Re: i1 Scanning Table
Re: i1 Scanning Table
- Subject: Re: i1 Scanning Table
- From: Dan Reid <email@hidden>
- Date: Tue, 02 Mar 2010 11:42:17 -0700
- Thread-topic: i1 Scanning Table
Spectroscan? Grandpa? Good luck finding one.
Another option is the Barbieri LFP device. I haven't done a consistency
check so I can¹t speak of the repeatability but this device has the table
move instead of the measurement head.
Back to original question, I would agree that the i1 iSis provides
measurements more consistent than i1 iO for a whole slew of reasons. So
Mike, if you can get by with the i1 iSis and don¹t need to measure thick or
unusual media, otherwise consider looking at a Barbieri LFP as another
option.
--
Dan B. Reid
RPimaging, INC
Color Management Products and Training for Print, Internet, and Motion
Graphics
http://www.rpimaging.com | Toll Free: (866) RGB-CMYK
on 3/1/10 7:31 PM, Terence Wyse at email@hidden wrote:
> I would say the .4 dE consistency range for the iO is being kind....I've seen
> much greater than that.
> And .2 dE for the iSis is perhaps being a bit UNkind...I typically see sub-.10
> dEs when remeasuring a chart.
>
> Putting it simply....if you have something as accurate (yes, that's the right
> word here) as, say, a GMG Colorproof RIP that is capable of sub-.30 average dE
> values to a reference, the instrument you're measuring with can easily be the
> limiting factor. Personally, I wouldn't own an EyeOne iO with a GMG RIP but
> would instead use either an iSis or DTP70. I'd rather have the accuracy of the
> RIP's color engine/CMS be the limiting factor and not the measurement device.
>
> But for profiling on a wide array of substrates AND where sub-.50 dE
> consistency and accurate proof/print-to-reference isn't necessarily a
> priority, the iO is perfectly fine.
>
> Frankly, if it were me and I needed the iO's flexibilitybut needed better
> consistency, I'd go looking for a good used Spectrolino/Spectroscan. Still
> can't beat those for consistency and versatility....they're just a bit slow is
> all.
>
> :-)
>
> Regards,
> Terry Wyse
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Mar 1, 2010, at 7:12 PM, Derek Lambert wrote:
>
>> I guess you right Marco. 0.2 dE difference is nothing these days. IO is also
>> MUCH cooler device. It's fun to watch.
>>
>> Derek
>>
>> On Mar 1, 2010, at 6:34 PM, Marco Ugolini <email@hidden> wrote:
>>
>>> In a message dated 3/1/10 3:22 PM, Derek Lambert wrote:
>>>
>>>> Yes. I have both.
>>>>
>>>> Isis is much more accurate. Maybe .2 dE difference reading the same
>>>> chart. On iO with rev. D i1 I can get .35 - .4 dE.
>>>
>>> 0.2 DeltaE as compared to a range between 0.35 and 0.4 DeltaE? Is that what
>>> we would call "MUCH more accurate"?
>>>
>>> By the way, the fact that a device makes readings within a good margin of
>>> agreement with itself is only a sign of its CONSISTENCY of operation, not
>>> necessarily of its ACCURACY.
>>>
>>> Marco Ugolini
>
_______________________________________________
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