Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 [2]   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Munki People, Short Question  (Read 3959 times)
stefano
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 75


« Reply #20 on: April 05, 2011, 05:34:20 PM »
ReplyReply

Shark,

I have both the datacolor and the Munki. I bought the datacolor first, and while I got decent profiles from it I almost always had to tweak things, as profiles were indeed on the warm side to start with. In addition, measuring each patch by hand was taking quite a while, and often resulted in some re-measuring due to errors.

Since I got the Munki, I am happy with the results, I waste little of my time on profiling and get to enjoy my printer by creating what to me are lovely images.
Profile 'tweaking' (optimization in munki terms) is still possible, just more automated (which has the side effect of being faster). I have evaluated prints side by side from the same printer (epson 4900) on the same paper profiled with both the munki and the datacolor. In the end, after tweaking, editing, optimizing etc I was able to produce pleasing and accurate images. Going forward, I plan to rely mostly, if not exclusively, on my munki as it gets me there in less time and with less feet of paper used to create profiles and test images.

Of course, my experience does not have to match any other and my goals in profiling my printer might be different from yours.

Happy printing,


stefano
Logged

MHMG
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 601


« Reply #21 on: April 05, 2011, 05:38:20 PM »
ReplyReply

Thanks Mark, very informative.  We use Canon large format printers, pigment inkset BTW.

Tom

Then either Colormunki or SpyderPrint3 will work quite well. That said, if you are a professional printing for others and seriously into color managed workflows, I'd strongly recommend stepping up to the i1 pro spectrophotometer.  While others may disagree with me, I prefer the non UV-cut i1 because Xrite has good profile correction for OBAs in its Pro software, and UV-included readings will identify the OBA content in your media which can be very useful to know.  While there is no international standard on OBA measurement that I'm aware of, the gas-filled tungsten lamp in the i1 is a good candidate for reliable detection of OBA Fluorescence.  Colormunki and SpyderPrint are UV-cut or at the very least UV deficient in their illumination source.  Also, more software choices available to extend usefulness of the i1 spectro (e.g. Babelcolor, MeasureTool, etc.).
Logged
digitaldog
Sr. Member
****
Online Online

Posts: 8901



WWW
« Reply #22 on: April 05, 2011, 05:55:11 PM »
ReplyReply

I prefer the non UV-cut i1 because Xrite has good profile correction for OBAs in its Pro software

Ah, it used to <g>. For Mac users with Lion coming soon, without Rosetta assistance, PMP will be a burdensome move. This nice functionality isn’t ported to the new software.

Better than an i1Pro would be an iSis so one can measure both UV and Cut AND use the OBC software (or module in i1P). The OBC software is universal, i1P has the same functionality built into it, but this requires an iSis.
Logged

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

Posts: 601


« Reply #23 on: April 05, 2011, 09:16:42 PM »
ReplyReply

Ah, it used to <g>. For Mac users with Lion coming soon, without Rosetta assistance, PMP will be a burdensome move. This nice functionality isn’t ported to the new software.

Better than an i1Pro would be an iSis so one can measure both UV and Cut AND use the OBC software (or module in i1P). The OBC software is universal, i1P has the same functionality built into it, but this requires an iSis.

Aaargh...the story of Color management technology since the very beginning....two steps forward, two steps back, and only work arounds to get us through the day. Yeah, I'd love to buy an iSis - not. It is a great productivity tool for profiling, but not an all around workhorse spectro like the hand helds which is what I need for many of my print monitoring and research needs.
Logged
digitaldog
Sr. Member
****
Online Online

Posts: 8901



WWW
« Reply #24 on: April 06, 2011, 04:44:09 PM »
ReplyReply

Aaargh...the story of Color management technology since the very beginning....two steps forward, two steps back

I’m not sure why X-Rite didn’t update i1P to use the OBA compensation found in ProfileMaker Pro, seemed to work quite well.
Logged

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

Posts: 1311


WWW
« Reply #25 on: April 06, 2011, 09:11:51 PM »
ReplyReply

Mark, I'd argue that its really nice to have both UV and non UV filtered EyeOnes. Different devices for different purposes. If you had to go with one for profiling on a desert island, I'd got for the UV Cut, personally. I can see why you'd like to examine the unfiltered data seperately from making profiles! Me too.

As for PMP's OBA correction not being present, i1P represents a continuation of Monaco PROFILER (and now Munki) technology that some of the LOGO technology just can't fit into.
Logged

MHMG
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 601


« Reply #26 on: April 06, 2011, 10:29:41 PM »
ReplyReply


As for PMP's OBA correction not being present, i1P represents a continuation of Monaco PROFILER (and now Munki) technology that some of the LOGO technology just can't fit into.

Ouch. And again, two steps forward two steps back...and also a good reason for avoiding papers with moderate or high OBA content all together in which case UV-included or UV-excluded measurements draw very close together.

That said, in our currently OBA-intoxicated world, your point about owning both UV cut and UV included Eye Ones is well taken... and why I still love my Spectrolinos! Can any of you Xrite NDA-signers out there tell us if the venerable Spectroscan/spectrolinos are supported by Xrite's new profiling software directly, or will one have to reformat/import the data?

cheers,
Mark
Logged
Ernst Dinkla
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2829


« Reply #27 on: April 07, 2011, 02:28:28 AM »
ReplyReply

Mark, I'd argue that its really nice to have both UV and non UV filtered EyeOnes. Different devices for different purposes. If you had to go with one for profiling on a desert island, I'd got for the UV Cut, personally. I can see why you'd like to examine the unfiltered data seperately from making profiles! Me too.

As for PMP's OBA correction not being present, i1P represents a continuation of Monaco PROFILER (and now Munki) technology that some of the LOGO technology just can't fit into.

Desert Island, I know the name is ambiguous, but to me it says a lot of UV even if it lies at the Scottish west coast. I would take the UV enabled spectrometer and papers without FBA with me and will not use a compensation. The ArgyllCMS approach of measuring with UV and taking out the UV part in software to simulate the non-UV spectrometers is more sound than adding UV data to a non-UV measurement in my opinion. The first method at least measured the FBA effect before it flattens the FBA effect in the measurements based on what it measured in that range. UV filters affect not only the UV light but visible short wavelengths too.  The ColorMunki does an almost cynical job of non-UV measurements, it only measures from 430 to 730 Nm in reflective mode and copies the 430 measurement down to 380 Nm. UV compensation there puts an arbitrary average of FBA effects on top of blind data.

http://www.freelists.org/post/argyllcms/ColorMunki-or-i1pro-for-CM,8

In general I think that UV compensations could be improved for both methods, there are certain categories of FBA papers. The safest method remains using non-FBA papers and measuring with an UV enabled spectrometer.


met vriendelijke groeten, Ernst


New: Spectral plots of +250 inkjet papers:

http://www.pigment-print.com/spectralplots/spectrumviz_1.htm

Logged
MHMG
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 601


« Reply #28 on: April 07, 2011, 08:25:38 AM »
ReplyReply

The ColorMunki does an almost cynical job of non-UV measurements, it only measures from 430 to 730 Nm in reflective mode and copies the 430 measurement down to 380 Nm. UV compensation there puts an arbitrary average of FBA effects on top of blind data.

Some time ago, I apparently read the Colormunki emissive specs which claim measurement down to 400nm at 10nm intervals and mistook for total unit performance. Just checked and Ernst is right. Reflective lower limit on the munki is claimed at 420nm. If 420nm is copied from the 430nm reading and then further filled in at other measurement intervals down to 380nm, this is a pretty compelling reason to step up to a non UV-cut i1Pro and simply avoid using problematic high OBA content papers, IMHO. Because the Spyderprint3 unit also uses LED source, I doubt it's any better in the 380-420mn range, but I guess we have to cut the manufacturers some slack due to the very low price point of these instruments.
Logged
Scott Martin
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1311


WWW
« Reply #29 on: April 07, 2011, 08:52:12 AM »
ReplyReply

Can any of you Xrite NDA-signers out there tell us if the venerable Spectroscan/spectrolinos are supported by Xrite's new profiling software directly, or will one have to reformat/import the data?

i1Profiler only supports EyeOne devices (including the iSis). ColorPort (CP) is the free utility that supports legacy devices. With CP you can make a measure targets with a huge variety of devices and save them in a variety of formats and proceed with profile generation elsewhere. I like to measure with CP even when I'm using EyeOne devices because CP allows me to simultaneously measure other targets while i1P (or MP or PMP) is busy generating profiles. CP's support for the Lino is basic relative to MeasureTool so you might download it and get started with it to see if you'd be happy with it for your needs.

Quote
The ArgyllCMS approach of measuring with UV and taking out the UV part in software to simulate the non-UV spectrometers is more sound than adding UV data to a non-UV measurement in my opinion.

I totally agree Ernst! But the reality of a color consultant is that you've got to be able to walk into any shop and work with any software and RIP and make things look incredible. With the current state of today's tools and applications, the UV filtered device would be the one to have, if you only have one. I travel with a pair of colorimeters and two pairs of spectros so my bases are covered. Argyll's handling of UV data is impressive but that's often moot because the perceptual rendering isn't. i1P's capabilities and final image quality trump the UV handling limitations (if you wan to call it that).
Logged

Alan Goldhammer
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1620


WWW
« Reply #30 on: April 07, 2011, 12:15:05 PM »
ReplyReply

Some time ago, I apparently read the Colormunki emissive specs which claim measurement down to 400nm at 10nm intervals and mistook for total unit performance. Just checked and Ernst is right. Reflective lower limit on the munki is claimed at 420nm. If 420nm is copied from the 430nm reading and then further filled in at other measurement intervals down to 380nm, this is a pretty compelling reason to step up to a non UV-cut i1Pro and simply avoid using problematic high OBA content papers, IMHO. Because the Spyderprint3 unit also uses LED source, I doubt it's any better in the 380-420mn range, but I guess we have to cut the manufacturers some slack due to the very low price point of these instruments.
Well you do have a sample for testing from a ColorMunki profile that I submitted. Grin  As I've noted before, I get very good profiles from CM that lead to a good match against the Outback standard test print.  Would it be better if I had a more sophisticated device?  I don't know since I really wonder how to test a real world print (as opposed to a series of test plots of different colors).

Alan
Logged

MHMG
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 601


« Reply #31 on: April 07, 2011, 01:51:26 PM »
ReplyReply

Well you do have a sample for testing from a ColorMunki profile that I submitted. Grin  As I've noted before, I get very good profiles from CM that lead to a good match against the Outback standard test print.  Would it be better if I had a more sophisticated device?  I don't know since I really wonder how to test a real world print (as opposed to a series of test plots of different colors).

Alan

And the samples you have sent me for testing are well made indeed. I think both the Datacolor and ColorMunki units are outstanding at their respective pricepoints. And they really do help printmakers build better quality profiles compared to generic ones supplied by the media manufacturers. It's almost impossible to figure out exactly what settings were used with generic profiles, and add to that the printer/ink/media drift in different working environments, and it's easy to demonstrate that most custom profiles are superior. That said, the profile building learning curve is steep for many people, and if not using a variety of media, paying someone to build a custom profile is probably the way to go.  Yet, I know countless amateurs that have chased their tails for weeks with a new paper rather than pony up 25 or 30 dollars for a custom profile.  Hand held spectros have many other useful purposes in terms of print process monitoring, but once you start making more sophisticated evaluations of a printing workflow, then an i!Pro is worth the difference compared to SpyderPrint3 or colorMunki.
Logged
digitaldog
Sr. Member
****
Online Online

Posts: 8901



WWW
« Reply #32 on: April 07, 2011, 02:07:10 PM »
ReplyReply

As for PMP's OBA correction not being present, i1P represents a continuation of Monaco PROFILER (and now Munki) technology that some of the LOGO technology just can't fit into.

Well X-Rite is getting some crap for this one day after release!

http://forums.adobe.com/message/3600386#3600386

X-Rite was able to clone (fuse) Colorful and Saturation settings into i1P. I wonder why OBA was killed off, it seemed to work pretty well.
Logged

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

Posts: 1311


WWW
« Reply #33 on: April 07, 2011, 02:36:03 PM »
ReplyReply

X-Rite was able to clone (fuse) Colorful and Saturation settings into i1P. I wonder why OBA was killed off, it seemed to work pretty well.

Well, you'll notice that the perceptual rendering controls are *exactly* the same as in MonacoProfiler. In i1P "Colorful" and "Saturation" are simply presets for these controls that give you something similar. The results that you get aren't the same since LOGO's (PMP's) algorithms aren't being used. In fact, if you write down the settings that the "Colorful" and "Saturation" presets give you and apply them in MP you'll get identical results! So the "Colorful" and "Saturation" technologies haven't been fused in i1P at all, simply mimicked, and the results are better, IMO, but of course, so was MonacoProfiler. That Monaco technology was really ahead of it's time and now it's finally becoming mainstream.
Logged

digitaldog
Sr. Member
****
Online Online

Posts: 8901



WWW
« Reply #34 on: April 07, 2011, 03:07:52 PM »
ReplyReply

So the "Colorful" and "Saturation" technologies haven't been fused in i1P at all, simply mimicked, and the results are better, IMO, but of course, so was MonacoProfiler. That Monaco technology was really ahead of it's time and now it's finally becoming mainstream.

They may be mimicked but the question still remains and hasn’t been answered. Why no OBA compensation? Not possible? Didn’t work well? Conflicted with some legacy code from PROFILER?
Logged

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

Posts: 1311


WWW
« Reply #35 on: April 07, 2011, 03:11:48 PM »
ReplyReply

... the question still remains and hasn’t been answered. Why no OBA compensation?
Right! It could also be a marketing decision. "Need OBA correction? Upgrade to a i1 UV Cut or iSis!" ... I'd like to hear them clarify their decision and what their plans are for the future.
Logged

digitaldog
Sr. Member
****
Online Online

Posts: 8901



WWW
« Reply #36 on: April 07, 2011, 03:20:18 PM »
ReplyReply

Right! It could also be a marketing decision. "Need OBA correction? Upgrade to a i1 UV Cut or iSis!" ... I'd like to hear them clarify their decision and what their plans are for the future.

The dilemma for X-Rite is deciding if they are a hardware or a software company (they would like us to believe both). But that’s usually not the case. I have far more ‘issues’ with them as a software company than a hardware company. Either way, the idea was (or should have been) to take the best of both PMP and PROFILER and merge them. IF OBA compensation was useful to some AND they can code it, they should. They should not expect someone to upgrade to new hardware (thinking solely as a hardware company).
Logged

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

Posts: 601


« Reply #37 on: April 07, 2011, 05:27:40 PM »
ReplyReply

The dilemma for X-Rite is deciding if they are a hardware or a software company (they would like us to believe both).

I vote for them being a great hardware company. The software has always been half baked at best. Very simple user-unfriendly issues not corrected after many years. For example, in Measuretool, hand measurement with the short, and long timing settings are absurd, but if you pick "manual" the setting doesn't stick, so you spend time resetting "manual" on every new sample you want to measure. Or in Colorport. you can choose Spectroscan but not Spectrolino. I could go on and on but you get the idea. Adds up to a lot of frustration and a wish that Xrite would allow more third parties to develop software for these otherwise very cool instruments. My two cents, but of course, Xrite doesn't need my advice Tongue Sad
Logged
digitaldog
Sr. Member
****
Online Online

Posts: 8901



WWW
« Reply #38 on: April 07, 2011, 05:53:39 PM »
ReplyReply

Very simple user-unfriendly issues not corrected after many years. For example, in Measuretool, hand measurement with the short, and long timing settings are absurd, but if you pick "manual" the setting doesn't stick, so you spend time resetting "manual" on every new sample you want to measure.

Don’t get me started! We are in agreement on all your points. Its simple stuff too, small engineering.
Logged

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

Posts: 54


« Reply #39 on: April 07, 2011, 06:31:28 PM »
ReplyReply

OK Munki people checked out a while ago, so moving the new conversation to a more appropriately titled thread would be a good idea.

Thanks for all the replies to those that helped out in the decision making process.

Tom

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

Ad
Ad
Ad