Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 2 3 [4] 5 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: i1Pro2 "Raven" review  (Read 21764 times)
ThDo
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 32


« Reply #60 on: April 16, 2012, 12:28:18 AM »
ReplyReply

According to the X-Rite site and downloaded brochure, i1Basic Pro 2 (the 'hardware only' upgrade) does not include the ColorChecker Proof or ColorChecker Classic (mini) although they were included as part of the i1Publish software upgrade.

You already have them - either as part of i1 Photo Pro or i1 Publish Pro or the iProfiler upgrade package A or B or iProfiler software only.
That are the only ways you can already have a working iProfiler printing module license.


Logged
smilem
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 216


« Reply #61 on: April 16, 2012, 06:53:56 AM »
ReplyReply

I think like with every hardware, when Rev D or E comes then it will be worth purchasing, until then we just have to wait. The price will drop too. Smiley
Logged
Ernst Dinkla
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2804


« Reply #62 on: April 16, 2012, 08:00:18 AM »
ReplyReply

Also, I've always felt that the original rationale for scrambling which was based on the notion of averaging out printer inconsistency and non-uniformity is kind of a circular argument since printers that show those problems often aren't worth profiling, IMHO.
 
cheers,
Mark
http://www.aardenburg-imaging.com

Was there not a kind of hysteresis in the spectrometer also suppressed by the patch scrambling? That was what I assumed as the main reason to use it.

--
Met vriendelijke groet, Ernst

Dinkla Grafische Techniek
Quad,piëzografie,giclée
www.pigment-print.com
Logged
Scott Martin
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1311


WWW
« Reply #63 on: April 16, 2012, 08:32:26 AM »
ReplyReply

Also consider the optimization process for grays alone:

http://www.i1upgrades.com/2011/08/how-to-use-the-tc-2502-gray-optimization-chart/

On my Epson printers, I do see an improvement (Roman 16 neutral test images) both in neutrality and smoothness of gradients.

Can I ask you, how many gray patches did your initial target contain? Optimization was designed for low patch count target like those used with the Munki. In theory, if your initial target contains enough well placed patches, optimization shouldn't be needed. I'd personally rather develop an ideal target, rather than introducing a 2 step process with optimization if I can achieve the same result.
Logged

Scott Martin
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1311


WWW
« Reply #64 on: April 16, 2012, 08:36:13 AM »
ReplyReply

I still think it would be nice if i1Profiler (like Bill and your targets), were 16-bit for those that do.

Right i1P doesn't generate or measure targets in 16 bits - one more reason to measure in ColorPort (as I do) and drag and drop the 16 bit measurement files onto i1Profiler which it processes beautifully. I've done tests and on the iPF printers I can see a difference with the 16 bit target but it's darn slight.
Logged

digitaldog
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8587



WWW
« Reply #65 on: April 16, 2012, 08:40:21 AM »
ReplyReply

I would like a copy, but I am confused. Does the original profile have to have the same number of patches?

The two targets used do not have to have the same number of patches. They are independent of each other in the profile and optimization process.
Logged

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

Posts: 8587



WWW
« Reply #66 on: April 16, 2012, 08:41:20 AM »
ReplyReply

Would you send me a copy as well?
I've tried the 2 thousand whatever one and it didn't work.

If it didn’t work (and I’m not sure why) I don’t see how the 900 patch would work any better.
Logged

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

Posts: 8587



WWW
« Reply #67 on: April 16, 2012, 08:46:56 AM »
ReplyReply

Can I ask you, how many gray patches did your initial target contain? Optimization was designed for low patch count target like those used with the Munki.

I’m not sure, I’ll have to look but not anything like 2500 <g>

As you know from another forum, I’ve been a critic of the optimization process until I tried Marc’s target and applied it to profiles I’ve built using 1700 odd plus patches. I’ve yet to see optimization do anything useful expect for low patch initial Munki-like targets with color patches in optimization. With 2500 gray patches, I do see improvement in neutrals and their gradients being smoother but it isn’t huge.
Logged

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

Posts: 124


« Reply #68 on: April 17, 2012, 02:44:38 PM »
ReplyReply

You already have them - either as part of i1 Photo Pro or i1 Publish Pro or the iProfiler upgrade package A or B or iProfiler software only.
That are the only ways you can already have a working iProfiler printing module license.
ThDo

Why not bother to read a post before you create a stupid reply it - I stated that they were included as part of the i1Publish software upgrade in my post.

Nigel
Logged
Jalok
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 39


« Reply #69 on: April 17, 2012, 03:57:37 PM »
ReplyReply

I’m not sure, I’ll have to look but not anything like 2500 <g>

As you know from another forum, I’ve been a critic of the optimization process until I tried Marc’s target and applied it to profiles I’ve built using 1700 odd plus patches. I’ve yet to see optimization do anything useful expect for low patch initial Munki-like targets with color patches in optimization. With 2500 gray patches, I do see improvement in neutrals and their gradients being smoother but it isn’t huge.

I've seen improvement not only in neutrals and gradients but also in Dmax of the darkest neutral tone. Also, to see those improvements it was not needed to apply the huge Marcs' target, but a simple 400-500 patch optimization target plus "roman16_16_lowkey_BW_rgb" tones.
Logged
Scott Martin
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1311


WWW
« Reply #70 on: April 17, 2012, 04:01:09 PM »
ReplyReply

I've seen improvement not only in neutrals and gradients but also in Dmax of the darkest neutral tone. Also, to see those improvements it was not needed to apply the huge Marcs' target, but a simple 400-500 patch optimization target plus "roman16_16_lowkey_BW_rgb" tones.

OK, so how many patches and neutral patches did *your* original target have?
Logged

Jalok
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 39


« Reply #71 on: April 17, 2012, 04:23:13 PM »
ReplyReply

OK, so how many patches and neutral patches did *your* original target have?

2052 patches. I've also done the inverse experiment, profiling with 400-500 patches then applying optimization with 2052 + plus "roman16_16_lowkey_BW_rgb" tones. The 2052 + 500 patch profile is better than the 500 + 2052 one. The only procedure that exceeded in quality all those experiments was a kind of preprofiling calibration, which consisted in searching the best RGB bias combination for a given paper that would produce the nearest gray-axis for a 10 or 20 step grayscale. But it was only marginally better than the ""roman16_16_lowkey_BW_rgb" optimization, and only in some paper and ink combinations.
Logged
Scott Martin
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1311


WWW
« Reply #72 on: April 17, 2012, 04:31:16 PM »
ReplyReply

A 2052 only has 18 gray axis patches. I'd suggest starting with a target that contains a ton of gray axis patches. 2033 for example, contains well over 100 gray patches and will, IMO produce a better profile to start with, potentially limiting the benefit of optimization.

Again, I'd rather start with a smart target containing tons of gray patches than have to optimize it with a second step.
Logged

Mark Paulson
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 89


« Reply #73 on: April 17, 2012, 04:38:55 PM »
ReplyReply

Ok I give. What the heck is a "roman16_16_lowkey_BW_rgb"  ?
Logged
digitaldog
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8587



WWW
« Reply #74 on: April 17, 2012, 04:40:55 PM »
ReplyReply

Ok I give. What the heck is a "roman16_16_lowkey_BW_rgb"  ?

http://www.roman16.com/en/
Logged

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

Posts: 39


« Reply #75 on: April 18, 2012, 03:17:55 PM »
ReplyReply

A 2052 only has 18 gray axis patches. I'd suggest starting with a target that contains a ton of gray axis patches. 2033 for example, contains well over 100 gray patches and will, IMO produce a better profile to start with, potentially limiting the benefit of optimization.

Again, I'd rather start with a smart target containing tons of gray patches than have to optimize it with a second step.

I never thought this would make any difference, because many paper/ink/printer combinations here print R=G=B patches too off the gray axis, so other R+i, G+j, B+k target scales would be more useful to neutralize the grayscale. That's in theory (or not even this). I will try to reprofile a given paper using the 2033-patch targets and compare the results to the one archieved with the original 2052-patch targets plus optimization.
Logged
Scott Martin
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1311


WWW
« Reply #76 on: April 20, 2012, 08:03:13 AM »
ReplyReply

I never thought this would make any difference,...

With i1P it does...

I will try to reprofile a given paper using the 2033-patch targets and compare the results to the one archieved with the original 2052-patch targets plus optimization.

Great - let us know what you find!
Logged

jwlimages
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 59


« Reply #77 on: April 20, 2012, 12:34:24 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
A 2052 only has 18 gray axis patches. I'd suggest starting with a target that contains a ton of gray axis patches. 2033 for example, contains well over 100 gray patches

-- first off, Scott, thank you for this and the other info you're sharing about using i1P.

At the risk of betraying my ignorance, though - how does one find out this kind of information? Without any documentation from X-rite (sorry, the few tidbits in the "Support" section of the web site don't count), what does the user do - go through patch sets incrementing the total # one at a time, saving out tiffs & using Photoshop to count how many patches are close to "gray" values?! (then extend the nightmare by repeating this process for CMYK profiles to use with a RIP?!)

Is there some logic to why a 2033-patch count has more than 5X the gray axis patches than another target generated with #19 additional patches total? If so, is this published somewhere?

Sorry if I sound cranky. I genuinely want to learn more about how best to use this software.

Regards,

John Lund
JWL Images
Emeryville, CA
Logged
Rhossydd
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1888


WWW
« Reply #78 on: April 20, 2012, 12:43:26 PM »
ReplyReply

Sorry if I sound cranky. I genuinely want to learn more about how best to use this software.
You don't sound at all cranky.
Learning the deeper parts of CM is a poorly documented nightmare. GMB/X-Rite have had a habit of delivering help systems that describe what the functions are, but not why you might want to use them, how they work or how to get the best out their products.
Logged
Scott Martin
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1311


WWW
« Reply #79 on: April 20, 2012, 06:26:57 PM »
ReplyReply

how does one find out this kind of information?

Lots and lots of hands-on, beta testing and talking with the engineers and product managers over the years.

Without any documentation from X-rite, what does the user do - go through patch sets incrementing the total # one at a time, saving out tiffs & using Photoshop to count how many patches are close to "gray" values?!

Really, you get great results no matter how you do it in i1P. 400 patches, 2000 patches, defaults, etc. I think they've done a great job at making it easy to make superb profiles. It's the fine print - the tiny, tiny details that we're discussing here in this thread. Perhapes it the job of the color management consultants that help educate their customers and the general public on these finer details.

Is there some logic to why a 2033-patch count has more than 5X the gray axis patches than another target generated with #19 additional patches total? If so, is this published somewhere?

That's just how the patch generator works in i1P. To get a feel for how it works just start tapping the right arrow button next to the number of patches in i1P's Patch Set generator. Clicking this right arrow will increase the number of patches by 1. Watch the number of gray patches increase until it gets to a certain point where a much larger number of color patches are generated displacing those gray patches, and it starts all over again. Try it - you'll get a feel for how it works pretty fast. I'm a gray balance freak and so I like to go for those certain patch counts where the gray patches are maximized. Quite a number of years ago I spoke with the guy that first engineered this and he liked to do the same thing too.



Logged

Pages: « 1 2 3 [4] 5 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad