i1 Photo Pro -- UV cut or Not?

[SergeyT]

This z3200 thing is probably a subject of a separate thread. But just a quick update because I feel it is quire relevant to the topic. I have ran i1Profiler (i1P)in DEMO mode and it allows to export its Color Charts in PM5 compatible format (.txt).

I exported a 17xx patches chart from the i1P and successfully imported it into z3200 via Color Center, so I could print it and measure using the z3200 capabilities. I did not go farther then making z3200 to generate a TIF from it but see no showstoppers. It took a 24x24 inch space on a 24-inch paper roll. But talk about convenience and reliability of measurements
Z3200 is also capable of exporting the measurements in PM5 format, so there will be no problem importing it back into i1P for profile creation.  Looks like profiling a z3200 for non-OBA papers with i1P is a piece of cake.
Now the best part (for z32xx owners), if one is to re-measure the same target with i1Pro non-UV-cut (manually) he would have the second  set of data and combining them together with UV-cut data from z3200 will make a nice and cheap profiling solution for OBA-loaded papers.

[digitaldog]

In terms of the discussions on OBA’s, filtering, and so forth, I highly recommend viewing this Webinar:

http://www.xrite.com/custom_page.aspx?PageID=317&utm_source=MoneyTree+Registrants+-+Xrite&utm_campaign=62fea2e97e-&utm_medium=email#ooid=tvZW9yMzoxjAVW30jlgegXKFjH2blMV8

[Alan Goldhammer]

Andrew, thanks for the link to the webenar.  What's left unsaid about this because it is glossed over is that the OBA correction is a software implementation through i1Profiler and since this requires a UV-cut i1 pro, it's really not a direct measurement.  My reading of the various 'M' standards is that they deal with the instrumentation side of things and not the software that is actually providing the correction.  I did download the white paper and will give it a read to see what it has to say but I think the correction that one gets through the software is X-Rite's version and not one that is yet standardized.  It would be interesting to compare an ArgyllCMS profile where you are directly measuring the fluorescence and one done with i1Profiler to see if there is much difference.

Alan

[digitaldog]

None of this has anything to do with software compensation when building a profile. It is mostly about the light source used in the instruments and their effect on the data one produces if OBA’s are found.

[Alan Goldhammer]

None of this has anything to do with software compensation when building a profile. It is mostly about the light source used in the instruments and their effect on the data one produces if OBA’s are found.

This I understand but I'll need to look as the hardware specifications a little harder.  If the light source from the spectro is not illuminating in the UV range, there would of course be no fluorescence and how an OBA would be detected is the central question.  We also know from Ernst Dikla's data that OBA content varies considerably from paper to paper depending on where the OBA is located.  I've used ArgyllCMS to profile some "low" containing OBA papers it it works quite well.