Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: [1]   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: does Profilemaker still have a place?  (Read 1274 times)
narikin
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 858


« on: July 06, 2012, 04:59:51 PM »
ReplyReply

Is Profilemaker completely passed over now?

I read that people are finding Profilemaker gives deeper saturation that i1 Profiler, and looking at past profiles I can see some truth to that. Definitely not smoother, but there seems to be higher maximum densities in all colors.  Any thoughts?

Logged
PhilipCummins
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 102


« Reply #1 on: July 06, 2012, 09:24:44 PM »
ReplyReply

It looks like ProfileMaker 5 Packaging is still available if you are after it however I wouldn't count on X-Rite to keep updating it given i1 Profiler is available.
Logged
digitaldog
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 9092



WWW
« Reply #2 on: July 07, 2012, 09:24:49 AM »
ReplyReply

I read that people are finding Profilemaker gives deeper saturation that i1 Profiler, and looking at past profiles I can see some truth to that.

It would depend on the settings in each of course and the rendering intent used for testing. Even if true, the new i1P engine is significantly better and smoother and there’s more to all this than a tad more saturation. I’m not going back to ProfileMaker Pro for that.
Logged

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

Posts: 303


« Reply #3 on: July 07, 2012, 11:17:19 AM »
ReplyReply

It would depend on the settings in each of course and the rendering intent used for testing. Even if true, the new i1P engine is significantly better and smoother and there’s more to all this than a tad more saturation. I’m not going back to ProfileMaker Pro for that.

Dear andrew,

But what i see is that the icc generated by pm5 has a higher dmax than the one which made by i1p even i use the same measurement data measured in i1p. So right now, i do sometime use pm5 to create icc with. My custom made target to get a deeper black for some specific jobs. But like what you said, i still use icc which made by i1p for 99% of my jobs.

Aaron
Logged
digitaldog
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 9092



WWW
« Reply #4 on: July 07, 2012, 11:20:01 AM »
ReplyReply

I don’t really care about the numbers, I care about how a suite of demanding reference images and synthetic images I use to test profiles appear. And in that respect, the i1P engine is a pretty impressive advance over ProfileMaker Pro. The profile target generation engine is superior (again tested using the same number of patches with above images). The optimization engine when feed the right target can produce visibly superior gray balance.
Logged

Andrew Rodney
Author “Color Management for Photographers”
http://digitaldog.net/
Pages: [1]   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad