Re: Time to upgrade EyeOne Pro?
Re: Time to upgrade EyeOne Pro?
- Subject: Re: Time to upgrade EyeOne Pro?
- From: Steve Kale <email@hidden>
- Date: Mon, 13 Nov 2006 21:23:46 +0000
- Thread-topic: Time to upgrade EyeOne Pro?
Thanks John:
> From: John W Lund <email@hidden>
> Date: Mon, 13 Nov 2006 11:02:47 -0800
> To: <email@hidden>
> Cc: Steve Kale <email@hidden>
> Subject: Re: Time to upgrade EyeOne Pro?
>
> 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.
Which means you're kind of screwed because their profiles are any good for
you if you linearize with a non-UV cut spectro.
>
> 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*.
One of the attractions of Colorburst is the built in profiling - it saves
you having to spend $2.5k (or more if you live in the UK) on PM5.
>
> 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
_______________________________________________
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