Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: [1]   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Xrite's i1iO Scanning Table imprecise after a while?  (Read 8738 times)
oriwo
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 16



WWW
« on: January 02, 2009, 06:31:52 AM »
ReplyReply

Hello,

regarding the article of Keith Cooper "Eye One iO automated scanning table review - Using the Eye One Pro gets even easier - and more accurate with the iO" (http://www.northlight-images.co.uk/reviews/eye-one_iO.html) I'm thinking to buy the iO scanning table for my i1Pro Spektro.

Today I have had contact to a german company (basicColor) which is making some cm-software (e.g. basicColor Print3 Profiler).

They disadvice using "Eye One iO automated scanning table". They said it's mechanically bad an after 80 to 100 scans it is imprecise and so you'll get imprecise measurement data (2 to 3 ∆E !). So they've stopped selling them.

So they make me really insecure If it is the right decision to buy Xrite's scanning table. Is here someone with longlasting experience regarding this piece of hardware? Do you also realize these problems?

Best regards from Germany

Oliver Ritter-Wolff
« Last Edit: January 02, 2009, 03:51:56 PM by oriwo » Logged

Wayne Fox
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2826



WWW
« Reply #1 on: January 05, 2009, 02:53:46 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: oriwo
Hello,

regarding the article of Keith Cooper "Eye One iO automated scanning table review - Using the Eye One Pro gets even easier - and more accurate with the iO" (http://www.northlight-images.co.uk/reviews/eye-one_iO.html) I'm thinking to buy the iO scanning table for my i1Pro Spektro.

Today I have had contact to a german company (basicColor) which is making some cm-software (e.g. basicColor Print3 Profiler).

They disadvice using "Eye One iO automated scanning table". They said it's mechanically bad an after 80 to 100 scans it is imprecise and so you'll get imprecise measurement data (2 to 3 ∆E !). So they've stopped selling them.

So they make me really insecure If it is the right decision to buy Xrite's scanning table. Is here someone with longlasting experience regarding this piece of hardware? Do you also realize these problems?

Best regards from Germany

Oliver Ritter-Wolff

I have been having some problems with an i1i0 for quite some time, and as it turns out had 2 eyeone spectro's both in the process of failing at the same time.  At this point I'm not sure where my problem lies, and what the i1i0 has contributed to it.

Regarding the idea that the table gets mechanically bad after 80 to 100 scans, resulting in variances as high as you say, I'm inclined to not believe that.  Some of the very first tables had a problem, but I don't know how the table itself can cause what you describe.  The movement of the eyeone across the target is controlled and more reliable than using the manual process.  If using MeasureTool to read targets, the device will re-read any row with errors, and will slow down the speed of the device.  The table is simply replacing your arm and a mechanical guide.  My table has easily done more than 100 scans, and despite all my problems, equipping the table with my dealers EyeOne Spectro resulted in excellent results.

I do know that if you re-read the same target multiple times, there is a chance of variation, especially on sensitive surfaces.   The device itself sits on a teflon glide pad, which when adjusted correctly this teflon pad will make very slight contact with the target surface.  This may leave minor impressions or other imperfections which might result in a different reading if you re-read the same target multiple times.
Logged

oriwo
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 16



WWW
« Reply #2 on: January 06, 2009, 10:12:18 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Wayne Fox
I have been having some problems with an i1i0 for quite some time, and as it turns out had 2 eyeone spectro's both in the process of failing at the same time.  At this point I'm not sure where my problem lies, and what the i1i0 has contributed to it.

Regarding the idea that the table gets mechanically bad after 80 to 100 scans, resulting in variances as high as you say, I'm inclined to not believe that.  Some of the very first tables had a problem, but I don't know how the table itself can cause what you describe.  The movement of the eyeone across the target is controlled and more reliable than using the manual process.  If using MeasureTool to read targets, the device will re-read any row with errors, and will slow down the speed of the device.  The table is simply replacing your arm and a mechanical guide.  My table has easily done more than 100 scans, and despite all my problems, equipping the table with my dealers EyeOne Spectro resulted in excellent results.

I do know that if you re-read the same target multiple times, there is a chance of variation, especially on sensitive surfaces.   The device itself sits on a teflon glide pad, which when adjusted correctly this teflon pad will make very slight contact with the target surface.  This may leave minor impressions or other imperfections which might result in a different reading if you re-read the same target multiple times.

Hello Wayne,

thanks for your experience. This sounds much more positive instead of that what basicColor said to me. In the meanwhile I've googled a lot of web-sides and seen some further personal ratings of i1iO. Most of these ratings are really positive, so I think I'll go this way.

Best regards.

oriwo
« Last Edit: January 07, 2009, 09:54:18 AM by oriwo » Logged

jareddimartine
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 24


WWW
« Reply #3 on: January 15, 2009, 08:33:40 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: oriwo
Hello Wayne,

thanks for your experience. This sounds much more positive instead of that what basicColor said to me. In the meanwhile I've googled a lot of web-sides and seen some further personal ratings of i1iO. Most of these ratings are really positive, so I think I'll go this way.

Best regards.

oriwo

I recently just started using the i1iO again after going to imageprint for a while, and I have to say - It really is a valuable resource.  I've used it to profile Fredrix canvas with the 11880, and the profiles printed through photoshop are so far testing out to be even or better than the imageprint prints.   I've just coated the canvas with the clearshield type c, which I understand should give me a more accurate profile than the uncoated canvas, so i'll have to report back on that, but so far i'm thinking I might just leave imageprint.

As far as durability, I have about 30 scans on it, no issues at all.  
Logged
bossanova808
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 46


« Reply #4 on: January 15, 2009, 10:31:27 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: jareddimartine
I recently just started using the i1iO again after going to imageprint for a while, and I have to say - It really is a valuable resource.  I've used it to profile Fredrix canvas with the 11880, and the profiles printed through photoshop are so far testing out to be even or better than the imageprint prints.   I've just coated the canvas with the clearshield type c, which I understand should give me a more accurate profile than the uncoated canvas, so i'll have to report back on that, but so far i'm thinking I might just leave imageprint.

As far as durability, I have about 30 scans on it, no issues at all.

We've done literally thousands of profiles on ours (first with a Rev A. Pro, now a Rev. D) and it has performed superbly (apart from if the USB bus is busy doing other things at the same time, then it gets cranky!).  Other than that (no issue if you dedicate the machine to profiling), it works a treat.  We have done various tests across the years (since we got it around ?2005) and found it to be very reliable and much mroe accurate than hand reading.

The company above is wrong.

Logged
Wayne Fox
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2826



WWW
« Reply #5 on: January 17, 2009, 01:48:14 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: bossanova808
We've done literally thousands of profiles on ours (first with a Rev A. Pro, now a Rev. D) and it has performed superbly (apart from if the USB bus is busy doing other things at the same time, then it gets cranky!).  Other than that (no issue if you dedicate the machine to profiling), it works a treat.  We have done various tests across the years (since we got it around ?2005) and found it to be very reliable and much mroe accurate than hand reading.

The company above is wrong.

Just curious, how many patches do you use for your targets?

As mentioned in the other thread on this forum, my experience with the table has been pretty disappointing, although  I don't think the criticism mentioned by the OP on this thread is accurate.  Gretag macbeth and now xRite haven't been particularly helpful trying to solve this. Overall they seem to think the table and devices really can't have a problem so something I'm doing has to be at fault.

I've been using Bill Atkinson's targets, because my license of ProfileMaker wont' let me create targets (a feature I also can't seem to find out how to enable), and I want to use something more than 928 patches.

All in all very frustrated ... I don't want to blame the table, because I've had trouble using Bill's 2366 patch with a manual i1Pro target as well.  This  actually show a similar problem, on a few of the rows - it takes more than 5 tries to read a row (sometimes a lot more than 5).  With the table the tests fails after 5 tries of a row, and you have to start all over again.

Took me nearly an hour to measure 2366 patch target for HaHFAB for my 7900. The resulting profile appears to be very good, so I think I'm at least getting the right reading once I successfully read a row.  I've tried to isolate possible USB problems.  the machine is an Intel Mac running 10.5.5, only USB devices are keyboard, mighty mouse, plugged into an Apple Cinema Display, the profilemaker dongle and a logitech mouse.  Removing all of them didn't make any difference.


Logged

Rhossydd
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1914


WWW
« Reply #6 on: January 17, 2009, 02:53:17 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Wayne Fox
my license of ProfileMaker wont' let me create targets (a feature I also can't seem to find out how to enable),
You'll need to buy(currently £470 in the UK) the full 'measure' module licence and add it to your dongle. There are many variations of the Profilemaker pro suite, some are only supplied with a 'lite' version of measure that won't allow you to build your own targets or use the compare function.
Logged
digitaldog
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8929



WWW
« Reply #7 on: January 17, 2009, 10:06:02 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: oriwo
They disadvice using "Eye One iO automated scanning table". They said it's mechanically bad an after 80 to 100 scans it is imprecise and so you'll get imprecise measurement data (2 to 3 ∆E !). So they've stopped selling them.

BS! Tell them I said that too.

Prior to upgrading to an iSis, i built literally thousands of profiles for customers on an i0. Maybe they all contacted BasICColor about the problems, I didn't see them when testing the restyling profiles nor have the customers.

That said, there IS a measurable difference in the deltaE (which is mightily low) if you extend the arm when measuring, its simply physics. But what device do you us (at least a modern device) if you need to scan thick material that will not fit in the iSis or similar design?

There can be issues with the EyeOne itself and the table. I have an original revA and much newer unit. There were cases in the past where I could not get the faster, newer EyeOne to measure without a measuring error but could with the slower Rev A device. GretagMacbeth (at the time) knew of this and I'm not sure what they've done in terms of firmware updates. It happened rarely, more often when someone didn't output the target at the exact (100%) size. Unlike the iSis, the I0 is more forgiving here.

IF all i0's produced a 3 deltaE difference (which deltae?), nearly every user would discover this. The device has been out years and years, now these guys are just discovering this and saying they will no longer sell it? Sounds real fishy to me.
Logged

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

Posts: 8929



WWW
« Reply #8 on: January 17, 2009, 10:11:12 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Wayne Fox
I've been using Bill Atkinson's targets, because my license of ProfileMaker wont' let me create targets (a feature I also can't seem to find out how to enable), and I want to use something more than 928 patches.

My experience is that in some cases, its Bills targets. We've traded emails over the years and some have been about issues with the targets. He's following the SDK for building them, I think the SDK is way too optimistic. When Bill built the targets for the iSis, lots of issues. He had an XL, I had at the time, a non XL. He never found non XL issues until I reported them, then he tweaked them. If a patch size is off a tad, or the black bar isn't exactly where it should be (should be, not possibly incorrectly defined by an SDK), the unit takes a dump.

My suggestion would be to try a similar number of patches using a X-Rite generated target (even using chart generator in MeasureTool). That always works for me. And again, this isn't a fault of Bill's, he's following the spec's which I believe might be different for "custom targets" then what's being supplied or generated by the host software. So before you put blame on the instrument, try another target. If it works, place your suspicions on the target, not the hardware.
Logged

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

Posts: 2826



WWW
« Reply #9 on: January 17, 2009, 10:28:56 PM »
ReplyReply

Andrew,

I really appreciate this information.  I like Bills targets (very easy to spot a row where major error has occurred), but I'll get more aggressive about a ProfileMaker Target.

Maybe I can find someone that has the full license that can generate me a target with about 5k patches.
Logged

digitaldog
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8929



WWW
« Reply #10 on: January 18, 2009, 11:30:33 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Wayne Fox
I like Bills targets (very easy to spot a row where major error has occurred), but I'll get more aggressive about a ProfileMaker Target.

I do too. But if you have some measuring issues, it could be his targets. Before you place the blame on the i0, its worth trying a similarly configured target and see if it measures. If not, its the instrument.
Logged

Andrew Rodney
Author “Color Management for Photographers”
http://digitaldog.net/
oriwo
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 16



WWW
« Reply #11 on: January 25, 2009, 05:32:46 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: digitaldog
I do too. But if you have some measuring issues, it could be his targets. Before you place the blame on the i0, its worth trying a similarly configured target and see if it measures. If not, its the instrument.

... now I've the i1iO for nearly a week and made nearly 12 profiles for our z3100 and an iPF6100 with Bill's targets. Seems to work fine and it is very fast instead of hand measuring  .

So I'll have a look how it'll work on the long run.

B.r.

oriwo
Logged

Wayne Fox
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2826



WWW
« Reply #12 on: January 25, 2009, 08:54:27 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: oriwo
... now I've the i1iO for nearly a week and made nearly 12 profiles for our z3100 and an iPF6100 with Bill's targets. Seems to work fine and it is very fast instead of hand measuring  .

So I'll have a look how it'll work on the long run.

B.r.

oriwo

Just curious, what size targets are you using, and what OS are you running?
Logged

oriwo
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 16



WWW
« Reply #13 on: January 26, 2009, 12:54:01 AM »
ReplyReply

... Win XP SP2 (my "Color Management Machine"). Normally I'm working on Mac OSX 10.5.x but there I've problem's recognizing i1Pro with all Xrite software. Xrite say that the HP printer drivers are blocking the spektro and I haven't found any solution in a year to solve that althought there've been a lot of solution tips from them.

But back to Bill's targets on i1iO. I've reconfigured (is this the right word?) them with PM Measure Tool 5.08. But you need a full version of this software to create a new target on Bill's figures. I'd to do this because in Europe we've other paper formats (e.g. DIN A3) which are different from North America. After reconfiguring (to DIN A4 and A3 paper format) they work fine. Before reconfigung I've tested one (RGB 4096) an I'd problems with measuring on some matt papers. I think it has also to do with sequence of the patches. So the spectrophotometer will be able to distinguish adjacent patches.
So far as I know Bill has optimized all targets for his Epson printers and Epson's semigloss papers.

Best regards

oriwo
« Last Edit: January 26, 2009, 02:40:55 PM by oriwo » Logged

oriwo
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 16



WWW
« Reply #14 on: January 26, 2009, 11:20:01 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: digitaldog
...
IF all i0's produced a 3 deltaE difference (which deltae?)

... he spoke about DeltaE 2000.

B.r.

oriwo
Logged

Pages: [1]   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad