Re: Time to upgrade EyeOne Pro?
Re: Time to upgrade EyeOne Pro?
- Subject: Re: Time to upgrade EyeOne Pro?
- From: John W Lund <email@hidden>
- Date: Mon, 13 Nov 2006 11:02:47 -0800
Hello Steve,
Just wanted to add to Dan Reid's comments --
You *can* use an EyeOne (UV-cut or not) to linearize & profile with X-Proof.
It's just that they used UV-cut X-Rite devices to build their
linearizations, so to *re-linearize* successfully, you must use the same
instrument (a UV-cut Pulse). Likewise, to profile using their SpectralVision
Pro module, you must use an X-Rite device.
I have used a non-UV EyeOne to build a new linearization, and successfully
profiled with EyeOne iO & ProfileMaker Pro. So you can use a non-UV spectro
and external profiling software with X-Proof with no problems, *as long as
you use papers with fairly neutral whites*.
However, I have seen this approach break when applied to some papers
containing fluorescent whitening agents. A non-UV spectro reads the whites
of such papers as being significantly "blue" (*b values < -3 in L*a*b*).
This can lead to a linearization file with a spike in the yellow highlights
(forcing the RIP to lay down yellow ink in those values, instead of allowing
them to approach paper white/no inks).
Apparently this behavior is related to ColorBurst's choosing to use Chroma
values for linearization. At any rate, the yellow cast in the highlights is
not something a ProfileMaker Pro profile can correct for, so for these kinds
of papers I have gone with their recommendation of using a UV-cut Pulse &
their profiling engine.
Strangely enough, this behavior doesn't always hold true. Using my non-UV
EyeOne & PM Pro, I got great results with Epson Enhanced Matte paper (WP
read as b* = -5) & big trouble with Hahnemuhle Fine Art Pearl (WP read as b*
= -6). Go figure...
HTH,
John
On 11/12/06 12:01 PM, "email@hidden"
<email@hidden> wrote:
> Message: 5
> Date: Sun, 12 Nov 2006 10:59:32 +0000
> From: Steve Kale <email@hidden>
> Subject: Re: Time to upgrade EyeOne Pro?
> To: colorsync <email@hidden>
> Message-ID: <C17CAF14.11D30%email@hidden>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>
> What are the merits of UV filtered vs not? I too was puzzled/annoyed to
> find Colorburst went down the UV-filtered route as I only have the non-UV
> cut EyeOne. When I looked into Colorburst their profiling engine did not
> support the EyeOne and so linearizing with a non UV i1 was not going to work
> with their profiles and one couldn¹t make one¹s own profiles because the i1
> was not supported. This may have changed by now.
_______________________________________________
Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored.
Colorsync-users mailing list (email@hidden)
Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription:
This email sent to email@hidden