xrite i1Studio

Started 3 months ago | Discussions
julian kalmar Junior Member • Posts: 42
xrite i1Studio

With the colormunki I´m used to create printer targets with 1600 colours.
As my colormunki doesn´t work after 10 years I´d like to buy the i1Studio. Unfortunately with the i1Studio software (downloaded it for playing a little with it....) I can only create targets with 2x50 colours.
I really doubt, that an ICC profile created with 2x50 colours can work as good as an ICC profile created from the 1600 colour targets with Colormunki/iprofiler.......

Is there a possibility to use the Colormunkis iprofiler Software to create and read the targets with iStudio sensor (Colormunki and i1studio seems to be identical from hardware....)

Julian

NAwlins Contrarian Veteran Member • Posts: 6,611
Not really a change
1

With the colormunki I´m used to create printer targets with 1600 colours.

I'm 92% certain that the ColorMunki software did not provide any way to make printer profiles using 1600-patch targets. So if you were making ICC printing profiles from 1600-patch targets with your ColorMunki, you were almost certainly using software other than the X-Rite ColorMunki software--something like Argyll CMS.

AFAIK, the older ColorMunki software (I think 1.2.4 was the last version--which incidentally I'm not sure runs under the current major operating systems) and the newer i1Studio software (the last being 1.5.1 for Windows, 1.6 for Mac OS) use the same basic system: print the standard set of 50 patches, measure those, have the software create a customized second set of patches (50 for regular color profiles, 100 for B&W-oriented profiles), print those, measure those, and have the software create the ICC printing profile.

FWIW, X-Rite has sold off or spun off these devices to Calibrite. If you want a new device or the latest software, pretty soon (there are still some older i1Studios in stock) it will have to be the Calibrite ColorChecker Studio.

As my colormunki doesn´t work after 10 years I´d like to buy the i1Studio.

If you're happy with the basic device, that's a solid plan. I have rented an i1Studio, and subsequently bought a used ColorMunki Photo. They seem functionally identical.

Unfortunately with the i1Studio software (downloaded it for playing a little with it....) I can only create targets with 2x50 colours.
I really doubt, that an ICC profile created with 2x50 colours can work as good as an ICC profile created from the 1600 colour targets with Colormunki/iprofiler.......

Have you actually tried it? I find the 50+50 and 50+100 profiles to be pretty good. But don't take my word for it; guru Andrew "Digital Dog" Rodney has expressed the same view more than once. IMO the key is the iterative approach and fairly smart customization for the second set of patches.

Is there a possibility to use the Colormunkis iprofiler Software

You are the first person I've seen claim that the ColorMunki Photo works with the i1 Profiler software. I thought this was not possible. Are you sure?

to create and read the targets with iStudio sensor (Colormunki and i1studio seems to be identical from hardware....)

From a hardware standpoint, I can't imagine there's anything a ColorMunki Photo can do that an i1Studio cannot do. OTOH, X-Rite is known for putting tags in certain devices to lock out certain software-based functionality.

But my basic takes are:

(1) try the i1Studio software--you may be surprised by the relatively high quality of the ICC printing profiles it can create; and

(2) if you really want to make 1600+ patch profiling targets and use them with an i1Studio, there are lots of people doing this with Argyll CMS.

 NAwlins Contrarian's gear list:NAwlins Contrarian's gear list
Nikon Coolpix S30 Canon PowerShot S120 Sony Alpha DSLR-A580 Sony DT 16-50mm F2.8 SSM Tamron SP 70-300mm F/4-5.6 Di USD +5 more
OP julian kalmar Junior Member • Posts: 42
Re: xrite i1Studio

well, as i Profiler was the only software I had, I`m quite sure I made the targets with it.

Argryllcms is a little bit too complicate to use for me, but I know, that it works.....

Rich42 Senior Member • Posts: 2,532
Re: xrite i1Studio
1

The i1 Studio uses a two pass process to make profiles. It “learns” from the first pass to create the second pass. Let the first print dry over night before measuring it.

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

Rich

Keith Cooper
Keith Cooper Senior Member • Posts: 2,938
Re: xrite i1Studio/colormunki etc
2

julian kalmar wrote:

With the colormunki I´m used to create printer targets with 1600 colours.

Those devices work with their own software (or third party such as Argyll) and all work with the 50+50 approach

If you made 1600 patch targets/profiles - then how? What process and other software did you use?

The CM software uses the 50+50 and whilst there is a patch reading capability in the CM software (not i1Studio - a serious omission IMHO) the idea of scanning 1600 patches with a colormunki is not one I'd relish.

As my colormunki doesn´t work after 10 years I´d like to buy the i1Studio. Unfortunately with the i1Studio software (downloaded it for playing a little with it....) I can only create targets with 2x50 colours.

Yes, the measurement process is the same as with the colormunki software, but with the addition of being able to save measurement sets during the profiling sequence.

I really doubt, that an ICC profile created with 2x50 colours can work as good as an ICC profile created from the 1600 colour targets with Colormunki/iprofiler.......

Maybe, but I'd really like to know how you did this with the original CM - I've been involved with it's development since I had alpha versions of hardware to test... Hidden features or an awful lot of tedious measurement and data manipulation?

Oh, and the 50+50 profiles can be rather good - I normally use 2.9k patch targets on i1Profiler (iSis XL) and was pleased to see some from ccStudio looking quite reasonable.

Is there a possibility to use the Colormunkis iprofiler Software to create and read the targets with iStudio sensor (Colormunki and i1studio seems to be identical from hardware....)

i1Profiler does not recognise the Colormunki/i1Studio/colorchecker studio hardware (I have all three devices here and a version of i1Profiler with an 'enable all' dongle.

Whilst the devices are similar, I note that i1S hardware won't work with CM software, but CM hardware will work with the newer software

i1 Studio (now ccStudio) only supports the 50+50 ... AFAIK?

Curious to know just what you did with the original CM...

-- hide signature --

bye for now
Keith Cooper

 Keith Cooper's gear list:Keith Cooper's gear list
Canon EOS 5DS Canon EF 8-15mm f/4L Fisheye USM Canon TS-E 17mm f/4L Canon TS-E 24mm f/3.5L II
UtenteMac Regular Member • Posts: 138
Re: xrite i1Studio

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.

Rich

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.

palombian Contributing Member • Posts: 530
Re: xrite i1Studio

I bought a used Colormunki long ago and it works now with the i1Studio software (although the old Photo software has the very nice Colorpicker feature to measure Lab values) .

As said here it gives very usable profiles for my level of photography, anyway, I can't see a delta E<1 variation.

To the point: what is wrong with your Colormunki ?

Does perhaps the wheel setting (calibrate/measure) is not recognized anymore by the software ?

In this case you can repair it easily.

 palombian's gear list:palombian's gear list
Canon EOS 7D Canon EOS M6 Canon EOS M100 Canon EOS M6 II Canon EOS R5 +26 more
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.

Rich

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?

Rich

Rich42 Senior Member • Posts: 2,532
Re: xrite i1Studio

palombian wrote:

I bought a used Colormunki long ago and it works now with the i1Studio software (although the old Photo software has the very nice Colorpicker feature to measure Lab values) .

As said here it gives very usable profiles for my level of photography, anyway, I can't see a delta E<1 variation.

To the point: what is wrong with your Colormunki ?

Does perhaps the wheel setting (calibrate/measure) is not recognized anymore by the software ?

In this case you can repair it easily.

I believe you meant to send this message to the OP, not me.

Rich

just Tony
just Tony Veteran Member • Posts: 3,676
Re: Not really a change
1

NAwlins Contrarian wrote:

AFAIK, the older ColorMunki software (I think 1.2.4 was the last version--which incidentally I'm not sure runs under the current major operating systems)

I'm running ColorMunki Photo software 1.2.4 under WIndows 10. It can still be downloaded from XRite:

https://www.xrite.com/service-support/downloads/c/colormunki-photo-124

Unlike i1Studio and ccStudio, above and beyond calibration duties it also offers additional general purpose color measurement and color planning functions. I've documented house paint colors, autumn leaves, flower petals, etc.

-- hide signature --

Wag more; bark less.

UtenteMac Regular Member • Posts: 138
Re: xrite i1Studio

Rich42 wrote:

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

Rich

I’ve used two with the older Xrite brand and one with the new Calibrite logo. Exactly the same behavior.

Everything software wise is the latest stable version, both native software and OS. When I tested with Argyll it was the latest version.

Anyway as I wrote before it’s mathematically impossible to have optimum profiles with such a low number of patches. You always get very “sharp” spikes near primary and secondary colors with rough and flat approximations of the gamut, as it doesn’t have enough data to approximate near gamut limit colors. Comparing a 420/840 profile with a native ccStudio one the volume is almost similar, but the latter is sharper, flat edged and full of approximations, while the former has the expected typical shape of a pigment printer gamut.

I also profiled an Epson WorkForce printer, which is not meant for real photo printing, just for the sake of it. I paid for a single matt paper profile with close to 1000 patches, then I profiled the same paper and few other by myself. The former is just what you expect: a quite small gamut with a different yet regular shape. My profiles however are very oddly shaped, with the volume going outwards and inwards where you wouldn’t expect, with a similar shape (different volumes) across several matte and glossy papers.

I still prefer ccStudio profiles over canned ones, mostly I guess not related to the professional level of equipment used for the OEM ones, but because in my case they date back to 2010-2011 when my R3000 was a fresh announcement.

I forgot to add that when outputting a v2 ICC profile with ccStudio its gamut volume touches the L=0 black, while in v4 it correctly stays away from it depending on the ink+paper combo. It doesn’t seem to change anything else though.

NAwlins Contrarian Veteran Member • Posts: 6,611
Re: Not really a change

AFAIK, the older ColorMunki software (I think 1.2.4 was the last version--which incidentally I'm not sure runs under the current major operating systems)

I'm running ColorMunki Photo software 1.2.4 under WIndows 10. It can still be downloaded from XRite:

https://www.xrite.com/service-support/downloads/c/colormunki-photo-124

Unlike i1Studio and ccStudio, above and beyond calibration duties it also offers additional general purpose color measurement and color planning functions. I've documented house paint colors, autumn leaves, flower petals, etc.

Yes, there are functional reasons why one might use the older ColorMunki Photo software instead of the newer i1Studio software. Regarding whether the ColorMunki Photo software works under Windows 10-64 bit, X-Rite says (at https://www.xrite.com/service-support/product-support/calibration-solutions/colormunki-photo, "Existing ColorMunki Photo owners can download i1Studio software for 64 bit compatibility."

My guess is that sometimes, like for you, the old software works fine on newer OSes; and other times it has problems.

 NAwlins Contrarian's gear list:NAwlins Contrarian's gear list
Nikon Coolpix S30 Canon PowerShot S120 Sony Alpha DSLR-A580 Sony DT 16-50mm F2.8 SSM Tamron SP 70-300mm F/4-5.6 Di USD +5 more
NAwlins Contrarian Veteran Member • Posts: 6,611
My experiece my more like Rich's
1

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

I’ve used two with the older Xrite brand and one with the new Calibrite logo. Exactly the same behavior.

Everything software wise is the latest stable version, both native software and OS. When I tested with Argyll it was the latest version.

Anyway as I wrote before it’s mathematically impossible to have optimum profiles with such a low number of patches.

At the outset, I've been pleasantly surprised by how well prints made using ColorMunki / i1Studio ICC profiles have matched the screen. Now to the details:

Uh, mathematically impossible to have optimum profiles with such a low number of patches?! Maybe this is showing my ignorance, but it seems to me that if the printer were perfectly well-behaved and linear, then theoretically one could create optimum profiles with as few as 27 patches. How many patches you need with any given real-world printer seems to be in part a function of how well-behaved and linear the printer is. It also seems to be in part a function of how well the software can predict where the non-linear areas will be and use a patch set tailored to mapping those nonlinearities.

The traditional approach is rather brute-force: create a patch for every combination of R, G, and B inputs with the ranges dived into N steps, which requires N^3 patches. So for example if the range for each of R, G, and B is 0 to 255, and you divide that range into 9 steps (like 0, 32, 64, 96, 128, 160, 192, 224, and 255), then you have to print and measure 9^3 = 729 patches. If you use 12 steps, then you need 12^3 = 1728 steps--and with that, the permutations use steps that remain 23 out of 255 apart from each other--maybe enough room for significant nonlinearities.

But there are a variety of strategies for getting better results from a given number of patches. X-Rite seems to use a quite clever one with the ColorMunki / i1Studio software. The first set of 50 patches is always the same, but the second set of 50 (or 100 for B&W) is custom-calculated. If the software can, from measurements of the 50 standard patches, make very good estimates of where the nonlinearities are, then it can create an equally-good or even better profile with a far fewer number of patches.

You always get very “sharp” spikes near primary and secondary colors with rough and flat approximations of the gamut, as it doesn’t have enough data to approximate near gamut limit colors.

No, I don't.

Comparing a 420/840 profile with a native ccStudio one the volume is almost similar, but the latter is sharper, flat edged and full of approximations, while the former has the expected typical shape of a pigment printer gamut.

My i1Studio-made ICC printing profiles have what look to me, when viewed in 3D at ICC View, have what look like normal contours, including compared to 'canned' profiles.

I also profiled an Epson WorkForce printer, which is not meant for real photo printing, just for the sake of it. I paid for a single matt paper profile with close to 1000 patches, then I profiled the same paper and few other by myself. The former is just what you expect: a quite small gamut with a different yet regular shape. My profiles however are very oddly shaped, with the volume going outwards and inwards where you wouldn’t expect, with a similar shape (different volumes) across several matte and glossy papers.

Yeah, I think either you're doing something wrong, or there's a hardware problem with the device(s) you used.

 NAwlins Contrarian's gear list:NAwlins Contrarian's gear list
Nikon Coolpix S30 Canon PowerShot S120 Sony Alpha DSLR-A580 Sony DT 16-50mm F2.8 SSM Tamron SP 70-300mm F/4-5.6 Di USD +5 more
palombian Contributing Member • Posts: 530
Re: xrite i1Studio

Rich42 wrote:

palombian wrote:

I bought a used Colormunki long ago and it works now with the i1Studio software (although the old Photo software has the very nice Colorpicker feature to measure Lab values) .

As said here it gives very usable profiles for my level of photography, anyway, I can't see a delta E<1 variation.

To the point: what is wrong with your Colormunki ?

Does perhaps the wheel setting (calibrate/measure) is not recognized anymore by the software ?

In this case you can repair it easily.

I believe you meant to send this message to the OP, not me.

Rich

Sorry, but I suppose OP will read it too ?

Sincerely, IMO there is a fair chance the Colormunki can be repaired. If I can help let it know.

 palombian's gear list:palombian's gear list
Canon EOS 7D Canon EOS M6 Canon EOS M100 Canon EOS M6 II Canon EOS R5 +26 more
just Tony
just Tony Veteran Member • Posts: 3,676
Re: Not really a change

NAwlins Contrarian wrote:

"Existing ColorMunki Photo owners can download i1Studio software for 64 bit compatibility."

My guess is that sometimes, like for you, the old software works fine on newer OSes; and other times it has problems.

It's true that Photo is native 32-bit

but I'll add that I have it running here on 7-64 and 10-64.

Anyone who's interested in the abandoned functionality can run the installer anyway. If it's not compatible on their particular 64-bit machine the installer will probably halt with an error message, no harm, no foul.

XRite's Windows 11 compatibility chart does not have a line item for 'Photo, which means that they didn't even test it, possibly due to no expectation that it would work, or that they think that too few of us are interested, or simply that they've moved on.

-- hide signature --

Wag more; bark less.

UtenteMac Regular Member • Posts: 138
Re: My experiece my more like Rich's

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

Yes, we both agree that theoretically with a perfectly linear printer and a perfectly linear paper, under with a perfect light you may get perfect results without any brute force approach. As you know, however, the first two are far from perfect. Maybe your best printer is way better than mine... heck, I do hope so! But in the end the brute force attempt is the only way to get low dE on an extended set of test patches.

I have tens of profiles to share, but it would take me a whole lot of time to prove a fact that its known in the industry: that ccStudio is fine for amateur purposes but far from satisfying for professionals or fine art. It seems you're perfectly fine with the results so I'm truly happy for you and I don't absolutely feel the need to prove I'm right and you are wrong: far from that.

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.

By the way that's for sure a clever approach, but it's not magic. I've analysed most of the "step 2" charts and they differ very little from paper to paper, So sure they adjust a little to compensate the black/white paper points and the most saturated hues, but little more than that. Only once I managed to get a radically different "step 2" chart, and that I couldn't find the reason for that, nothing special.

Regarding the device error, either it's just me (and I guess I'm not that little experienced to have issues creating a ccStudio profile, am I?) or I don't know what else except a suboptimal product, because I tried three different devices, over 1 year of tests and two completely different macOS versions along the way. All of them were lemons? Just mine?

Plus, as I've written before, radically different (better) results using Argyll with 210 to 840 patches, and maybe half a dozen a little under 1000. So again, same device, just different software. Just plain old brute force approach.

NAwlins Contrarian Veteran Member • Posts: 6,611
Fair request, so ...
1

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.

 NAwlins Contrarian's gear list:NAwlins Contrarian's gear list
Nikon Coolpix S30 Canon PowerShot S120 Sony Alpha DSLR-A580 Sony DT 16-50mm F2.8 SSM Tamron SP 70-300mm F/4-5.6 Di USD +5 more
just Tony
just Tony Veteran Member • Posts: 3,676
A couple of thoughts

Any spike or mine shaft in the surface of a gamut volume should lead to a strong suspicion that a patch was misread, and that the profiling software failed to flag it - especially if this was a rare occurrence. Is it likely that there is a major discontinuity between a 95% ink delivery and one at 100% that would have been revealed by another half dozen patches in the vicinity? That feels far-fetched to me.

——-

Bump or dip anomalies in a profile that by wild luck just happen to be located on the gamut surface are of course readily seen in these 3D presentations, but maybe they are relatively less likely to result in harm of the visual appearance of a print. There would have to be some of those extreme colors present in the image, however the volume percentage of just the outer skin approaches nil. On the other hand a warp or discontinuity within the volume which is more likely to occur (there were more test points there) won’t show up in one of those 3D plots at all, but it could still damage a gradient. I’d like to see cross sectional slices of the gamut analogous to CAT scan presentations where a brain tumor is diagnosed.

Is there a “standard” color print test image that is loaded with gradients in many directions, not just primaries to white or primaries to black? Those squares with axes of hue and luminance are a good start, so maybe several of those at different saturations might make a good probe.

-- hide signature --

Wag more; bark less.

Petruska Veteran Member • Posts: 9,171
Jtoolman has done the CM/I1PRO comparison.....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gXnsJ5G6MPE

I'm surprised that he didn't use some other gamut plot software that could handle the I1PRO V4 ICC profile and the other flaw is in using the standard paper profile which used a different printer and "OEM" inks. The CM and I1PRO profiles were made using Precision Colors inks which close to OEM but not exact. Sort of an apples and oranges comparison.

I'm getting bored, need something to do, so I purchased on Ebay yesterday a CM Photo (looks mint) at a very low price and will do a Red River supplied paper ICC profile, I1PRO profile, and Colormunki profile comparison using Epson OEM ink with an Epson Printer and RR paper. I will then analyze the profiles using ColorThink PRO as I did below for a comparison of ICC profiles from the Xrite I1PRO versus the Xrite Pulse Color Elite spectros. As you can see there are very low DeltaE deviations when comparing 130,000 sampled color points. I sorted the DeltaE readings in descending order and it looks like the worse case is approximately 3 which no one would notice. The two Grainger photos have the ICC profiles applied and the DeltaE photo indicates in yellow where the two ICC applied photos deviate the most which is negligible to the eye.

Bob P.

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 MMy threads