xrite i1Studio

Started 3 months ago | Discussions thread
Rich42 Senior Member • Posts: 2,532
Re: Fair request, so ...

NAwlins Contrarian wrote:

I realise this back and forth is getting maybe a little too long

As long as civility persists and the detail is worthwhile, I'm fine with it!

But in the end the brute force attempt is the only way to get low dE on an extended set of test patches.

Is there some reason why you don't think that if the profile building software can accurately determine the areas of major nonlinearity from some combination of general prior / institutional (i.e., X-Rite's) experience with inkjet nonlinearity and the measurements of a limited number (50) of standard patches, high-quality descriptions of the nonlinear areas cannot be calculated from those two things plus a small (50 or 100) second set of custom-chosen patches?

ccStudio is fine for amateur purposes but far from satisfying for professionals or fine art.

If I were making prints for higher-end sales and/or running a service for high-end prints, then I don't doubt there would be worthwhile benefits to getting an i1 Photo Pro 3 or whatever. However, I'm betting that the large majority of art buyers would not notice an issue, and maybe not even a difference.

I'm just curios if you can find the time to share two overlaid gamuts for both a ccStudio output and any other professional grade device. Xrite, Konica Minolta, whatever. I honestly can't believe you're getting optimum profiles with such a little number of patches, no matter what is the optimisation behind the curtains.

That is a fair request, so I'll do my best to fulfill it. I don't have any direct equivalents. The large majority of the profiles I've built were done because there was no canned (i.e., professionally-made but not custom to my printers) profile. And then I have two professionally-made custom profiles, but I can't compare them to i1Studio profiles because (1) they work well so I've had no incentive to make additional custom profiles of my own and (2) they're v. 4 profiles and therefore cannot be analyzed with the free online tool I use, ICC View. But here are the best two comparisons I can provide. The first is for my favorite paper, Red River Palo Duro Softgloss Rag (very similar to Canson Platine). The solid color is Red River's profile (made by Chromix, a high-end service) for the Epson XP-15000 and the wire frame is my i1Studio profile for my Epson R280. Both use Claria dye inks, but otherwise there are significant differences (the XP-15000 has gray and red inks instead of light cyan and light magenta). As you can see, my profile doesn't have any funny spikes or anything.

The second is for Red River Pecos River gloss. As before, the solid color is Red River's profile for the Epson XP-850 and the wire frame is my i1Studio profile for my Epson R280. On one hand, the XP-850 uses the exact same inkset as my R280, but the profile is from Datacolor (the Spyder purveyors), not the high-end Chromix.

Again, pretty similar contours and nothing weird in mine. And as previously stated, I find the monitor-to-print match to be quite good.

So I stand by what I wrote before. My ultimate takeaway is that the ColorMunki Photo / i1Studio / Calibrite ColorChecker Studio, with its software and 50 + 50 patch process, can build good-quality ICC printing profiles that are likely to satisfy all by the most demanding users.

Of course, if you're that demanding, and have the $2000 (or more!) to spend on such a tool, by all means get a nicer device.

Glad you posted this as I was going to try to do something similar, but I don't have the time.

I was going to post graphs of several of my i1 Studio profiles for my Canon Pixma Pro 100 printer on Epson, Canon, and other papers.

My profiles contain no noticeable distortions, spikes, holes, bumps, valleys, divits, etc. They work quite well and give me slightly better performance than the profiles supplied by paper suppliers.

I assume that's because I'm capturing the actual performance of my particular printer. However, I have to acknowledge that modern printers are amazingly well-behaved and consistent from machine to machine and over quite long periods.

I used to create profiles with Argyll CMS using several thousand samples and a variety of X-Rite machines. My i1 Studio is giving me as good or better performance than I was obtaining in the past. And frankly, I haven't done any profiles in the last year, and haven't seen any change in the quality of my output.

I had previously printed on Epson 24" machines, but after burying 3 of them, swore off for a while. I'll be getting a 24" Canon machine this spring and will do a lot of profiling again then. I guess I'll compare the i1 Studio's performance with its software against Argyll CMS then with the same instrument.

Rich

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