Re: Details on how to use Eye One Match to calibrate Lyson Monochrome Inks
Re: Details on how to use Eye One Match to calibrate Lyson Monochrome Inks
- Subject: Re: Details on how to use Eye One Match to calibrate Lyson Monochrome Inks
- From: Andrew Rodney <email@hidden>
- Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2002 08:03:01 -0700
on 3/27/02 7:37 AM, email@hidden at email@hidden wrote:
>
I generally profile the Small Gamut inks with a
>
SpectroCam (due to the UV filtering) and ProfilerPRO, since it offers more
>
patches, more black ink controls, and more neutral results for me... Andrew
>
Rodney may choose to differ. <G>
Yes, I will. At least with the GretagMacbeth software and the EyeOne. First,
there is this concept that the EyeOne needs a UV filter. I've never seen
this to be the case and I'm trying real hard with output devices that should
have UV issues (Fuji PG printers, Lightjets, Lambda and all kinds of ink jet
papers I see go wild under black light) . I've also tested these papers
along with my SpectroScan using various filters and can't produce the
problems that some seem feel is an issue. In fact, due to the comments
below, I've been using the No-Filter for the past few months and haven't had
any problems with the Spectroscan and PMP Pro. I think I know the reason I'm
not having these difficulties. Here is some information I received from
GretagMacbeth Europe. I haven't seen anything so far that would lead me to
believe this isn't accurate (but I let you list members comment):
>
if you need the UV-cut or the No-Filter version of a spectrometer (e.g. the
>
Eye-One) depends on your application. To most important factor is the
>
mathematical model inside your application software. If the mathematical
>
model can handle the effects of brighteners in the paper you can always use
>
the normal version. If not you need the UV-cut version.
>
Rule of thumb in color management for a D50, D65 environment:
>
1) If you only want to calibrate (linearize) your output device, a UV-cut
>
measurement device will have a superior performance.
>
2) If you have a one step CMS output profiling process that does the
>
calibration and characterization of your output device in one step you
>
normally get better results with a No-filter device (e.g. desktop inkjet CMS
>
workflow with Eye-One match).
>
3) If you have a two step CMS process, first step calibration (linearization
>
...) and second step characterization (profile generation) depending on your
>
linearization- and CMS software you probably have better results with a
>
UV-cut device for linearization an a normal one for profiling (e.g. a
>
workflow using a RIP that can handle linearization tables and ICC profiles.)
>
If the results are acceptable with a single device (normal or UV-cut) and
>
which version gives better results has to be determined in every set up.
>
Best Regards
So, is the issue the EyeOne or the host software? In my experience, the
problems are not the EyeOne.
I still don't know why you think measuring more patches is any kind of
advantage. It doesn't make a better profile (at least in the last test I did
with the PG300). I guess if you charge by the patch, it's a lot better to
measure 729 than 288. Otherwise, I fail to see why you keep mentioning this
as some kind of feature or advantage of ProfilerPro, just the opposite.
Andrew Rodney
_______________________________________________
colorsync-users mailing list | email@hidden
Help/Unsubscribe/Archives:
http://www.lists.apple.com/mailman/listinfo/colorsync-users
Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored.