Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: [1]   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Good source for discussion/problems with i1Profiler  (Read 3093 times)
Wayne Fox
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2859



WWW
« on: May 24, 2011, 01:35:54 PM »
ReplyReply

i1Profiler not going so smoothly here.  Poor results, challenges with targets, almost every target I read says errors occurred although it appears to have read correctly (tried with 2 different i1pros) . Couple of times I get to the create profile stage and get a nice message "Error creating profile" with no explanation.

 Curious if there is a forum out there with discussion of glitches/issues where I might research my issues.  I know several of you are very familiar with the product (such as Scott and Andrew) and hate to have you spend time responding to my challenges if you or others have already done so somewhere else on the net.  So far I haven't found anything to help with our friend google.
Logged

digitaldog
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 9162



WWW
« Reply #1 on: May 24, 2011, 01:39:15 PM »
ReplyReply

Error creating profile is kind of a generic message (the app needs far better error checking and reporting). I suspect you are getting bad data read in, that’s why you get the error. It would be really nice if when reading the chart, the software told you this, instead of when trying to build the profile but that’s what we have today. Why you are getting bad data read in is the question I can’t answer.

IF you are making custom targets, make them with larger patches and see if this helps. While big patches take up more paper, they can be very helpful not only in eliminating the measuring errors but provide more data (the Spectrophotometer averages X number of measurements per second).
Logged

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

Posts: 6945


WWW
« Reply #2 on: May 24, 2011, 01:51:54 PM »
ReplyReply

Wayne, there has been discussion on the Colorsync Listserve (colorsync-users@lists.apple.com) - if you are subscribed to it, you may research some discussion there. Not sure how much it would clarify your specific problem though.
Logged

Mark D Segal (formerly MarkDS)
Author: "Scanning Workflows with SilverFast 8....." http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/film/scanning_workflows_with_silverfast_8.shtml
Doyle Yoder
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 500


« Reply #3 on: May 24, 2011, 01:57:24 PM »
ReplyReply

i1Profiler not going so smoothly here.  Poor results, challenges with targets, almost every target I read says errors occurred although it appears to have read correctly (tried with 2 different i1pros) . Couple of times I get to the create profile stage and get a nice message "Error creating profile" with no explanation.

 Curious if there is a forum out there with discussion of glitches/issues where I might research my issues.  I know several of you are very familiar with the product (such as Scott and Andrew) and hate to have you spend time responding to my challenges if you or others have already done so somewhere else on the net.  So far I haven't found anything to help with our friend google.

I have found I need to scan the patches a lot slower and also hold the botton longer at the end of the scan. I have not had to much trouble with RGB targets from the Inkjet printers but I can not say the same for CMYK targets from digital presses. In fact I have come to distrust CMYK reads with i1Profiler such that I now do all my CMYK target reads with Measure Tool and then drop that into i1Profiler.
Logged
TylerB
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 361


WWW
« Reply #4 on: May 24, 2011, 04:02:46 PM »
ReplyReply

I was advised by someone who tends to watch all the forums, as it makes him better at his job, that this is the forum to watch, unfortunately. I say that as no slam on this forum, only that like you I've been hungry for other user experiences and input, and there is very little here so far. Threads on the colorsync list tend to veer off topic and I don't think there are many users there that aren't here anyway. Chromix has a great forum but there is very little activity.
With regard to the errors... I've had them too. In my particular case I was profiling many premium matte fine art papers, with very similar charts and patch sets, with the same iSis. One paper in particular gave back errors in the profile build for no apparent reason. Remeasuring the chart did not help. Knocking back the LUT size and bit depth did allow a build. But the Subsequent optimization chart measurement gave an error and would not build.
I would suggest always submitting a support incident. User experience is great as there is always the possibility we could be simply doing something wrong, reliable workarounds tend to develop in the user base, and accumulated knowledge to get the best result is good, but actual problems need to be dealt with by Xrite.
Logged
Wayne Fox
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2859



WWW
« Reply #5 on: May 24, 2011, 04:51:28 PM »
ReplyReply

Thanks for the advice.  I suspected this the best place to get answers (as mentioned by Tyler) because I trust several long term LuLa posters in this area, but just didn't want to ask if answers were already lurking on the net.  couldn't find much on the colorsync list yet, I'll keep looking.

Error creating profile is kind of a generic message (the app needs far better error checking and reporting). I suspect you are getting bad data read in, that’s why you get the error. It would be really nice if when reading the chart, the software told you this, instead of when trying to build the profile but that’s what we have today. Why you are getting bad data read in is the question I can’t answer.

IF you are making custom targets, make them with larger patches and see if this helps. While big patches take up more paper, they can be very helpful not only in eliminating the measuring errors but provide more data (the Spectrophotometer averages X number of measurements per second).
After reading the data I almost always get an message that some colors were not what was expected, and should verify the data.  Nothing looks abnormal ... no real odd colors, just density differences (as would be expected). Seems odd because I'm doing this with in i1i0 table, and on some rows the device remeasures, then tries again slower twice, and as last resort will do the row by patch (although with a rev.D device it rarely resorts to even the slower read, and never has gone to patch mode.  Profiles end up with valleys and oddities, so I assume some bad data in there.

Your suggestion of bigger patches is a good one and makes a lot of sense especially considering the i1iO table... I'll try that tonight.  Thx. (and my i1iO frustrations have finally peaked ... since I'm a dealer I just ordered an iSis for my store so that may help with many issues).

How are must using Snow Leopard printing targets?  xRite suggests setting the Color Matching setting to Epson Color Controls, then turning off color management in the Printer Settings.  The also suggest using Colorsync, but setting the profile to genericRGB.  Both appear to deliver identical color to Adobe's target printing utility, so I'm assuming they are OK.
Logged

Tarkowsky
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 12


« Reply #6 on: May 24, 2011, 05:15:45 PM »
ReplyReply

There is a MeasurementTollerance value which has been set to 0.4 as default value.
If you low this value i1Profiler will give you a reading error at the end of the line when there is a misreading problem.
Try to decrease the value to 0.2 and see if you can get better result.
I usually manage to read a complete 1728 patches target with an i1Pro with a value = 0.121.
This  MeasurementTollerance value only works for the i1.
If you're on Windows you can find  MeasurementTollerance value inside a file named XRi1G2WorkflowSettings.ini which is located in the i1Profiler folder  C:\ProgramData\X-Rite\i1Profiler\XRi1G2WorkflowSettings.ini
Hope it can help.
« Last Edit: May 24, 2011, 05:17:16 PM by Tarkowsky » Logged
Wayne Fox
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2859



WWW
« Reply #7 on: May 24, 2011, 06:18:52 PM »
ReplyReply

There is a MeasurementTollerance value which has been set to 0.4 as default value.
If you low this value i1Profiler will give you a reading error at the end of the line when there is a misreading problem.
Try to decrease the value to 0.2 and see if you can get better result.
I usually manage to read a complete 1728 patches target with an i1Pro with a value = 0.121.
This  MeasurementTollerance value only works for the i1.
If you're on Windows you can find  MeasurementTollerance value inside a file named XRi1G2WorkflowSettings.ini which is located in the i1Profiler folder  C:\ProgramData\X-Rite\i1Profiler\XRi1G2WorkflowSettings.ini
Hope it can help.
This same file also exists on the Mac, so I assume the Mac is using it.  So a lower number forces the i1 to read to a tighter tolerance?  I may give that a try.  Waiting for larger patch targets to dry now ... suspecting this may help a lot.

Edit:  larger patches made a dramatic difference.  Read in well, no errors, and resulted in a very good profile. Standard print looks pretty much dead on.  The i1iO table moves pretty quickly, as Andrew suggested the larger patches give it more time per color to get it right - thx Andrew.  (Actually this is the first time I've been satisfied with a profile from the i1iO table - just never seemed to work right with PM5 and so gave up on it quite some time ago)

Printing a color checker proof was way off, but if I export the target and print from photoshop, or if I set the colorsync profile to the same profile as in the software extremely close match. (some snow leopard anomalies still remain)  Seems like a nice quick way to see if their is a serious error.
« Last Edit: May 24, 2011, 07:28:35 PM by Wayne Fox » Logged

yannb
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 63


« Reply #8 on: May 25, 2011, 02:47:22 AM »
ReplyReply

Printing a color checker proof was way off, but if I export the target and print from photoshop, or if I set the colorsync profile to the same profile as in the software extremely close match. (some snow leopard anomalies still remain)  Seems like a nice quick way to see if their is a serious error.

Hi, I've had this problem with the Colorchecker Proof too. It looks like it's not color managed if you print it from within i1Profiler, right? I've reported this to X-Rite, but haven't got a response.

Regards,
Yann
Logged
stalisman
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 12


« Reply #9 on: May 25, 2011, 03:48:19 AM »
ReplyReply

I have just manually meausred a cmyk chart and feel quite frustrated at the silly "Error Creating Profile" which pops up within a second or two. (It's not exactly helpful).

I had an idea and looked into the log files and found a file called 'i1ProfilerLogger.txt' in the following folder:

C:\Documents and Settings\xxxxxxxx\Application Data\X-Rite\i1Profiler\Logger
where xxxxxxxx is the login user name.

It contained the following lines:

[Wed 25. May 09:38:17 2011]  INFO  START profile creation in createPrinterProfile()
[Wed 25. May 09:38:17 2011]  INFO  BEFORE createPrinterProfileParams()
[Wed 25. May 09:38:17 2011]  INFO  Before XRCxf3CreateProfileAdv()
[Wed 25. May 09:38:18 2011]  INFO  After XRCxf3CreateProfileAdv()
[Wed 25. May 09:38:18 2011]  INFO  After cleanUpPrinterProfileElements()
[Wed 25. May 09:38:18 2011]  INFO  Error creating profile in XRCxf3CreateProfileAdv(). Error 46
[Wed 25. May 09:38:18 2011]  INFO  Done with createPrinterProfile()

you can see that Error 46 seems to be the problem.


I'll send it off to X-Rite.

Maybe you guys can have a look in your log files.
an
Logged
digitaldog
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 9162



WWW
« Reply #10 on: May 25, 2011, 08:21:50 AM »
ReplyReply

Hi, I've had this problem with the Colorchecker Proof too. It looks like it's not color managed if you print it from within i1Profiler, right? I've reported this to X-Rite, but haven't got a response.

Correct and reported as well (some time ago). The entire ColorChecker Proof workflow is a bit half baked at this time. I love idea. But we have no idea what rendering intent is used, if Black Point Compensation is used, etc.
Logged

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

Posts: 63


« Reply #11 on: May 25, 2011, 09:27:50 AM »
ReplyReply

i1Profiler not going so smoothly here.  Poor results, challenges with targets, almost every target I read says errors occurred although it appears to have read correctly (tried with 2 different i1pros) .

Hello,

I don't know if it's related, but our main iO is having serious issues with rev. D Eye Ones with UV Cut filters. We have tested two iO's and ten Eye Ones. These are the results: the rev. A and B models (both UVcut and without filter) gave no errors and measured test charts in the least number of passes, then rev. D without filter: these sometimes had to remeasure a line or two, and finally the worst of the bunch: rev. D with UVcut filter. These rev. D UVcut devices could not complete a single testchart inside the first iO, and sometimes had to remeasure every single line inside the second iO.
Mind you: every single device had passed the test with i1 Diagnostics.
The measuring software we used: MeasureTool, EFI Color Profiler Suite, EFI Colorproof XF, and the Caldera rip.
Eye One iO number one had just been serviced by X-Rite, because at that time, we were also having trouble operating our rev. D's without UVcut filter.
If you send in your iO to X-Rite, be sure to include the Eye One your having difficulty with as well.

Regards,
Yann

Logged
Wayne Fox
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2859



WWW
« Reply #12 on: May 26, 2011, 02:10:19 AM »
ReplyReply

Just finished measuring a 4500 patch target with the i1iO using a non-UVcut Rev. D spectro.  I repeated the process, turning the targets 90 degrees, and then compared the measurements from the two.  The largest Delta E variation was 0.95 in a single patch, a few were in the 0.6 to 0.8 range.  Overall, only a few were above 0.5 and I would guess that well over 80% of them were below 0.3, and maybe as much as 50-60% of them below 0.20.  In both cases, the i1iO table read every line correctly the first time except once when it read a second time, never requiring the third attempt at very slow speed. Using the larger patches as recommended has given me hope the table is useful after all (now that my iSis is on the way) - this was never possible with measure tool, as I would see delta e variations as high as 2 or 3 if I reread targets.

The two profiles were excellent.  Using Jack Fleshers Printer Evaluation Image from Outback, the only discernible difference was being able to see the 253 patch against paper white with Epsons provided profile, vs the upper limit of my profiles at 251. This all done on a 3800 with Epson Premium Luster. I'm quite pleased with i1P now I've been working with it - the interface and ability to save workflows etc. is a nice change for me compared to PM5.

For those with i1iO tables that may want to try this, the patch size I used was 9.0mm wide and 8.0 mm tall.

Thanks again for the help Andrew.
Logged

Jalok
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 43


« Reply #13 on: May 26, 2011, 11:16:48 AM »
ReplyReply

Just finished measuring a 4500 patch target with the i1iO using a non-UVcut Rev. D spectro.  I repeated the process, turning the targets 90 degrees, and then compared the measurements from the two.  The largest Delta E variation was 0.95 in a single patch, a few were in the 0.6 to 0.8 range.  Overall, only a few were above 0.5 and I would guess that well over 80% of them were below 0.3, and maybe as much as 50-60% of them below 0.20.  
...
For those with i1iO tables that may want to try this, the patch size I used was 9.0mm wide and 8.0 mm tall.

Thanks again for the help Andrew.

I'm not a color expert but I would say these statistics might be too dangerous for a low contrast paper and 4000-6000 patch targets. Second to some tests I have done with sulfite paper and dye inks, some adjacent patches may be only 0.5dE (or less) distant each other, a distance similar or lower than your >0.6dE scores. Maybe a wider-than-9mm patch would be advisable for i1iO scanning. For someone running low on paper, I would suggest manual scanning. I've got the following scores scanning 27-patch rows (7.3mm wide patches) in 4-5 second each pass:

(7.3mm wide non-scrambled patches)

Average DeltaE (DeltaE2000) results
Total: 0.12
Lowest 90%: 0.10 (360)
Highest 10%: 0.32 (40)

Standard deviation results
Total: 0.09
Lowest 90%: 0.06 (360)
Highest 10%: 0.07 (40)

Maximum results
Max DeltaE all patches: 0.53
Max DeltaE in the lowest 90%: 0.25 (360)
Logged
TylerB
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 361


WWW
« Reply #14 on: May 26, 2011, 12:17:25 PM »
ReplyReply

So Wayne, are you concluding that at least in your case "Error creating profile" during the profile build was the result of earlier measurement problems?
Tyler
Logged
Wayne Fox
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2859



WWW
« Reply #15 on: May 26, 2011, 05:15:20 PM »
ReplyReply

I'm not a color expert but I would say these statistics might be too dangerous for a low contrast paper and 4000-6000 patch targets.
I"m not an expert either.  I do know the i1iO has had problems with consistency, and this is a dramatic improvement.  To be honest, I rarely run that many patches, and with a low contrast paper probably 2000 patches max.  It could be a slighty larger patch size than what I used may provide even more consistent results with the i1iO table, and thus be more dependable in profile creation.

but you are right, I would hope a good system would deliver even more consistent results.  Thus the iSis order wasn't canceled.

So Wayne, are you concluding that at least in your case "Error creating profile" during the profile build was the result of earlier measurement problems?
Tyler

Yes.  After checking the targets they were obviously incorrect.  I had tried printing them in CS5 and didn't apply the null profile technique correctly.  Something in the data i1P couldn't swallow ...
« Last Edit: May 26, 2011, 05:16:57 PM by Wayne Fox » Logged

Pages: [1]   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad