Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 ... 5 6 [7]   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Imageprint - worth the $ ? - compare to QImage? other views please!  (Read 27411 times)
tvalleau
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 29


« Reply #120 on: December 21, 2010, 07:24:59 PM »
ReplyReply

Thanks, DD. Just to be clear, I'm not talking about the -file- size, but the size of the image space, just as AdobeRGB is a smaller space than ProPhoto.  The IP spaces are all comfortably (and well) inside the other spaces. Here, for example is the Canson Baryta profile's space, and the IP version of it, inside. (Well, the yellows are larger, as are some of the deep blues, but the greens are significantly recessed, as are the rest of the colors.)

« Last Edit: December 21, 2010, 08:35:10 PM by tvalleau » Logged
digitaldog
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 9241



WWW
« Reply #121 on: December 21, 2010, 09:12:52 PM »
ReplyReply

OK, size of the gamut. Part of this may be due to the target used to build the profile and where in color space the patches reside.
Logged

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

Posts: 29


« Reply #122 on: December 21, 2010, 09:24:39 PM »
ReplyReply

That makes sense. I can understand how that would work. The next question is, of course, is that smaller space imposing a limit (relative to the larger one) on the gamut of the output? (In my ignorance, I suppose so, but perhaps the driver is expanding it? Seems a stretch....

As we exchange here, I'm printing out many tests against the driver and Bill Atkinson's (I went to college with Bill: UCSD) standard test file. FWIW, the Ilford Smooth Pearl profiles seem fine (I prefer the IGSP11 version slightly); the Epson Premium Luster paper really needs the ep3800 PK7 UltraPremiumPhotoLuster RDay profile else the pastels are off significantly. (At least I can manage to give something back!  :-)
« Last Edit: December 21, 2010, 09:28:44 PM by tvalleau » Logged
Jeff Kott
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 117


« Reply #123 on: December 21, 2010, 11:58:10 PM »
ReplyReply

Tracy's observation on the IP profiles made me curious, so I did my own comparison of an InkJetArt Micro Ceramic gloss stock profile for the 4800 against the IP profile for the same printer/paper combination. The gamut volumes are almost exactly the same with a slight shift in colors. This is the result that I would have expected.
Logged
tvalleau
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 29


« Reply #124 on: December 22, 2010, 12:04:04 AM »
ReplyReply


Jeff & I exchanged a few emails and he was quite helpful. (Thanks, Jeff.) As I told him, I've sent off the question to ColorByte and will report their answer. (I don't see anything obvious in the resulting prints, so I'm curious as to the why of it all...)

later... well, I've just compared the 3D plot of Apple's ColorSync Utility and ColorThink 2.2 using the default sRGB and SWOP. Ummm... they only barely match. Both show the swop yellow and green outside the SRGB, but the Apple utility shows a whole bunch of red and everything toward the black well outside the sRGB frame, while Colorthink shows no such thing.

I also see that the luminosity white points don't match between the two displays, so obviously they are comparing different things, or using different techniques.

So... that might explain the gamut size difference that Jeff and I saw... and I'd be interested to learn from someone here what's going on between the two different software products... why is the axis off? why are the values shown so different?

Here's what I see:
« Last Edit: December 22, 2010, 01:07:18 AM by tvalleau » Logged
Sven W
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 514


« Reply #125 on: December 22, 2010, 05:59:46 AM »
ReplyReply

If you have access to MeasureTool (licensed) you can easily generate a control-strip for, say, 20 patches with familiar colors.
Sky, skin, foliage, gray, black, etc.
Print the strip (of course with the actual profile/paper/printer/settings) with Absolute Colorimetric Rendering Intent. Dry as normal.
Measure the strip, compare in Calculating in MT and voilà; you have the DeltaE for that profile.

/Sven

PS. For testing IP profiles, convert the strip from Lab to (Adobe)RGB. IP don't treat Lab in a proper way.
« Last Edit: December 22, 2010, 06:05:17 AM by Sven W » Logged

Stockholm, Sweden
Dan Berg
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1535



WWW
« Reply #126 on: December 22, 2010, 09:14:43 AM »
ReplyReply

And you misunderstood my comparison; that "quality and price" both are higher for that system then the OEM system.
Better prints? Different prints, I would say. But that is just one of many good reasons for using a RIP like IP.
About pricing; what's the cost for an own profiling system, e.g. EyeOne Pro with ProfileMaker?
What's the cost for custom made profiles, say, for ten different papers?

/Sven
Cost for profiles for 10 different papers is between $250 and $500
With oem profiles being so good their is no real reason to have Profilemaker or buy custom profiles.
As a lifelong business owner I am always looking at cost versus benefit ratios. Although some benefits are there the ratio is just to far off to make it cost effective. $250 to $500 range and I become a whole lot more interested.
Logged

digitaldog
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 9241



WWW
« Reply #127 on: December 22, 2010, 09:45:11 AM »
ReplyReply

If you have access to MeasureTool (licensed) you can easily generate a control-strip for, say, 20 patches with familiar colors.
PS. For testing IP profiles, convert the strip from Lab to (Adobe)RGB. IP don't treat Lab in a proper way.

You can build and measure in ColorPort as well (without restrictions). If you have ColorThink, you can build a color list that can be imported as patches in ColorPort, saved out as a target and measured. Now what RGB values you select in what color space (Adobe RGB was suggested) is the next question. ColorThink will take RGB values in a color list and assign a profile to produce the Lab conversions as well. You’ll have to select a rendering intent of course! Now you have a reference set and can compare that to the measured data for a dE report or plot the vectors as well as comparing gamuts.
Logged

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

Posts: 514


« Reply #128 on: December 22, 2010, 10:11:57 AM »
ReplyReply

Interesting Andrew, thanks for the tip.

/Sven
Logged

Stockholm, Sweden
tvalleau
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 29


« Reply #129 on: December 22, 2010, 01:24:48 PM »
ReplyReply

...and, as promised, here's a reply from Chromix as to the differences between the two software products:

Quote
Hi Tracy,

What a great question!  

Yes, the white points in our grapher don't match because the white points of the profiles don't match.  If you open up the two profiles in the Profile Inspector and click on the white point tab, you can see the white points of the two profiles.  sRGB is a blueish white, and SWOP is a dark and slightly warm "white".    Our 3D grapher accurately reflects this.

Also, Lab space is 255 increments wide and only 100 increments high, so to reflect Lab space as being a squared cube is incorrect.

Here's an article our president wrote that goes into this in more detail:
http://www.colorwiki.com/wiki/Color_Management_Myths_26-28



hth

Tracy
« Last Edit: December 22, 2010, 01:26:22 PM by tvalleau » Logged
I Simonius
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 31


« Reply #130 on: July 14, 2013, 12:05:49 PM »
ReplyReply

I agree (being Joe User myself Wink )
Logged
Pages: « 1 ... 5 6 [7]   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad