Re: dtp70 is dead

On Feb 22, 2007, at 10:59 AM, Derek Lambert wrote:

I heard it was the latter. They took a look at the cost of manufacturing and the GMB devices (surprisingly in my opinion) turned out to be more profitable to build.

I used to think that GMB's diffraction grating technology was superior to X-Rite's filter-based technology but having lived with a DTP70 for the past couple of years, I can tell you that I believe it to be the superior instrument over my previous GMB iCColor, especially in terms of repeatability. I'm at a site as we speak using the GMB Eye-One iO on a GMG install and I can tell you that I don't believe the instrument to be repeatable much below about .35 dE whereas I would routinely see no worse than around .06-.12 dE variance with my DTP70. With an "iterative" RIP such as GMG ColorProof, instrument repeatability counts for A LOT. When you have a proofing RIP such as GMG capable of delivering results down in the .25 dE range (seriously), instrument repeatability can all of a sudden become the constraining/limiting factor as to your final results.

I think the main area where the diffraction grating technology is superior is in speed. I own a SpectroEye but also have the need to use customer's X-Rite 528's. Even with the need for the SpectroEye's head projecting and returning to take a reading, it's quite a bit faster and more reliable than the 528-530 in my opinion (by "more reliable" I mean fewer failed readings like you seem to get a lot with the 500 series).

It really is too bad. The Pulse was a GREAT instrument, better in many ways than the Eye-One (I'm keeping my Pulse!). Time will tell whether the iSis is the worthy successor to the DTP70 but I believe the '70 will be a tough act to follow. Myself and many of my colleagues that do this sort of thing for a living have had great success with the DTP70. I know in my own case it virtually transformed my press calibration/characterization work overnight due to the '70's speed.

Regards,

Terry Wyse