Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 2 [3]   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Now for the Bonus round question ! i1xtreme UV or NON UV system & why ?  (Read 9197 times)
issa
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 64


« Reply #40 on: June 23, 2010, 05:36:47 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: probep
Yes, but...
1. There are many profile builders that don't have OBA compensation option;
2. Some profile builders (X-Rite/GretagMacbeth ProfileMaker, for example) have "Correct for Optical Brightener" option, but it works ONLY for Perceptual Rendering Intent;
3. It's impossible to emulate UV-excluded spectrophotometer with UV-include spectrophotometer with some degree of certainty. For example, look at http://www.freelists.org/post/argyllcms/Us...e-FWA-content,9
4. Professional devices (iSis for example) use both modes (UV-excluded and UV-included). See http://www.colorwiki.com/wiki/Optical_Brig..._2_-_X-Rite_OBC


Is there any documentation where this qualified that OBA correction in PM5 happens in teh Perceptual rendering intent only, as I mostly use relative, also do non UV spectrophotometer emit some uv through the the tungesten lighting

Thanks
Issa
Logged

Issa

Beds, UK
probep
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 149


« Reply #41 on: June 28, 2010, 06:37:26 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: issa
Is there any documentation where this qualified that OBA correction in PM5 happens in teh Perceptual rendering intent only, as I mostly use relative, also do non UV spectrophotometer emit some uv through the the tungesten lighting

Thanks
Issa
There were such links, but I didn't store them.
Nevertheless if you have ColorThink Pro and an i1Pro (as well as PM5), you can make sure that it's true. Create profiles with and without OBA correction and compare them in the ColorThink Pro. Rel. Colorimetric LUTs will be identical.
Logged
probep
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 149


« Reply #42 on: June 28, 2010, 07:10:27 AM »
ReplyReply

BTW Did anyone use BableColor CT&A v 3.0? Very interesting indeed. I did. But, ha-ha, an i1Pro even with UV-filter from photocamera and with manipulations will not replace native i1Pro UVcut.
The quote from BabelColor CT&A doc:
Quote
Spectral Tools: Use this tool to measure color patches with and without UV-cut with only a non-UV-cut Eye-One. A UV-blocking filter is required.
« Last Edit: June 28, 2010, 07:22:59 AM by probep » Logged
Scott Martin
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1312


WWW
« Reply #43 on: June 28, 2010, 05:05:07 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Studio2bn
For Scott at Onsight...
In reference to a statement you made earlier......" A better solution is coming to market " Can you tell us a little more on what that solution is ....
i1Profiler is what it's called and the cat is now out of the bag. You can read about it at: http://www.xrite.com/custom_page.aspx?PageID=156

NickWalker, when you do some exhaustive testing between EyeOneMatch,MonacoProfiler and the upcoming i1Profiler I think you'll feel good about retiring EyeOneMatch!
Logged

issa
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 64


« Reply #44 on: June 29, 2010, 11:56:36 AM »
ReplyReply

OK now for real world example.

I printed a 918 test chart which was allowed to dry for 3 days, this was measured with i1Pro and measure tool in PM 5.09 with spectral enabled, I did several measurment, and all were very close to each other, I created  a profile using Profilee Maker without the correct for optical brightners switched on. The software recognised there were OBA in the paper. Paper is Hahnemuhle Fine Art Baryta.

Same measurement were done with another i1Pro but this time it is UV cut, also created many measurement and then a profile in PM5.

Printed two test images withe two profiles, and I can't see or tell any difference at all, under different viewing conditions. Is that may be due to the paper having low OBA.

I was expecting the UV Cut profile, to give a blusih cast under uv light, as this was not compensated for with yellow ink, and normall indoors, where the profile measured without filter, I expected normal color under UV light due to extra yellow ink to offset the increased blue from the OBA and slight yellowish indoors, as there is no UV light to react with paper, well that is what these forum led me to beleive.

Have I missed something along the line ssome where?

Thanks in advance
Issa









Logged

Issa

Beds, UK
probep
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 149


« Reply #45 on: June 29, 2010, 10:32:00 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: issa
Printed two test images withe two profiles, and I can't see or tell any difference at all, under different viewing conditions. Is that may be due to the paper having low OBA.
I didn't use Hahnemuhle Fine Art Baryta. But usually Fine Art papers don't have OBA (I know the only paper with considerable amount of OBA - it's Epson Velvet Fine Art Paper).
Try papers with large amount of OBA (Epson Ultra Glossy Paper, Epson Traditional Photo Paper, Epson Archival Matte Paper etc.) and you'll see the difference at a glance.
« Last Edit: June 30, 2010, 12:44:39 AM by probep » Logged
shewhorn
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 540


WWW
« Reply #46 on: June 30, 2010, 12:43:16 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: probep
I didn't use Hahnemuhle Fine Art Baryta. But usually Fine Art papers don't have OBA.
Try papers with large amount of OBA (Epson Ultra Glossy Paper, Epson Traditional Photo Paper, Epson Archival Matte Paper etc.) and you'll see the difference at a glance.

FAB does have OBAs. As to how much I'm not sure. Hahnemuhle's data sheet only says that the "OBA content" is "moderate".

Cheers, Joe
Logged
Ernst Dinkla
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2890


« Reply #47 on: June 30, 2010, 02:29:01 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: probep
I didn't use Hahnemuhle Fine Art Baryta. But usually Fine Art papers don't have OBA (I know the only paper with considerable amount of OBA - it's Epson Velvet Fine Art Paper).
Try papers with large amount of OBA (Epson Ultra Glossy Paper, Epson Traditional Photo Paper, Epson Archival Matte Paper etc.) and you'll see the difference at a glance.

Almost all the RC papers have OBA/FWA. It is less used in Fine Art papers but even in that category there are some loaded with it.


met vriendelijke groeten, Ernst Dinkla

spectral plots of +100 inkjet papers:
http://www.pigment-print.com/spectralplots/spectrumviz_1.htm
Logged
probep
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 149


« Reply #48 on: June 30, 2010, 03:05:04 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Ernst Dinkla
Almost all the RC papers have OBA/FWA. It is less used in Fine Art papers but even in that category there are some loaded with it.
Thanks for your info.

BTW about OBAs (measured values) in Epson papers.
Logged
issa
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 64


« Reply #49 on: June 30, 2010, 04:04:57 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: probep
Thanks for your info.

BTW about OBAs (measured values) in Epson papers.

Thanks - I think whilst FAB does have OBA it is ver small amount and does not have an any visual impact of prints whetehr you use UV-CUT or non UV I1Pro.

I was interested to the difference, i suupose I ned to use High OBA content paper to se that, might do that at some stage.
Logged

Issa

Beds, UK
Ernst Dinkla
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2890


« Reply #50 on: June 30, 2010, 04:18:35 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: probep
Thanks for your info.

BTW about OBAs (measured values) in Epson papers.

Comparing the spectral plots of a nice OBA free Fine Art paper with a high whiteness like Canon Rag Photographique or Moab Entrada Neutral, to the plots of Moab Entrada Rag Bright, Lumijet Photo White Satin + Photo White. HM Photorag Bright White, HM Torchon, HP Canvas paper, I see OBAs used to the level of what is common in RC papers. Smaller quantities used in HM Photorag etc.

The most extreme: Moab Entrada Rag Bright just ahead of the FujiFilm Photo Glossy RC on the OBA measured valley and peak

In Fiber and Baryta qualities the HM FineArt Pearl, Innova IFA29 FibaPrint White Semi-Matt, Maob Colorado Fiber Satine, HM FineArt Baryta, that is just half of OBA containing paper in that category that I have the spectral plots for.


Off-topic: we could use a better term for whitening agents based on fluorescence. OBA, optical brightening agent is too vague as it doesn't mention fluorescence yet it describes the reflection/converted output of the fluorescent better with "brightening". FWA, fluorescent whitening agent doesn't describe the output correctly. At least for the stuff used in papers FBA would be better.


met vriendelijke groeten, Ernst Dinkla

spectral plots of +100 inkjet papers:
http://www.pigment-print.com/spectralplots/spectrumviz_1.htm

.
« Last Edit: June 30, 2010, 04:19:43 AM by Ernst Dinkla » Logged
Scott Martin
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1312


WWW
« Reply #51 on: June 30, 2010, 07:46:53 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: issa
I was expecting the UV Cut profile, to give a blusih cast under uv light, as this was not compensated for with yellow ink, and normall indoors, where the profile measured without filter, I expected normal color under UV light due to extra yellow ink to offset the increased blue from the OBA and slight yellowish indoors, as there is no UV light to react with paper, well that is what these forum led me to believe. Have I missed something along the line ssome where?
The differences should be really subtle, that's for sure, since you've checked the OBA checkbox. As you can imagine, the differences were more significant before GMB had provided that checkbox. PMP's OBA correction effects the Perceptual intent. Did you also make prints using other intents, especially Absolute Colorimetric? More real world testing is required. Linearization in different RIPs, for example, is worth testing. Profile creation in different applications is worth testing. Profiling different media is in order. You'll find that some situations call for one or the other. Being a color management consultant requires that you have both on hand and know which one will work best in what situations and why. It's a complex discussion, but for simple inkjet/driver profile creation, like what most here are interested in, one should focus on what software is being used to make the profile, more than the UV filtration since it won't make much of a difference.

Logged

Ernst Dinkla
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2890


« Reply #52 on: June 30, 2010, 07:49:36 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: issa
Thanks - I think whilst FAB does have OBA it is ver small amount and does not have an any visual impact of prints whetehr you use UV-CUT or non UV I1Pro.

I was interested to the difference, i suupose I ned to use High OBA content paper to se that, might do that at some stage.


Hahnemühle FineArt Baryta has more OBA aboard than this discussion suggests. More than many RC papers have. More than PhotoRag Bright White has.

I don't think that you need a higher OBA loaded paper than FAB for tests like that. If it doesn't work with FAB, the effect will not change significantly with another paper.


met vriendelijke groeten, Ernst Dinkla

spectral plots of +100 inkjet papers:
http://www.pigment-print.com/spectralplots/spectrumviz_1.htm
Logged
issa
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 64


« Reply #53 on: June 30, 2010, 08:09:58 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Onsight
The differences should be really subtle, that's for sure, since you've checked the OBA checkbox. As you can imagine, the differences were more significant before GMB had provided that checkbox. PMP's OBA correction effects the Perceptual intent. Did you also make prints using other intents, especially Absolute Colorimetric? More real world testing is required. Linearization in different RIPs, for example, is worth testing. Profile creation in different applications is worth testing. Profiling different media is in order. You'll find that some situations call for one or the other. Being a color management consultant requires that you have both on hand and know which one will work best in what situations and why. It's a complex discussion, but for simple inkjet/driver profile creation, like what most here are interested in, one should focus on what software is being used to make the profile, more than the UV filtration since it won't make much of a difference.

Hi scott

I did not check correct for optical brightners, and wanted one profile UV cut and another using no filter i1pro , therefore having two extremes. I was expecting to see a difference but i can't see any visual differences under all sorts of lighting, UV, day light and tungesten

Also used Relative Colormetric intent
« Last Edit: June 30, 2010, 08:11:12 AM by issa » Logged

Issa

Beds, UK
probep
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 149


« Reply #54 on: June 30, 2010, 08:19:10 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Ernst Dinkla
Hahnemühle FineArt Baryta has more OBA aboard than this discussion suggests. More than many RC papers have. More than PhotoRag Bright White has.

I don't think that you need a higher OBA loaded paper than FAB for tests like that. If it doesn't work with FAB, the effect will not change significantly with another paper.
Do you have measured data about OBA/FWA in FAB (or in any papers you mentioned above)? Otherwise it's like "discussion about nothing".
Did you compare i1Pro vs i1Pro UVcut in reality?
Logged
issa
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 64


« Reply #55 on: June 30, 2010, 08:20:54 AM »
ReplyReply


Here is the spectral reflectance chart taken from the profile ( measured data), both profiles were buit without correct for optical brightners checked.

[attachment=22873:spectral.png]

Thanks Issa
Logged

Issa

Beds, UK
Ernst Dinkla
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2890


« Reply #56 on: June 30, 2010, 08:38:34 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: probep
Do you have measured data about OBA/FWA in FAB (or in any papers you mentioned above)? Otherwise it's like "discussion about nothing".
Did you compare i1Pro vs i1Pro UVcut in reality?

You must have missed the link in the other messages:

spectral plots of +100 inkjet papers:
http://www.pigment-print.com/spectralplots/spectrumviz_1.htm

To judge in what category of OBA use a paper falls you do not need a UV-cut spectrometer. What tells a lot is the spectral distribution of the print side reflectance. There is more than that in the link I gave.


met vriendelijke groeten, Ernst Dinkla

spectral plots of +100 inkjet papers:
http://www.pigment-print.com/spectralplots/spectrumviz_1.htm
« Last Edit: June 30, 2010, 08:43:21 AM by Ernst Dinkla » Logged
Ernst Dinkla
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2890


« Reply #57 on: June 30, 2010, 08:47:41 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: issa
Here is the spectral reflectance chart taken from the profile ( measured data), both profiles were buit without correct for optical brightners checked.

[attachment=22873:spectral.png]

Thanks Issa

And the UV-cut Spectrometer knows the reflectance below say 420 Nm that it can't measure :-)


met vriendelijke groeten, Ernst Dinkla

spectral plots of +100 inkjet papers:
http://www.pigment-print.com/spectralplots/spectrumviz_1.htm


Logged
Scott Martin
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1312


WWW
« Reply #58 on: June 30, 2010, 09:26:40 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: issa
I did not check correct for optical brightners, and wanted one profile UV cut and another using no filter i1pro , therefore having two extremes. I was expecting to see a difference but i can't see any visual differences under all sorts of lighting, UV, day light and tungesten
I see, yes it's subtle. You are using the paper gray axis setting? Use an excellent evaluation image with a large greyscale ramp and view under daylight. Repeat the test on a paper with tons of OBAs for a more pronounced effect.
Logged

Pages: « 1 2 [3]   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad