Subject: Re: Profiling software
Subject: Re: Profiling software
- Subject: Subject: Re: Profiling software
- From: Tom Orino <email@hidden>
- Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2001 08:57:33 -0400
In a message dated 6/12/01 5:40:57 AM, email@hidden writes:
>
>I queried this list a few weeks back about Monitor calibration and printer
>
>profiling software. After purchasing a new monitor (you can't profile
>
>what's worn out, as I found out the hard way) I am now looking again for
>
>that profiling system, at a modest price.
>
Well, the answer to affordable, high quality monitor profiling is definately
>
the ColorVision Spyder... for some reason the rest of your post never asks
>
how EZ Color stacks up against that... but the answer is that neither the
>
sensor, nor the monitor calibration software are in the same league as the
>
ColorVision products.
First, I would like to make it clear who I am and where I am coming from.
My name is Tom Orino, I work for Monaco Systems, and I am the Product
Manager for MonacoEZcolor. I have seen many posts from Mr. Tobie on various
color management forums and have never seen him make it clear that
ColorVision compensates him for his continuous support on these forums and
at trade shows.
As far as monitor calibration is concerned, ColorVision makes fine hardware
and software, but the statement that neither Monaco's sensor nor software
are in the same league is simply not based on fact. The Spyder's color
accuracy is rated at +/- .005 in x,y (from ColorVision's web site). The
MonacoSENSOR's accuracy is rated at +/- .002 in x,y. In a head-to-head
comparison in the March,2001 issue of MacWorld,
(
http://www.macworld.com/2001/03/07/reviews/calibrators.html), the reviewer
found no difference between the devices.
>
>Several people suggested the Colorvision products, but I have also read
>
>a bit about the Monaco EZ Color 2.0. I have a few questions I hope someone
>
>can answer.
>
>Profiler RGB builds a printer profile using a scanner without first
>
>calibrating the scanner. Monaco EZ Color builds a scanner profile first.
>
>The later system seems to me to make more sense and, on the face of it,
>
>one would think that Monaco EZ Color would build "better" profiles because
>
>of the accuracy of it's input.
>
Is the goal here to reverse engineer the software intellectually, or to
>
compare the results!? If its the latter, then the majority of scanner based
>
printer profiling software users appear to prefer ProfilerRGB, despite the
>
fact that they don't know exactly why it works the way it does.
Unbiased testing has shown that MonacoEZcolor builds more accurate profiles
than ProfilerRGB. The most extensive testing I have seen can be found at
http://www.creativepro.com/story/feature/5708-1.html. This test was done in
by Bruce Fraser in May of 2000 and in it MonacoEZcolor produced far lower
average delta E scores (4 vs 10) than ProfilerRGB (then called MatchLock
Profiler).
>
>Also, having read the thread about scanner profiles, I got the impression
>
>that profiling your scanner helps you out on more levels than just the
>
>color accuracy.
>
Yes, if you aren't scanning negatives you may find it faster and easier to
>
use scanner profiles, to save time and effort in getting your images in the
>
ballpark before final visual corrections. Some users do the entire process
>
visually, and feel this does less damage to the file's histograms (color
>
smoothness and continuity) than hammering it with a profile, others prefer
>
the convenience of a profile. But its not the first decision you need to make.
>
I'd suggest getting the best monitor calibration your can afford first, and
>
setting that up. Second in importance is profiling your printer as well as
>
possible. After you have all that running at optimum values *then* I'd worry
>
about source profiles, if you need to at all.
Is it coincidence that the one piece of equipment that ColorVision does not
create profiles for is the one where you do not want to "damage" the file by
"hammering" it with a profile? Scanner profiles are another piece of the
puzzle for a color managed workflow and have value as such. Are they the
answer for every workflow in every case? Of course not, but nothing ever
is.
>
>If you buy the Colorvision bundle, wouldn't you then be looking
>
>for some kind of IT8 calibration system, such as Silverfast's? Is it that
>
>Colorvision's monitor and printer profiling system is so much better that
>
>it is worth the expense to buy a separate scanner profiling system?
MonacoEZcolor 2.0 offers monitor, scanner (reflective and transparency), and
printer (RGB and CMYK) profiling; as well as the ability to edit printer
profiles for a retail price of $498 (including the MonacoSensor for monitor
calibration). There is no other package on the market that can offer this
level of quality and function at this price. That is my (biased) opinion.