Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: [1]   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Used Spectroscan or new iSis?  (Read 3755 times)
zachary_goulko
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 90


« on: April 24, 2010, 10:25:29 AM »
ReplyReply

Hello all,
Over the past couple of weeks, I've decided to create some high quality profiles for some of my commonly used papers, specifically for gallery and portfolio prints.
I've profiled 4 different papers, with Bill Atkinson's 2300 patch targets, and my EyeOne UV.
Unfortunately, the results I'm getting are not satisfactory to my eye. Shadow and highlight details are slightly worse than canned profiles, and there are slight color shifts in the reds and blues. My deep reds look more like orange, and my blues more purple.
I've scanned the papers 4 times, and after comparing the data, some patches were off by more than delta 3.0, specifically the darker patches.

My guess is that my EyeOne is just not capable of creating accurate/repeatable results, when used manually.

Now, I would like to step it up a bit to get the best profiles I could possibly make in-house.

I don't plan on doing much profiling, and time is not an issue for me. Would a used Spectrolino provide me with accurate and repeatable results compared to a newer device such as the iSis, or is the iSis a more accurate device overall?
Logged

-----------------
Zachary Goulko
www.goulko.com
terrywyse
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 90



« Reply #1 on: April 24, 2010, 11:23:37 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: zachary_goulko
Hello all,
Over the past couple of weeks, I've decided to create some high quality profiles for some of my commonly used papers, specifically for gallery and portfolio prints.
I've profiled 4 different papers, with Bill Atkinson's 2300 patch targets, and my EyeOne UV.
Unfortunately, the results I'm getting are not satisfactory to my eye. Shadow and highlight details are slightly worse than canned profiles, and there are slight color shifts in the reds and blues. My deep reds look more like orange, and my blues more purple.
I've scanned the papers 4 times, and after comparing the data, some patches were off by more than delta 3.0, specifically the darker patches.

My guess is that my EyeOne is just not capable of creating accurate/repeatable results, when used manually.

Now, I would like to step it up a bit to get the best profiles I could possibly make in-house.

I don't plan on doing much profiling, and time is not an issue for me. Would a used Spectrolino provide me with accurate and repeatable results compared to a newer device such as the iSis, or is the iSis a more accurate device overall?

At first, this almost sounded like a cross-post of this:
http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/index....showtopic=43179
...but it turns out it's not.

First things first, you don't mention what papers you've tried to profile and what profiling package you're using. The problems with your current profiles could be as much to do with your profiling software as the instrument you're using.

As far as your EyeOne, I would say it's capable of *accuracy* but that's different than repeatability. I would agree that the EyeOne is one of the least *repeatable* spectros, especially when used with an iO table. iO tables have real, easily demonstrable issues when it comes to repeatability. The EyeOne and EyeOne iO are very versatile instruments but repeatability and consistency are not one of their strong suits.

As to the question of iSis vs. Spectrolino/Spectroscan, that's a very tough call. I have both (and an EyeOne, DTP70 and DTP41). I personally could not live without both instruments, although if I were forced to choose, I'd probably have to go with the iSis solely for it's speed (it's easily 10-15x faster than a Spectroscan). As far as consistency, I would give the nod to the iSis but I haven't done any formal tests compared to the Spectrolino/Spectroscan. I did some tests a couple of years ago against an iCColor and DTP70. The iCColor was NOT very consistent and, while the DTP70 proved to be very consistent/repeatable, the iSis had fully HALF the delta E error/variation as the DTP70. Suffice to say that the iSis is probably the most consistent/repeatable instrument you can get. My gut feeling is that the Spectrolino/Spectroscan is very repeatible as well, probably falling in between the EyeOne Pro and the iSis. *Accuracy* on the other hand is something that is extremely difficult, if not impossible, to quantify. To do that, you'd need a "golden spectro" to compare your instrument against and possibly "synchronize" your spectro to. X-Rite has technology that is capable of doing that but it's only for select spectros used for industrial and graphic arts applications. I've personally used their NetProfiler product for spectro synchronization/verification but it currently only works with one instrument, the XRite/GretagMacbeth SpectroEye (basically a hand=held Spectrolino but with a LCD display, intended to be used in a pressroom and for ink formulation, not as a general spectro for profiling).


I think the kicker would be the type of papers you're currently using and would like to profile. While I probably use my iSisXL for 95% of my profiling, there's ONE application where I still dust off my Spectrolino/Spectroscan-T and that's when measuring matte or "uncoated" fine art papers. While the iSis and Spectrolino can be switched between "no filter" and "UV-cut" filters, the Spectrolino also has the option of using a Polarization filter. This filter is frankly amazing when using it to profile matte/uncoated papers. The "POL" filter essentially reads the ink+paper without being confused with the surface texture and diffusion/scatter that happens. A profile built from polarization measurements will reveal shadow detail, even with relative colorimetric rendering, that will just blow you away, instead of the usual shadow clipping that would occur. I will often measure a matte surface paper with both "no filter" and with polarization and blend the two sets of measurements together until I get just the right amount of shadow rendering. The polarization filter also has mild UVcut characteristics where it sort of attenuates but doesn't eliminate the effect of optical brighteners in the paper.

So what to do?
If it were me and I had a fair amount of profiling to do and I was mostly dealing with gloss/semigloss/semimatte "coated" photo papers, I'd stick with an iSis for sure.....but if the majority of my papers were of the matte/"uncoated" fine art variety....and I had all the time in the world to devote to profiling.....I'd seriously consider getting a used Spectrolino/Spectroscan, preferably the later vintage "purple" units. If you go that route, make sure that you get the UVcut filter for the Spectrolino. While the polarization was included with these units, the UVcut filter was optional so not all units will have this filter. Last I checked, these were about $75 to purchase separately.

Does this help?

Regards,
Terry
Logged

Terry Wyse, WyseConsul
day job...Color Management Consulting
on the side....photoWyse, photography and fine prints
G7 Certified Expert (but that depends on the day)
zachary_goulko
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 90


« Reply #2 on: April 24, 2010, 11:51:54 AM »
ReplyReply

Hello Terry,
Thank you for your input.
Currently I'm using ProfileMaker with my EyeOne UV.
Most of my images contain highly saturated, vivid colors, and I primarily print on glossy/luster papers, such as Museo Silver Rag, Pictorico High Gloss Film, Epson Luster, and similar papers. However, I may want to venture into matte papers once I get a 7900, without having to swap black inks.
Speed is not an issue for me, as I plan to only profile papers for myself, and not on a frequent basis.
If I could save a couple thousand by picking up a used Spectroscan, versus a new ISIS, that would be great.
However, if the tradeoff is accuracy/repeatability, then I'd invest the extra money into an ISIS.
I'm also concerned about a used device drifting over time, or is this not an issue with spectroscans.
Also, could you elaborate on the "purple" version of the spectroscan?
Thanks!
Logged

-----------------
Zachary Goulko
www.goulko.com
terrywyse
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 90



« Reply #3 on: April 24, 2010, 12:15:11 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: zachary_goulko
Hello Terry,
Thank you for your input.
Currently I'm using ProfileMaker with my EyeOne UV.
Most of my images contain highly saturated, vivid colors, and I primarily print on glossy/luster papers, such as Museo Silver Rag, Pictorico High Gloss Film, Epson Luster, and similar papers. However, I may want to venture into matte papers once I get a 7900, without having to swap black inks.
Speed is not an issue for me, as I plan to only profile papers for myself, and not on a frequent basis.
If I could save a couple thousand by picking up a used Spectroscan, versus a new ISIS, that would be great.
However, if the tradeoff is accuracy/repeatability, then I'd invest the extra money into an ISIS.
I'm also concerned about a used device drifting over time, or is this not an issue with spectroscans.
Also, could you elaborate on the "purple" version of the spectroscan?
Thanks!

I would say accuracy/repeatability are not going to be an issue with a Spectrolino/Spectroscan that's in good shape. The fact is, in the graphic arts/offset printing world that I live, virtually all the legacy characterization data sets (measurement sets) that exist came from Spectrolino/Spectroscans. It has a long history of being considered a very good instrument. The Spectrolino is one of the finest "general purpose" spectros outside of specialized lab instruments.

The "purple" series was simply the latest versions that came out around 2000-2001 as I recall and were part of Gretagmacbeth's "iProfile" bundles where the Spectrolino actually served as the dongle/software key for ProfileMaker. As far as I know however, there's no real functional difference between the purple and earlier teal green units. I mentioned the purple units as that would insure you're getting one of the later units.

Terry
Logged

Terry Wyse, WyseConsul
day job...Color Management Consulting
on the side....photoWyse, photography and fine prints
G7 Certified Expert (but that depends on the day)
terrywyse
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 90



« Reply #4 on: April 24, 2010, 12:24:44 PM »
ReplyReply

Zachary, I just checked out your web site (awesome fashion photography by the way) and noticed that you're using ColorBurst X-Proof. I wasn't going to mention anything about the profiling software you use as I assumed it was all RGB "driver" profiling...in that world, ProfileMaker and MonacoPROFILER perform about the same. However, in the world of CMYK "RIP" profiling, it's my opinion that MonacoPROFILER will substantually out-perform ProfileMaker. I used to be a long time user of PM4/5 and can tell you that, in my opinion, MonacoPROFILER will do a better job for you.

The good news is that with ColorBurst X-Proof, you essentially already have the option of using MonacoPROFILER since the heart of ColorBurst's SpectroVision software is essentially the MonacoPROFILER color engine.

MonacoPROFILER's GCR algorithms are superior in my view as are it's Perceptual rendering tables.

Just my 3 cents worth.

Terry
Logged

Terry Wyse, WyseConsul
day job...Color Management Consulting
on the side....photoWyse, photography and fine prints
G7 Certified Expert (but that depends on the day)
zachary_goulko
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 90


« Reply #5 on: April 24, 2010, 12:36:35 PM »
ReplyReply

Hi Terry,
Thanks again for your input and compliment.
I only use ColorBurst Xproof for SWOP cetified proofs, when required for clients.
I also have the ImagePrint RIP which I got because of all the available profiles from ColorByte. ImagePrint used to give me significantly better results when I was printing on an Epson 4000 several years ago, but after upgrading to a 4800, I saw no visible difference from the Epson driver which was much improved.
However, I would like to create profiles that will be used strictly with the Epson driver.
I think I may invest into an ISIS/MonacoProfiler bundle, because I am frankly worried that a used Spectroscan may be a drifted unit, and I'd like to have custom profiles of the highest quality.
Logged

-----------------
Zachary Goulko
www.goulko.com
terrywyse
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 90



« Reply #6 on: April 24, 2010, 12:55:20 PM »
ReplyReply

While the Spectrolino/Spectroscan would fill a "niche" for certain papers, you'll love the iSis/MonacoPROFILER bundle. After you use the iSis a few times, you'll wonder how you did without it. My two cents, I'd spring for the larger iSis XL model. It's not that much more but it will handle larger charts and is slightly more efficient than the smaller A4 iSis.

Happy measuring/profiling!

Terry
Logged

Terry Wyse, WyseConsul
day job...Color Management Consulting
on the side....photoWyse, photography and fine prints
G7 Certified Expert (but that depends on the day)
zachary_goulko
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 90


« Reply #7 on: April 25, 2010, 02:48:47 PM »
ReplyReply

After doing some searching, I was able to find a Spectroscan for $500, which was clibrated about 5 years ago. This is the green version, not the purple.
I will play around with it, and if I'm not happy with the results I'm getting, I will trade it in for the ISIS, which will get me $1000 off, given that Chromix is having a promotion right now.
Either way, it's a win situation.
Thanks again!
« Last Edit: April 25, 2010, 02:51:00 PM by zachary_goulko » Logged

-----------------
Zachary Goulko
www.goulko.com
digitaldog
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 9191



WWW
« Reply #8 on: April 26, 2010, 01:23:59 PM »
ReplyReply

Other than a huge difference in speed is the iSis will measure far more samples per patch and average that data. The SpectroLino will do a max of 5 per patch I think, and even then, its agonizingly slow (and noisy) to do.
Logged

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

Posts: 90



« Reply #9 on: May 01, 2010, 11:09:32 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: digitaldog
Other than a huge difference in speed is the iSis will measure far more samples per patch and average that data. The SpectroLino will do a max of 5 per patch I think, and even then, its agonizingly slow (and noisy) to do.
I have a special sound proof room for the Spectrolino/Spectroscan lined with "egg crate" foam to prevent me from going insane (again). If any of our kids, ages 9, 13 and 17, give us any trouble they are made to sit in a chair in front of the Spectroscan for at least 1,000 patches (iPods are banned during this punishment).

Whenever we mention "Spectrolino Time-Out" they straighten right up and behave themselves. (Please don't report us to Child Services as this punishment could be considered cruel and inhumane).



Terry
Logged

Terry Wyse, WyseConsul
day job...Color Management Consulting
on the side....photoWyse, photography and fine prints
G7 Certified Expert (but that depends on the day)
zachary_goulko
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 90


« Reply #10 on: May 05, 2010, 05:58:07 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: terrywyse
I have a special sound proof room for the Spectrolino/Spectroscan lined with "egg crate" foam to prevent me from going insane (again). If any of our kids, ages 9, 13 and 17, give us any trouble they are made to sit in a chair in front of the Spectroscan for at least 1,000 patches (iPods are banned during this punishment).

Whenever we mention "Spectrolino Time-Out" they straighten right up and behave themselves. (Please don't report us to Child Services as this punishment could be considered cruel and inhumane).



Terry


HAHA, I now know exactly what you mean. The sound of the Spectroscan is stuck in my head when I go to sleep.
Just received the used unit 2 days ago, and have created 2 profiles so far, with the Polarizer filter.
It took 9 hours to scan a 1728 patch target, with 5 samples/patch setting. However, I am VERY happy with the results.
The profiles are dead on accurate, and the shadow details are like no other profiles I've used so far. HUGE difference between my EyeOne profiles.
I think I'm just going to keep this thing for the few profiles that I'm going to create every now and then.
The speed really isn't an issue for me. As far as the sound is concerned, I'm going to place the Spectroscan in a different room at the studio, and keep the door closed so I don't lose my mind.
Thanks again for all your advise!
Logged

-----------------
Zachary Goulko
www.goulko.com
shewhorn
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 540


WWW
« Reply #11 on: May 05, 2010, 10:20:27 PM »
ReplyReply

Zachary,

By any chance when you were shopping around did you find any others available for sale? I'm looking for one.

Cheers, Joe
Logged
pfigen
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 469


WWW
« Reply #12 on: May 05, 2010, 10:49:38 PM »
ReplyReply

We always refer to my Spectroscan as sounding like an old washing machine from the thirties. I find the sound comforting rather than annoying. And it does make great profiles. I've had mine for at least ten years now and have sent it back once for calibration and cleaning.
Logged
zachary_goulko
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 90


« Reply #13 on: May 06, 2010, 07:27:47 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: shewhorn
Zachary,

By any chance when you were shopping around did you find any others available for sale? I'm looking for one.

Cheers, Joe

Hi Joe,
Try contacting Rick at Chromix.
He had a used Spectroscan from one of his customers, in great condition, just last week.
He told me about it after I had already bought one, otherwse I would've gotten it from him.
They would've tested it for accuracy as well, which is reassuring.
Hope it works out.
Logged

-----------------
Zachary Goulko
www.goulko.com
shewhorn
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 540


WWW
« Reply #14 on: May 06, 2010, 11:27:22 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: zachary_goulko
Hi Joe,
Try contacting Rick at Chromix.
He had a used Spectroscan from one of his customers, in great condition, just last week.
He told me about it after I had already bought one, otherwse I would've gotten it from him.
They would've tested it for accuracy as well, which is reassuring.
Hope it works out.

Sweet!!!! Just got off the phone with him. Thank you very much. Good thing I save old motherboards and ancient crap... sounds like it has some rather antiquated hardware requirements. LOL I think he said it was driven via a serial or parallel port? LOL. That would explain why it took 9 hours to scan a 1.7k patch target. I'm psyched to have this in my arsenal.

Cheers, Joe
Logged
Pages: [1]   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad