Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 [2]   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Barbieri Spectro Swing or Xrite i1iSis ?  (Read 7632 times)
shewhorn
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 540


WWW
« Reply #20 on: January 30, 2011, 12:54:18 PM »
ReplyReply


> tell you the percentage of them that will want to mess with Argyll will be extremely small! Yes, it's neat stuff for geeks...

It is neat stuff for those who want quality.

As a nerd I really enjoyed playing with Argyll but for RGB profiles I found that Monaco Profiler built more versatile profiles with a higher quality output. Based on experience I can say that i1 Profiler represents another step up in terms of quality. Argyll is certainly a great alternative to Eye One Match but I don't find that it can compete with what Monaco or i1 Profiler is capable of (especially i1 Profiler).

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

Posts: 410


« Reply #21 on: January 30, 2011, 02:09:25 PM »
ReplyReply

As a nerd I really enjoyed playing with Argyll but for RGB profiles I found that Monaco Profiler built more versatile profiles with a higher quality output. Based on experience I can say that i1 Profiler represents another step up in terms of quality. Argyll is certainly a great alternative to Eye One Match but I don't find that it can compete with what Monaco or i1 Profiler is capable of (especially i1 Profiler).

Cheers, Joe

To see what you mean by Profiler being better than Argyll I need to see your measurements of the calibration, profiling, and verification targets. Without those it is impossible to find what is the problem and how it happened that Profiler rendered "more versatile" and "higher quality" profiles.
Logged
shewhorn
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 540


WWW
« Reply #22 on: January 30, 2011, 04:09:55 PM »
ReplyReply

To see what you mean by Profiler being better than Argyll I need to see your measurements of the calibration, profiling, and verification targets. Without those it is impossible to find what is the problem and how it happened that Profiler rendered "more versatile" and "higher quality" profiles.

When i1Profiler is released to the public, check it out. If you still think Argyll is better I'll be very interested in seeing where I can potentially make improvements. I have zero loyalty to any manufacturer... whatever the best tool for the job is!

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

Posts: 410


« Reply #23 on: January 30, 2011, 04:35:14 PM »
ReplyReply

I fully expected to see your measurements.

Instead you replied with another praise to "the market leader" who abandoned Spectrolino and iCColor in a rush to get the consumer end of the market. Now with i1Profiler they declared "no scanner support" (indicating "Industry reports show that support is no longer needed"), skipping profile editing, sipping camera ICC profiles (only DNG is supported with such a limited tool as 24-patch Passport). This means it is not going to be a pro solution.

Perhaps I know a tad more about i1Profiler than you think I do.

By the way i1Profiler is not yet released. On October 27, 2010 XRite Marketing went public saying:
"The new i1 Professional Color Management Solutions including i1Photo Pro will be available in November 2010 from X-Rite’s online store (North America and Europe), and also from the company’s worldwide network of resellers."

>> When i1Profiler is released to the public
>> Based on experience I can say that i1 Profiler represents another step up in terms of quality.
> I have zero loyalty to any manufacturer

Nothing to add, you said it all yourself.
Logged
digitaldog
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 9190



WWW
« Reply #24 on: January 30, 2011, 05:01:09 PM »
ReplyReply

Now with i1Profiler they declared "no scanner support" (indicating "Industry reports show that support is no longer needed"), skipping profile editing, sipping camera ICC profiles (only DNG is supported with such a limited tool as 24-patch Passport). This means it is not going to be a pro solution.

Those solutions already exist in products they produce (PMP) and can be used with the dongle along with i1P. There really is very little reason or justification to spend the considerable engineering costs to put that into a new product based on the number of users who will exploit those tools.
Logged

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

Posts: 410


« Reply #25 on: January 30, 2011, 05:09:42 PM »
ReplyReply

Those solutions already exist in products they produce (PMP) and can be used with the dongle along with i1P. There really is very little reason or justification to spend the considerable engineering costs to put that into a new product based on the number of users who will exploit those tools.

Hm, camera profiling outside of DNG has little justification? ColorChecker Passport is all one needs to profile a camera? Current scanner profiling support level is enough? Companies producing high-end scanners are wrong, while XRite marketing is right and scanning is not an important pro application? Profile editing has little justification? Seems like a different universe, probably virtual. And by the way ColorPort 2 does not support iCColor, how's that?
Logged
digitaldog
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 9190



WWW
« Reply #26 on: January 30, 2011, 05:25:05 PM »
ReplyReply

Hm, camera profiling outside of DNG has little justification?

Based on how well it works, sure. Use the legacy products. ICC camera profiling IMHO has always been hit or miss for a lot of reasons. You want to go down that rabbit hole, fine, use the module in ProfileMaker Pro.
The ColorChecker product produces quite a different kind of profile, based on quite different data (scene referred), in a different process (a raw converter).

Just what companies are producing high-end scanners what would not be able to use scanner profiles built in PMP or PROFILER?

So you are saying the vast majority of users would be happy to spend more money on i1P for those features?

You write you know a lot more about i1P can you tell us the cost for new users or the upgrade fees and how that compares to what PMP or PROFILER cost new, say a year ago?
Logged

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

Posts: 9190



WWW
« Reply #27 on: January 30, 2011, 05:28:04 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
And by the way ColorPort 2 does not support iCColor, how's that?

MeasureTool does. PROFILER does. What’s the problem?

And by the way, Photoshop CS5 does not support my PowerPC either. Hows that?
Logged

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

Posts: 410


« Reply #28 on: January 30, 2011, 05:53:13 PM »
ReplyReply

>> Hm, camera profiling outside of DNG has little justification?

> Based on how well it works, sure.

It does not work well first of all; second, ColorChecker Passport Beta included general icc profiler; third, icc is a standard and dropping support for a standard does not look good; forth -  the decision not to support general icc profiles for cameras is dangerously close to interfering with non-ACR/LR workflows which are many; finally, 24 reflective patches are not enough if one needs a good reproduction of, say, a painting - it is done using a custom target made with the paints that are close to those that were actually used, the very minimum, and it is totally insufficient for normal profiling of cameras which includes spectral measurements of AA/CFA/sensor characteristics.

> ICC camera profiling IMHO has always been hit or miss for a lot of reasons

Main reason is, it was not payed enough attention.

> The ColorChecker product produces quite a different kind of profile

I know what is that "profile". I can even generate normal icc profiles from it.

> Just what companies are producing high-end scanners what would not be able to use scanner profiles built in PMP or PROFILER?

No grey field equalization and no flare compensation is enough not to use any current XRite products for high-quality scanner profiling. The offerings they have here are based on 15-year old technology, are not based on the spectral measurements of film dyes and substrate, do not allow entry of the colour filters SPDs, and are not well-suited for current films and papers.

> So you are saying the vast majority of users would be happy to spend more money on i1P for those features?

Ah, that was my fav. You probably ever heard of modules, separate licensing, plugins, etc., right?

With 3 CTP, 2 Heidelbergs, proofers etc., quality monitors, booths, lights, pre-press and pressmen salaries, huge building, do you think the price matters if the product really offers a solution? That was a rhetorical question of course.

Hypothesis does not work well, but carry on... 
Logged
Iliah
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 410


« Reply #29 on: January 30, 2011, 05:58:32 PM »
ReplyReply

> MeasureTool does. PROFILER does. What’s the problem?

The problem is workflow and converting all targets saved in ColorPort format into CGATS.

> And by the way, Photoshop CS5 does not support my PowerPC either. Hows that?

You probably need CS5, and can upgrade your Mac or build a hackintosh, which will save you a few bucks.
Logged
digitaldog
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 9190



WWW
« Reply #30 on: January 30, 2011, 05:59:14 PM »
ReplyReply

No one is dropping support. For the third time, there ARE current solutions available to use.

http://www.xrite.com/Documents/Literature/EN/L7-493-chartonly_en.pdf:
Quote
Switching to i1Publish is easy and affordable. And if you’re worried about the features you loved most in your old solution,
you’ll get them all and more in i1Publish

Quote
No grey field equalization and no flare compensation is enough not to use any current XRite products for high-quality scanner profiling
Then use a product that does.

Quote
Hypothesis does not work well, but carry on...

You are the one providing a Hypothesis. I’m simply telling you that there are legacy solutions prior to i1P that work and allow users to access that functionality. Your Hypothesis is, i1P strips you of this functionality, therefore its not a pro level solution. You clearly stated: This means it is not going to be a pro solution.

I think you know less about i1P than you think you do.
Logged

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

Posts: 9190



WWW
« Reply #31 on: January 30, 2011, 06:05:14 PM »
ReplyReply

The problem is workflow and converting all targets saved in ColorPort format into CGATS.

It can be done. If you can save out a PROFILER session, it can be converted and used in ColorPort. Its a few steps, but it can be done.
Logged

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

Posts: 410


« Reply #32 on: January 30, 2011, 06:06:22 PM »
ReplyReply

> I’m simply telling you that there are legacy solutions prior to i1P that work and allow users to access that functionality

That is a legacy functionality, and they are not progressing with it. A bell tolls.

> I think you know less about i1P than you think you do.

Trying to hypnotize everybody around one may end hypnotizing oneself. That's all.

Logged
Iliah
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 410


« Reply #33 on: January 30, 2011, 06:07:19 PM »
ReplyReply

It can be done. If you can save out a PROFILER session, it can be converted and used in ColorPort. Its a few steps, but it can be done.

It is vice versa.
Logged
digitaldog
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 9190



WWW
« Reply #34 on: January 30, 2011, 06:14:54 PM »
ReplyReply

That is a legacy functionality, and they are not progressing with it.

So if they had a module for say building a scanner profile, it produced exactly the same profile as you’d get in PMP but it was part of the new package, that make you feel better?
Logged

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

Posts: 410


« Reply #35 on: January 30, 2011, 06:20:37 PM »
ReplyReply

So if they had a module for say building a scanner profile, it produced exactly the same profile as you’d get in PMP but it was part of the new package, that make you feel better?

Absolutely yes. It would give a hope for progress and improvement.
Logged
digitaldog
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 9190



WWW
« Reply #36 on: January 30, 2011, 06:23:43 PM »
ReplyReply

Absolutely yes. It would give a hope for progress and improvement.

That’s really funny. So you can get the same results using the old product. But assuming its in the new product, you expect they will work on it (and with the number of scanners operating, being built and sold). But the current profile is working for you. So the Hypothesis is, just put it into the new product, despite the cost and how many users will use it. Then the Hypothesis is, the company is going to improve it. The Hypothesis is, the current version that will ship (1.0) isn’t a pro level tool because the functionality that would be identical to a product that exists isn’t implemented. Despite the possibility that in a 2.0 product it might be (again producing the identical profile).
Logged

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

Posts: 410


« Reply #37 on: January 30, 2011, 06:54:52 PM »
ReplyReply

> That’s really funny.

Yes indeed.

> But the current profile is working for you.

No it does not.

> Then the Hypothesis is, the company is going to improve it.

The fact is, they either improve it or abandon it. They decided to abandon. From the statistics coming from my friends who own hybrid labs, last 3 years type 135 film is 15% of their printing, with MF and LF adding another 2% of volume, all steady numbers; while the absolute volumes grow. They scan a lot, and they need good scanner profiles. I taught them to use Argyll with their scanner profiles needs, and next thing I know they asked me to train their folks to use Argyll for minilab profiling. I highly doubt they are going now to invest into any i1 software. It lacks RGB calibration anyway. Now, what next to expect XRite to drop off? Is it CMYK? Highly possible. Do I have faith in such a company? Why should I invest money into such a product or such a company that abandons parts of workflow?
Logged
digitaldog
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 9190



WWW
« Reply #38 on: January 30, 2011, 07:46:57 PM »
ReplyReply

The fact is, they either improve it or abandon it.

Its not a fact. You can say its a fact, but they could easily just build the legacy functionality into the new product that would produce the same results as using the legacy product. Nothing stops them from doing this expect the cost for engineering. Most users would have no idea anyway.

Quote
I taught them to use Argyll with their scanner profiles needs, and next thing I know they asked me to train their folks to use Argyll for minilab profiling.

And if that product does a better job, and if those users are happy with that product, great. To say that the i1P, lacking scanner profiling is not a pro product, for anyone who either doesn’t build scanner profiles (a lot of users) or for those that find the legacy product acceptable is simply your opinion based on a good deal of Hypothesis. To say that placing the identical functionality into the new product would make it now a pro profiling application seems silly to me (that’s my opinion, nothing more). Its been at least 6 years since I needed to make a scanner profile. If you need to make one tomorrow, and the legacy products from X-Rite are not affective, you are entitled to use or buy another product. Do so.
Logged

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

Posts: 410


« Reply #39 on: January 30, 2011, 07:57:17 PM »
ReplyReply

> Its not a fact.

It is a fact, like life - one is either dead or alive. If he is alive he evolves. When he stops evolving he dies.

> they could easily just build the legacy functionality into the new product

Right, after announcing "it is not needed". I do not see your arguments re other points I made. You are loosing ground here.

> Most users would have no idea anyway.

Snobbish it sounds, yes.

> To say that placing the identical functionality into the new product would make it now a pro profiling application seems silly to me (that’s my opinion, nothing more).

And your opinion is only what counts here.

> Its been at least 6 years since I needed to make a scanner profile.

Probably you are not shooting film.

> you are entitled to use or buy another product.

Right. After investing tens of hundreds into Gretag/XRite hardware and software I'm moving on.
Logged
Pages: « 1 [2]   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad