if the sending application is 16 bit then the driver will not have to change anything as the path should send the data stream in whatever bit depth the original is in.
In the case of the new Epson drivers which are able to run at 16 bit, or rips, it goes to show from your testing that it has exactly the same output, which is a very good thing.

Thanks Andrew.
Logged
digitaldog
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 9093



WWW
« Reply #11 on: October 03, 2008, 08:52:35 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
In the case of the new Epson drivers which are able to run at 16 bit, or rips, it goes to show from your testing that it has exactly the same output, which is a very good thing.

One thing to keep in mind, while the newer Leopard Epson drivers are able to accept and pass on this 16-bit data, they have to first get it from the application. That's not been the case with Photoshop until CS4. CS3 and easier just passed 8-bits to this 16-bit capable driver. Lightroom 2.0 on the other hand does hand off the 16b-bit data to a 16-bit savvy driver.

So we've basically been using an 8-bit application to print our targets. LR can't print them.
Logged

Andrew Rodney
Author “Color Management for Photographers”
http://digitaldog.net/
neil snape
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1432


WWW
« Reply #12 on: October 04, 2008, 08:09:11 AM »
ReplyReply

Aperature 2 will flow 16 bit too I think. I haven't had time though to test on Aperture, being that LR is my main raw processor for paying jobs.
Logged
Pages: [1]   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad