X-Rite ColorMunki experience
X-Rite ColorMunki experience
- Subject: X-Rite ColorMunki experience
- From: ColorBurst Systems <email@hidden>
- Date: Thu, 08 May 2008 10:55:03 -0400
Hello Tom,
First off, my compliments to X-Rite for the quality of the CMYK ICC
Profiles that are being produced by ColorMunki, from only 100 patches!
We've heard from some of our ColorBurst RIP users that they were
using ColorMunki to build custom ICC Media Profiles (CMYK for use w/
our RIP) and that they were pleased with the results. I decided to
follow up to see how ColoMunki CMYK Profiles compared to our
delivered ICC Profiles.
For comparison, our ColorBurst RIP includes SpectralVision Pro which
is an OEM License of X-Rite ColorPort and X-Rite Monaco Gold (Only
the Printer Output Module), integrated into a single application. We
use SpectralVision Pro to build media ICC Profiles using 2989
patches. The results have always been excellent. We build media ICC
Profiles for all Epson medias to ship pre-packaged with our RIP. In
addition, we include some third party medias as well.
We conducted a test using an Epson Stylus Pro 7880 and Epson Photo
Glossy media (thin glossy stock, around 170gm). Starting w/ our stock
Media Environment File, we turned Off ICC, keeping the out-of-the-box
settings for Ink Channels, Ink Limits, and the original Linearization
(we did not make a new Lin for this specific printer). Following
ColorMunki's instructions, we made a CMYK Media Profile and made a
sample print from a PDF that includes multiple color space elements
of RGB, CMYK, Grayscale, Lab, and Vector Pantone Spot Colors. Some of
these elements included embedded ICC Profiles. There are Linear and
Radial Blends as well.
Generally, the finished Print from ColorMunki's ICC Profile is " Very
Good + " but not "Excellent". For most people, it will be more than
adequate, especially in the Photo and Fine Art markets.
There were three issues as compared to our SpectralVision Pro (Monaco
Gold) 2989 patch Profile. The shadows were a little blocked and the
gray balance was not as tight. Another potential could be slight metamerism.
1) When building the ColorMunki Profile, it's total ink build
(perceptual rendering) is around 380%. In comparison, we build our
SpectralVision Pro Media ICC Profiles at 300%. This helps to open the shadows.
2) Since our ColorBurst RIP does not pre-mix the inks to print a gray
neutral black when ICC is Off (Epson's Black is a little brown), by
having 2989 patches there are many more samples of black for
consideration for gray correction. Still, the ColorMunki Profile
performed very well, w/ less than 1 DE variance in the "a*" and "b*"
channels. It took a Spectrophotometer to see the difference. From a
gray balance standpoint, a visual hue shift was Not obvious (as
viewed by someone w/ good visual recognition - not my aging male eyes).
3) The small potential for metamerism is due to ColorMunki's Black
Channel build. The ColorMunki Profile starts black at 25%, then
ramped to 100%. Therefore, the first 25% is a CMY build that can be
be affected by lighting conditions. Using SpectralVision Pro, we
start black at 0% and build a straight line to 100% with 100% GCR.
Therefore, the neutral axis will be printed with black ink and only a
slight correcting Lc & Lm. This significantly reduces or eliminates
metamerism. The Extra Light Black produces no visible dot in the highlights.
The above issues may not be a problem w/ the Epson or other Drivers.
In comparison, the Epson Driver (and I expect Canon and HP as well)
produce a grey neutral black by using LUTs. Therefore, the extra
samplings of black may not be as important. This also helps to
nullify the concern of the 25% Start Black for ColorMunki since the
RGB Drivers take a neutral value and convert it to Black w/
correcting LcLm. Last is the Driver LUTs typically can handle a 400%
Profile Build since they've already limited the Inks prior to Profiling.
The above assumes building an RGB Profile from ColorMunki for use in
the Driver. We are not equipped to perform that comparison.
Conclusion of the First Point: In my opinion, At the Price Point and
Ease of Use, ColorMunki is an outstanding value for a very large
segment of the market and it does perform at a very high level of
color quality.
Yes, we can do better w/ 2989 patches and an EyeOne or iSis but the
cost and skill level is much higher.
It's the 95% Rule. Delivering the quality demanded by the top 5% of
the users, is 95% of the effort. I see ColorMunki capable of
delivering the demands of (possibly) 95% of the users.
Briefly to the Second Point: It is very unlikely that the
Applications and the OS will ever provide the correct color managed -
direct to print output that is being provided by RIPs. We've provided
a RIP Solution for 14 years. I've closely watched the mess of things
that we've had to unravel from printed files. When Applications
attempt to perform color management they can flatten elements (losing
transparencies), convert Pantones to Process without the benefit of
starting from a single Lab reference. Therefore, two Pantones of the
same color - from different sources like an embedded EPS and a
Document Spot Color will not print the same, and the list goes on,
and on, and on.
If it's just a PhotoShop file, no problem using the Driver. If it's
an Illustrator, InDesign, Quark, etc. file, I don't think it will
ever come to pass. Designers have the freedom of Design with very
powerful tools and the Applications / OS just don't provide the Color
Management Processing that's required to make it right. As a Color
Managed RIP, we provide very low level intercept and processing to
provide the correct printed color.
Tom, good luck in your Quest.
Best regards,
Larry Spevak
ColorBurst
At 08:00 AM 5/8/08, you wrote:
Hi to all,
The print issue on the PC and Mac platforms with respect to color
management has reached a low point. As you all saw in the customers
complaint, there is no generic solution to color management on the
platforms. Of greater importance, there is a complete disconnect
between the OS vendors and the print vendors. Here is what we are
trying to do at X-rite: We are bringing together an internal group
next week to formulate a proposal of how we , at X-rite, feel that
color management relating to print should be presented to the end
user. We will present this proposal to the ICC at the June meeting
in Tokyo. We should have representatives from the three major print
vendors (Epson, Canon, and HP) at a minimum at that meeting. The
fundamental goal is to present an end-user with a STANDARD COLOR
MANAGEMENT UI PANEL in the printer driver REGARDLESS of the printer
manufacturer. I have proposed to the ICC in earlier meetings that
we should have a Logo program that involves the certification of
printer driver to insure that it meets the minimum requirements to
print in a color managed environment. If we can come to some
conclusions within X-rite, I will post our proposal on this forum
for comment and bring those comments to the ICC as well.
As much as I like the guys that make RIPS, I find it hard to believe
that an application vendor would recommend a RIP to solve a very
basic printing problem. As an industry, we cannot allow the OS
vendors and print vendors to get off the hook on these issues. We
pay for the OS, we pay for the printer and media, and we should
demand that they work on the platform. To do otherwise is to
guarantee that the problem will never be solved.
Good luck to you all,
Tom
_______________________________________________
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
_______________________________________________
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