Re: Monaco EZ Color
Re: Monaco EZ Color
- Subject: Re: Monaco EZ Color
- From: email@hidden
- Date: Sat, 14 Apr 2001 17:09:17 EDT
In a message dated 4/14/01 9:14:26 AM, email@hidden writes:
>
Does anyone have any experience using Monaco EZ Color and their monitor
>
sensor?
I worked extensively with EZ Color before its initial release two years ago,
and with the following dot upgrades. It was an impressive product for the
money at a time when no one else offered anything in that range, and is still
one of the better choices. The latest version (which I've not yet tested, but
have seen demoed at Seybold) has finally added some profile editing
capabilities, which should help frustrated users who find their profiles have
color casts and other general problems.
>
Or does anyone have a positive experience with a similar product.
The other significant product in this market is ColorVision's ProfilerRGB,
which is generally rated as superior at creating profiles for imaging.
Profiler has had editing tools from the start, which is one reason its had
had a higher satisfaction level, another is that it is faster and easier to
use. For PostScript printers and RIPs ProfilerCMYK offers similar features to
ProfilerRGB, but adds a full range of Ink limits and black generation
features, which no other affordable program offers.
>
>
I want to build profiles for my monitor, Nikon film scanners and various
>
outputs (Fuji Frontier, Epson, Lambda and LVT, etc.) and a Gretag
>
Spectrolino and Colorblind software is not in this week9s budget.
Different limitations for the different packages... the sensor with the EZ
Color package (or many other packages) is a simple three sensor device (the
Chroma4), and the monitor calibrator software driving it lacks RGB gun
balancing capabilities. The preferred solution there is The Monitor Spyder
from ColorVision. But ColorVision's line won't offer you scanner profiling as
EZ Color does, though once you have calibrated your monitor, bringing scans
into Photoshop for visual adjustment is necessary with or without a profile,
it just takes more correction without one... but may leave your data in
better shape. Another difference is that EZ Color offers both RGB and CMYK
profiling in one program, though the CMYK profiling is at fixed settings,
lacking all those features noted for ProfilerCMYK above.
So I'd suggest that if you want everything in one package, and are willing to
compromise on the quality of your monitor calibration and CMYK profiles, that
EZ Color is your one stop alternative. Since all the output devices you note
are RGB based, a preferred combination might be to get the Monitor Spyder and
ProfilerRGB, and skip scanner profiling until you are sure you need it (many
users find once they have hardware monitor calibration they don't need
scanner profiling).
However, you are talking about profiling some pretty serious devices, and I
feel that even if you can't afford a $4500 program and a similarly priced
SpectroLino/ Spectroscan that you should still consider moving up to spectro
based profiles. Here I'd suggest the Spyder (still) for the monitor, and
ProfilerPRO for the output profiles. PRO makes both RGB and CMYK profiles,
using either a scanner or spectro to read the patches. It costs far less than
any comparable program, but actually builds some of the best profiles
possible, and it absolutely shines for profiling Frontiers, LightJets,
Lambdas, and Epsons. You could get a ColorMouse to go with it for less than
$500, or for somewhat over a thousand you could add a SpectroCam, which would
allow you to read patches a row at a time, making the process very fast.
If your budget will stretch several hundred farther, you could consider
Gretag Macbeth's new EyeOne bundle, which will do pretty much all of what you
are looking for at $3000. I've not had a chance to test it yet, but it sounds
like it does what it claims, and falls into a price/performance point above
the affordable packages noted previously, but noticably below the high end
packages.
C. David Tobie
Design Cooperative
email@hidden