Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 [2]   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: ScannerProfiling: X-Rite's i1Pro & Eye-OneMatch3 VS SilverFast's v.8 IT8 AutoCal  (Read 6674 times)
Scott Martin
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1311


WWW
« Reply #20 on: January 18, 2013, 08:40:53 AM »
ReplyReply

I would need to acquire some expensive new XRite software etc...

You could always send your IT8 and hopefully reflective CCSG scans to someone with i1P so they could generate profiles for you. You seem like the kind of person who likes to do their homework and know the process you've chosen is the best one.
« Last Edit: January 19, 2013, 08:57:26 AM by Onsight » Logged

Mark D Segal
Contributor
Sr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 6905


WWW
« Reply #21 on: January 18, 2013, 09:02:06 AM »
ReplyReply

Yes Scott, thanks, and that is indeed possible. My principal constraint right at the moment is time, so as soon as I'm freed-up enough to get back into this I'm going to consider either buying the software or working with someone who has both the software and interest to participate.
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
sngraphics
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 28


« Reply #22 on: January 23, 2013, 05:36:24 PM »
ReplyReply

SNAGRAPHICS, yes, it's finally out! i1Profiler's scanner profiling solution is simple, easy and surprisingly effective.

I've been calibrating scanners for clients around the world since 1994, and making ICC profiles for them since 1999 and have spent a lot of time comparing various profiling solutions and targets. One observation...


With the release of i1Profiler 1.4.2, maybe we should change the subject line of this thread to "i1Profiler 1.4.2 VS SilverFast's v.8"?
Or start a new thread: "X-Rite's i1Pro & Eye-One Match3 VS i1Profiler 1.4.2"
We can probably start a few other topics too!


Scott I wanted to thank you for taking the time to provide such a detailed and informative answer.
You probably answered a bunch of questions I had all in one shot.
But, of course there are always more from a color rookie.


Is this update that much of a "Game Changer" for scanner profiling?

What is the difference between how i1Profiler performs its scanner profiling as compared to Silverfast's or even VueScan's Auto IT8 feature?
Now that i1Profiler does not use a measurement device, but relies entirely on the scanner, doesn't it basically work the same way as Silverfast?
I always had the impression that measuring the target was more accurate than the Auto IT8 workflow.

Does X-Rite have any plans to at least offer the option to use a measurement device in i1Profiler's scanner profiling process?
Is a measurement device necessary anymore? Is this even a concern?
Or am I just so used to profiling my V750 with my Eye-One Match and i1Pro?

Why aren't the HCT targets in the list of compatible targets for scanner profiling in i1Profiler 1.4.2?
Did I miss something here?

Apologies for all the questions but I am the entire graphics dept. here and currently in the middle of trying
to finalize a workflow of which the scanner (& profiling it) is of course an important part of the equation.

God Bless.
Logged
Scott Martin
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1311


WWW
« Reply #23 on: January 23, 2013, 09:09:10 PM »
ReplyReply

With the release of i1Profiler 1.4.2, maybe we should change the subject line of this thread to "i1Profiler 1.4.2 VS SilverFast's v.8"?

Perhaps we should. These seems like two good profiling solutions to really do a side-by-side test with. One is strictly profiling software for all devices while the other is scanning software with profiling capability. They target different audiences but still it would be fun to do a side-by-side test.

Is this update that much of a "Game Changer" for scanner profiling?

I think it is, especially as apps like ProfileMakerPro and MonacoProfiler are now discontinued and don't work on modern Mac OSs. Big deal shops that use big deal scanners like Cruse scanners can't use Silverfast so having a decent profiling solution is important. For reflective profiling the Colorchecker SG is a deal changer and i1P supports that. For transmissive scanning I doubt there's that much difference between this and other profiling solutions. For a color management consultant that needs to be able to profile anything, i1P is fitting the bill nicely these days (finally! after so much waiting!). It's nice having a professional profiling solution that will profile anything.

For those that are using inexpensive desktop scanners with Silverfast this isn't a game changer. These people already have a decent profiling solution and now they have another.

I like comparing Silverfast with Epson Scan on my own Epson flatbed. I did a huge scanning job for a special client recently and profiled the scanner both through Silverfast and Epson Scan. Afterwards I scanned a whole bunch of prints, 4x5 C-41 negs and 4x5 transparencies in both apps and compared the results. Believe it or not (and much to my surprise) I preferred the Epson Scan results more often than the other. But some images clearly scanned better in Silverfast so there was no clear winner to use 100% of the time. Of course, this had more to do with the scanning software than the profiles. I also scanned some of them on my Imacon and sent out a few dozen for Heidelberg Tango drum scans. There are things to appreciate about each scanning solution. To ge teh best results I had to employ a variety of scanning solutions each tailored to the different challenges at hand. It was a fun exercise for a former commercial drum scan operator.

Anyway, we can talk about this till we're silly but I'd try to summarize by suggesting that you've got use a Colorchecker SG for the best reflective profiles and IT8 transmissive profiles don't vary a huge amount from one application to another. Focusing on what scanning software/solution is a more important topic. Some are clearly happy with a desktop scanner and Silverfast while others will find need to go beyond that (Cruse, drum, Imacon/Hasselblad, etc).


Logged

dmerger
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 686


« Reply #24 on: January 24, 2013, 10:17:30 AM »
ReplyReply

Another profiling software that might be worth adding to any test is CoCa.  It utilizes Argyll open source color library.  Itís free and very easy to use.   http://www.muscallidus.com/coca/
Logged

Dean Erger
dmerger
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 686


« Reply #25 on: January 24, 2013, 05:52:31 PM »
ReplyReply

I like comparing Silverfast with Epson Scan on my own Epson flatbed. I did a huge scanning job for a special client recently and profiled the scanner both through Silverfast and Epson Scan. Afterwards I scanned a whole bunch of prints, 4x5 C-41 negs and 4x5 transparencies in both apps and compared the results. Believe it or not (and much to my surprise) I preferred the Epson Scan results more often than the other. But some images clearly scanned better in Silverfast so there was no clear winner to use 100% of the time. Of course, this had more to do with the scanning software than the profiles.

When scanning negatives, and outputting normal positive images, it would be expected to see a difference between Epson Scan and SilverFast since they likely employ different algorithms to convert the linear data from the scannerís CCD into normal positive images.  (Iíve done such a test with three different scanning software and indeed there was a noticeable difference.)

On the other hand, for positive scans, if i1Profiler was used to create both profiles from the scannerís linear output, and subsequent scans were made with the same settings and the profiles assigned, it would be expected that there would not be any (or extremely minor) differences between Epson Scan and SilverFast.   Theoretically, the linear output from Epson Scan and SilverFast would be identical (or nearly so) since the linear output should be the unadjusted linear data from the scannerís CCD.  In addition, if the linear files are identical, then it would be expected that i1Profiler would create identical profiles. 

If different profiling software was used with the linear output to create the profiles, i.e. i1Profiler and Silverfast, then it would be expected that any differences would be due to the different profiles.  On the other hand, if i1 Profiler was used to create both profiles, but from the normal output from the scanning software (not the linear output), then any differences would be expected to be due to differences in how Epson Scan and SilverFast internally convert the linear output from the scannerís CCD into normal output.

Of course, if image adjustments are made in the scanning software, then it may not be possible to determine whether any differences are due to those adjustments, different profiles, or different scanning software.

Scott, does the foregoing correspond with your experience?
Logged

Dean Erger
TylerB
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 352


WWW
« Reply #26 on: January 24, 2013, 06:04:37 PM »
ReplyReply

Dean, I don't know about the Epson software, but Silverfast has a gamma setting that applies to all scans, and can be turned on or off for raw "HDR" scans as well, it is user selectable. So depending on this setting, "linear" from each software may not have much to do with each other in the first place. Additionally, those of us using Silverfast tend to do some testing to determine what gamma setting results in the best profiles, and results seem to vary... may be scanner dependent...
Tyler
Logged
dmerger
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 686


« Reply #27 on: January 24, 2013, 06:37:38 PM »
ReplyReply

Tyler, based on what Iíve read, Iím pretty sure itís possible to output unadjusted linear data from most Epson scanners using both Silverfast and Epson Scan. 

Iíve also read that profiling results can vary depending on whether you start with a linear scan or first make a gamma adjustment to the linear scan, such as gamma 1.8 or 2.2.  Iíve tried to replicate that outcome, but couldnít.  I started with the same linear scan, and then created three profiles using the same profiling software with the same settings, except one profile was made with the linear scan data, one with a gamma 1.8 adjustment, and one with a gamma 2.2 adjustment.  There was no difference in my profiles.  Perhaps under some circumstances could there be a difference, but not in my test.
Logged

Dean Erger
TylerB
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 352


WWW
« Reply #28 on: January 24, 2013, 10:31:07 PM »
ReplyReply

yes, certainly Silverfast's "HDR" mode with gamma setting NOT applied is unadjusted... and it is still a color managed mode in a sense, it will assign your profile on output and use it for display, just not convert to a working space on the fly for you. I'm unfamiliar with the Epson software under the hood in this regard. I did make profiles with a wide variety of Silverfast gamma settings and looked at delta E's between the reference values and the results, and found that there were gamma settings better than others, but it was not dramatic. With my Howtek there is also either a linear and a log amp being used, but silverfast will not give access to a selectable option. Again, how it interacts with an Epson or other brands, I don't know..
There is some discussion of some of this on the reference material at hutchcolor.com as well, a good site for scanner color management info.
Bottom line for this thread, I'm probably muddying the water, since what you are after is simply a way to get unadjusted output from both softwarezzzz. For Silverfast, HDR with the gamma preference unchecked for HDR will give you that.
Tyler
Logged
sngraphics
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 28


« Reply #29 on: February 11, 2013, 05:08:49 AM »
ReplyReply

I think your approach to try to find out what delivers better results before spending money - and more importantly scads of time on scanning - makes good common sense. I see so far on this forum, at least, there hasn't been a forthright answer to the effect: "I've done both options and here's what I found". I must say I'm a bit surprised about that. Perhaps you are posing the same question in several other forums too - can't do any harm. If some one does pop up with a respectable comparative view of these options, please do revert here and let us know. I for one would be most interested in reading about it.

yes, certainly Silverfast's "HDR" mode with gamma setting NOT applied is unadjusted... and it is still a color managed mode in a sense, it will assign your profile on output and use it for display, just not convert to a working space on the fly for you. I'm unfamiliar with the Epson software under the hood in this regard. I did make profiles with a wide variety of Silverfast gamma settings and looked at delta E's between the reference values and the results, and found that there were gamma settings better than others, but it was not dramatic. With my Howtek there is also either a linear and a log amp being used, but silverfast will not give access to a selectable option. Again, how it interacts with an Epson or other brands, I don't know..
There is some discussion of some of this on the reference material at hutchcolor.com as well, a good site for scanner color management info.
Bottom line for this thread, I'm probably muddying the water, since what you are after is simply a way to get unadjusted output from both softwarezzzz. For Silverfast, HDR with the gamma preference unchecked for HDR will give you that.
Tyler

After enough "sitting on the fence" I decided to finally upgrade to Silverfast v8.
I want to take a shot at doing some comparisons between profiling with X-Rite's i1Profiler 1.4.2 and Silverfast IT8 feature. (maybe even Eye-One Match as well)

I will not be using SilverFast's AUTO IT8 feature seeing that I did not purchase any of the LaserSoft IT8's yet. Will do it "manually" for now.
I will be using 2 Monaco IT8's (reflective&transparency) that came with EZcolor in my V750Pro bundle.
Also have one Wolf Faust R1 reflective (flatbed) scanner target coming in any day now.

Below are the settings I will be using for SFv8 and Epson Scan.

I hope these are the correct settings and as comparable as possible between the two pieces of software.
Any comments or suggestions would be appreciated.
This test won't be that "scientific" seeing that I don't have the experience of others but I will try to post some sort of results here and even the created profiles. (if anyone is interested)
« Last Edit: February 11, 2013, 06:03:53 AM by sngraphics » Logged
Mark D Segal
Contributor
Sr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 6905


WWW
« Reply #30 on: February 11, 2013, 11:13:19 AM »
ReplyReply

Based on your screen grabs, those settings look right for scanning profile-making targets. I would be interested in seeing your comparative outcomes.
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
dmerger
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 686


« Reply #31 on: February 11, 2013, 02:18:18 PM »
ReplyReply

yes, certainly Silverfast's "HDR" mode with gamma setting NOT applied is unadjusted... and it is still a color managed mode in a sense, it will assign your profile on output ...

Tyler, do you mean that the file is linear? Also, what profile is assigned, and do you mean that that profile is embedded?   
Logged

Dean Erger
dmerger
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 686


« Reply #32 on: February 12, 2013, 09:29:02 AM »
ReplyReply

I hope these are the correct settings and as comparable as possible between the two pieces of software.

Sngraphics, you may want to scan a target with both Epson Scan and SilverFast and compare them in PS. Any significant differences should be readily apparent.
Logged

Dean Erger
dmerger
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 686


« Reply #33 on: February 12, 2013, 09:28:34 PM »
ReplyReply

According to this web site, itís not possible to output linear files with Epson Scan.  http://www.colorneg.com/scanning_slides_and_negatives/scans/Epson/Perfection/Epson_Scan/
Since it appears that Epson Scan cannot output a completely unadjusted file, youíll have to work with as close to unadjusted as you can with Epson Scan. 

Here are instructions for linear scans with SilverFast 8. http://www.colorneg.com/scanning_slides_and_negatives/scans/Lasersoft_Imaging/SilverFast_8/SE/Ai/
Logged

Dean Erger
sngraphics
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 28


« Reply #34 on: February 14, 2013, 12:09:03 AM »
ReplyReply

According to this web site, itís not possible to output linear files with Epson Scan.  http://www.colorneg.com/scanning_slides_and_negatives/scans/Epson/Perfection/Epson_Scan/
Since it appears that Epson Scan cannot output a completely unadjusted file, youíll have to work with as close to unadjusted as you can with Epson Scan. 

Here are instructions for linear scans with SilverFast 8. http://www.colorneg.com/scanning_slides_and_negatives/scans/Lasersoft_Imaging/SilverFast_8/SE/Ai/


Thank you for the links. I had a chance to read them over.
Would this info apply to reflective scanning as well.
Just asking because I will be using 2 reflective IT8s for this test and only 1 transparency.
Logged
dmerger
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 686


« Reply #35 on: February 14, 2013, 09:20:16 AM »
ReplyReply

Sorry, I can't be more helpful.  I just scan film.  I suspect that you'll have to make some minor change to the settings for reflective, such as the input type, but most of the instructions should be valid for reflective scans, too. 
Logged

Dean Erger
Frank Michaels
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1


« Reply #36 on: March 11, 2013, 01:34:19 AM »
ReplyReply

The scanning software is so critical here,

I like comparing Silverfast with Epson Scan on my own Epson flatbed. I did a huge scanning job for a special client recently and profiled the scanner both through Silverfast and Epson Scan. Afterwards I scanned a whole bunch of prints, 4x5 C-41 negs and 4x5 transparencies in both apps and compared the results. Believe it or not (and much to my surprise) I preferred the Epson Scan results more often than the other. But some images clearly scanned better in Silverfast so there was no clear winner to use 100% of the time. Of course, this had more to do with the scanning software than the profiles. I also scanned some of them on my Imacon and sent out a few dozen for Heidelberg Tango drum scans. There are things to appreciate about each scanning solution. To ge teh best results I had to employ a variety of scanning solutions each tailored to the different challenges at hand. It was a fun exercise for a former commercial drum scan operator.

Focusing on what scanning software/solution is a more important topic. Some are clearly happy with a desktop scanner and Silverfast while others will find need to go beyond that (Cruse, drum, Imacon/Hasselblad, etc).

I know this topic is about scanner profiling but when I read all this (especially about EpsonScan) I just had to ask your opinion (and anyone else's of course) on which scanning software produces better scanning results.
(Resolution, Color etc. For both Transmissive & Reflective scans)
The reason your comments specifically caught my eye is because I have been using EpsonScan with my V750 since I've had it and recently have been trying SilverFast(more) and VueScan(less) with the thought they might be better than EpsonScan because they are separate solutions you actually pay for and have more options with.


Regards,
Frank
Logged
Ernst Dinkla
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2830


« Reply #37 on: March 11, 2013, 03:49:29 AM »
ReplyReply

According to this web site, itís not possible to output linear files with Epson Scan.  http://www.colorneg.com/scanning_slides_and_negatives/scans/Epson/Perfection/Epson_Scan/
Since it appears that Epson Scan cannot output a completely unadjusted file, youíll have to work with as close to unadjusted as you can with Epson Scan. 

Here are instructions for linear scans with SilverFast 8. http://www.colorneg.com/scanning_slides_and_negatives/scans/Lasersoft_Imaging/SilverFast_8/SE/Ai/


Vuescan allows a "RAW" output that can be imported in ACR. Not more than a "RAW" Tiff where Vuescan does not interfere on the basic scan data. It is possible to create a DNG profile too as I have done with CC Passport and the X-rite software for an Epson V700. Reflective scan of course. The target is not optimal as I understand from the discussion here but I mention it for others that it is possible.

So far I find the color results of an Epson 3200 reflective scan better than with the V700. Using the 3200 with Vuescan in a normal fashion. I think the spectral sensitivity of the V700 is more aimed at photo dyes than the 3200 is and by that less suitable for reflective scanning of a variety of originals that do not have photo dyes. I guess the HP G4050 and G4010 are even better for this purpose of scanning non-photo originals in reflective mode. A clever use of two different CCFL light sources. See third article on this page:
http://www.image-engineering.de/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=57&Itemid=91
Whether one can improve on that with custom profiles remains a question, I think the HP engineers must have done a lot of tweaking for a lot of originals and their colorants.

The Vuescan "RAW" setting also allows a simple reversal of a negative scan so I use that for B&W negative scans made with the Green LEDS only of the Nikon 8000. That makes it easier to use the tools in ACR for further RAW development, like the lens sharpening tools. Noise reduction in ACR is however not that nice for film scans in my experience. Neat Image does a better job later on.

--
Met vriendelijke groet, Ernst

http://www.pigment-print.com/spectralplots/spectrumviz_1.htm
December 2012, 500+ inkjet media white spectral plots.



Logged
sngraphics
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 28


« Reply #38 on: April 25, 2013, 12:42:27 AM »
ReplyReply

Perhaps we should. These seems like two good profiling solutions to really do a side-by-side test with. One is strictly profiling software for all devices while the other is scanning software with profiling capability. They target different audiences but still it would be fun to do a side-by-side test.
...there hasn't been a forthright answer to the effect: "I've done both options and here's what I found". I must say I'm a bit surprised about that. If some one does pop up with a respectable comparative view of these options, please do revert here and let us know. I for one would be most interested in reading about it.

Sorry for such a delay but I finally got around to taking a shot at doing some comparison tests between these scanner profiling solutions using different targets and scanning softwares.
This is the first time I have done this so please forgive any missteps and feedback would be much appreciated.
The various tests and results will be posted under a new topic because I felt it would be better to start one with a more accurate title.
For anyone that's interested the title of the new thread will be: Scanner Profiling Comparisons: i1Profiler1.4.2 vs SilverFast8 IT8Cal vs i1Match3
I will not be providing too much feedback on the results because I cannot say which one is "better". (I do have my preference though)
More so I will be providing the profiles themselves, screen shots of the results after creating the profiles and Photoshop files containing test scans with the applied profiles.
This post will be available soon so anyone interested can download these files, look them over and provide any comments based on their own experience and knowledge.

Thank you.
Logged
Mark D Segal
Contributor
Sr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 6905


WWW
« Reply #39 on: April 25, 2013, 08:28:04 AM »
ReplyReply

No need to apologize - our participation in these forums is a voluntary hobby, not an obligation. I too am way behind on one set of issues for a number of good reasons - but I haven't forgotten and I'm not apologizing. Anyhow - great that you are doing this. I have some of this kind of work underway as well in another context, so it will be fun to compare observations if and when that becomes possible. I look forward to the posting of your new topic, and I would be interested in your comments on the results, because in the final analysis results is the one thing that really matters most.
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
Pages: « 1 [2]   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad