xrite i1Studio

Started 3 months ago | Discussions thread
Rich42 Senior Member • Posts: 2,532
Re: xrite i1Studio

UtenteMac wrote:

Rich42 wrote:

I use it regularly. Its profiles are on par or better than any I have ever made with my previous X-Rite pro equipment.


I've used the same device to profile tens of papers both via its native app (i1Studio and ccStudio as well, multiple devices to exclude single lemons) and custom scripts to profile via Argyll with 420 patches.

Even though ccStudio profiles are generally way better than letting the printer manage the color itself and often better than profiles provided by paper manufacturers, they're definitely NOT on par with more serious Xrite equipment.

Primary colors are more or less in the correct spot, but I can clearly see both on the gamut shape, and more importantly on the final test print, that ccStudio profiles are a bit rough and sometimes poor on gradients for specific colors.

Moreover I'd say 10-20% of the profiles do show very strange artefacts in the ColorSync 3d shapes (holes or boulders) even though not always I see odd results on paper, but neither with Xrite nor ccStudio+Argyll I've never encountered those defects.

In the end there's no magic. If only it would be possible to obtain optimum profiles with such a minimal amount of patches, most of the professional would happily buy lower cost equipments, working faster too. This is not an exception.

For everyday print papers and consumer usage I definitely suggest to give I try. For high end fine art papers and professional usage I strongly warn against it.

That's interesting. I've had the opposite experience.

I've compared the i1 Studio against many profiles generated with i1 Pro devices. I've had no artifacts with the i1 Studio. Compared to Epson "canned" profiles (which were generated on i1 Pro equipment) , the i1 Studio profiles had a wider gamut and did a slightly better job with several industry standard "test files" which had gradients very few printers or their profiles can handle well.

The gamut shapes are smooth, without inconsistencies.

I've also used the instrument with Argyll software, generating 1200 and 1600 patch targets. 1600 does not give any noticeable improvement over 1200. And profiles from 1200 pass runs are about the same quality as I am getting with the native software.

Maybe there are significant instrument to instrument variabilities? Are you using the most up to date software?


Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow