Re: Do I need to upgrade to i1Profiler? With respect to UV
Re: Do I need to upgrade to i1Profiler? With respect to UV
- Subject: Re: Do I need to upgrade to i1Profiler? With respect to UV
- From: Tom Lianza <email@hidden>
- Date: Fri, 15 Apr 2011 10:51:53 -0400
- Thread-topic: Do I need to upgrade to i1Profiler? With respect to UV
Hi Claus,
The comments that follow are my personal opinions, they should not be
construed to be any kind of official X-rite comments on the specification or
Minolta products (which, by the way, I use on a daily basis).
My issue isn't with the excellence of your instruments or the excellent work
and publications. With respect to M1, the problem is the customer
expectations that are being driven by hype and lack of attention to real
problem: communication of color as visually observed. There has always been
this battle between "formulation" and "visualization" of color. The reason
for the various measurement modes is that measurements are often "purpose"
driven: M0 - traditional, M2 - UV Cut (separates the media issue from the
ink) , M3- Crossed Polarized and UV Cut to minimize surface effects in 45-0
applications. M1, as specified, seems to specify a given ratio-metric
amount of Uv & visible striking the sample with a great deal of lee way in
the actual spectrum of the light striking the sample. What purpose does
that serve? Clearly, we can calibrate two instruments to bi-spectrally
calibrated tiles, and get a consistent measure of white, but it certainly
doesn't guarantee that we will all agree on on a wide range of colors if the
two instruments have very different native illuminants.
I ask this question: Do we do the industry a service by folding
underspecified illumination conditions, often quite variable between
manufacturers, into the measurement for communication of color information?
I'm not sure that's such a good idea.
Now with respect to some of your other comments:
With regard to building models around using two color LED measurement, that
is something we at X-rite, have been doing for a number of years. Our
Pantone Papers are all Bi-Spectrally modeled. Our iSis uses bi mode
scanning. The question still remains: What is the value proposition for the
customer? How do we exploit this capability to help the customer? These are
not questions that are solved by great technical papers or well specified
instruments.
The one area which we do have a disagreement:
You wrote:
"the results for printed specimens will be acceptable in many
> cases as the fluorescence from unprinted area will be dominant in low tone
> value specimens and the effect of fluorescence is insignificant in high tone
> value specimens."
This may be true for conventional CMYK printing efforts, but it is NOT true
for Spot Color Inks used in the Pantone System and the effect is a strong
function of hue. We have inks that naturally fluoresce. In our latest
books printed on FCS papers with relatively normal amounts of OBA (excluding
the fluorescent colors) typical measurement differences are on the order of
4 DE(76) with excursions as far as 8 or 9 when measured under d65 and
compared to UV cut. Naturally this will be a bit smaller at D50, but I
think many users would call 4DE significant.
The real question is: What are we trying to accomplish with this technology?
I haven't heard a really sound answer to that question.
Regards.
Tom
On 4/15/11 2:31 AM, "Claas Bickeböller" <email@hidden> wrote:
> Tom,
>
> As to the method for judging M1 conformance, I also think that the most
> important issue is to establish the reliable, unbiased, and also practical
> method for M1 instruments to be really acceptable. We made our own reference
> materials which were assigned their bi-spectral characteristics by NRC in
> Canada and evaluated the FDs using them by the evaluation method we made based
> on the concept described in ISO13655.
> Since it is not practical to prepare satisfiable number of reference materials
> which are generally unstable, Mr. Matsubara, who is charged in this issue, is
> thinking about the similar judging method to CIE 51.2.
>
> As to the effect of ink absorption, similarly to OBC, the FD uses the
> compensation method which combines two results by white LED and by white LED
> plus UV LED illuminations based on the model for the target illuminant such as
> D50. The primary difference from OBC is that the FD builds the model by
> calculation using spectral power distributions of two illuminations and the
> bi-spectral characteristics of the paper substrate. That is, the FD
> compensates for the paper substrate and neglects the effect of ink films on
> it, however, the results for printed specimens will be acceptable in many
> cases as the fluorescence from unprinted area will be dominant in low tone
> value specimens and the effect of fluorescence is insignificant in high tone
> value specimens. Please refer to the following papers.
> (1)Imura K. New Method for Measuring an Optical Property of a Sample Treated
> by FWA. COLOR Res Appl 2007;32:195-200,
> (2) Imura K. New Method for Measuring an Optical Property of a Printed Sample
> on FWA-Treated Paper. COLOR Res Appl 2007;32:450-4620
> and (3) Errortum COLOR Res Appl 2007; 33:161-174.
>
> As to the effect of high energy spikes, it will be reflected to the results by
> knowing the spectral power distribution of the illumination with spikes for
> the spectral compensation.
>
> As seen above, the FD includes many sources of residual errors, however, our
> objective is not a perfect solution but an affordable and practical solution
> which improves the today's situation of color communication to the acceptable
> range.
>
> Finally, the FD measures irradiance between 360 - 730nm with FW@HM of 10nm and
> a sampling interval of 5nm. Thus it measures the relevant UV peak (relevant
> because this is the peak that the FWAs are excited by) in the viewing booths
> which we find in the graphic arts industry.
>
> Best regards
>
> Claas
>
> Am 12.04.2011 um 15:49 schrieb Tom Lianza:
>
>> Claas
>>
>> Unfortunately I must disagree. While I have no doubt that you can get two
>> devices made by your own company to agree, there is no independent certified
>> reference medium that exists today to judge m1 performance in an unbiased
>> fashion. The trick isn't to get two of the same instruments from a family
>> to agree, the trick is to get all instruments to agree. Physically
>> speaking, the tungsten output of a lamp is well understood and the amount of
>> uv in a properly adjusted lamp is extremely consistent between instruments
>> of any family. Most importantly, the excitation from an M0 instrument
>> generally excites the OBA in the paper more than most viewing booths. If
>> anyone took the time to actually measure the UV excitance of M0 instruments
>> using a certified tile with OBA, they would have seen that there is
>> excellent agreement between instruments. The problem is not the reality, but
>> the fact that the excitation was not specified. M1 attempts to specify the
>> excitation energy, but it does so in a nebulous fashion that may or may not
>> yield the anticipated outcome assumed by the standard.
>>
>> I never said that there would be bad agreement when comparing M0 to M1
>> instruments. They were designed to NOT agree, so disagreement is the
>> expected result. What I did say is that if you expect the M1 measurement
>> mode to have any real meaning with respect to visual studies, you will be
>> disappointed.
>>
>> " how they can benefit
>>> from having the opportunity measuring FWA treated papers correctly
>>> (by means of using a measurement light source that corresponds to the
>>> viewing
>>> environment’s light source) for the very first time.
>> "
>> While this makes good advertising copy, it is patently incorrect on a number
>> of points:
>>
>>
>> First, knowledge of the source cannot correct for the unknown UV absorption
>> of the inks. Without knowledge of the UV absorbance of the inks and their
>> mixtures, the effect of the UV upon fluorescence is not predictable because
>> it is modulated by the inks themselves. One cannot simply multiply the
>> source times the ink reflectance to get a correct value in the presence of
>> UV. If you were to do this with arbitrary Pantone colors on coated papers
>> you would have errors on the order 4 de76 in many colors when compared with
>> tele-spectrophotometric measurements in the light booth.
>>
>> Second, the FD5/FD7 measures down to 380nm which leaves quite a bit of
>> excitation range in the UV unmeasured, so it is not clear that you can even
>> characterize the source well enough to understand what is happening in the
>> UV. I don't have a copy of the spec in front of me, but it is not clear that
>> you could even confirm that an illuminant met m1 requirements.
>>
>>
>>> The fact that UV content in today's used viewing booths are not equal to D50
>>> is correct but almost all vendors of ISO3664 viewing cabinets have changed
>>> their light sources to meet ISO 3664:2009 so that one can expect to have the
>>> correct UV content in the field’s viewing environments soon.
>>>
>>
>>
>> Finally, at the ICC Developers Conference, I showed physical measurements of
>> paper under booth illumination that demonstrated that structure in UV region
>> propagated into the visible. The concept that you can just have a correct
>> ratio-metric amount of UV in the illumination as described in the ISO spec,
>> should not imply that you will get the same integral excitation on output.
>> The concept of "correct UV content" is tenuous at best. By the way, some
>> of your KM colleagues were at the Dev Con and they should have a copy of the
>> paper on the DVD.
>>
>> Within X-rite, I was one of the strongest supporters of the M1 spec until I
>> took a very close look at what it really implied and the real field
>> implications. Most importantly, it is important to control expectations
>> from end users in the field. M1 has raised a certain expectation level that
>> I fear will not be realized. I did not come to this conclusion without a
>> great deal of research and measurements.
>>
>> In my opinion, for M1 to have realizable benefits, a number of tasks must
>> happen:
>> 1. An independent Certified Reference Medium must be agreed upon. I am
>> personally working with some standards manufacturers on this problem.
>> 2. The effect of major spectral deviations (high energy spikes) from the D50
>> standard, as found in every light booth, needs to be better understood. It
>> is my understanding that CIE is looking at this.
>> 3. A better mechanism between contact measurement and physical viewing
>> environment color needs to be developed.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Tom
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On 4/12/11 7:04 AM, "Claas Bickeböller" <email@hidden> wrote:
>>
>>> Dear Tom and all,
>>>
>>> Regarding to your statement that one has to expect a bad inter-instrument
>>> agreement when comparing M1 to M0 type,
>>> I must say that I cannot agree at all.
>>> 1. M1 is a well defined measurement mode compared to M0
>>> 2. The light source used in a M1 device has to be controlled and stable in
>>> order to be able to meet M1 conditions according to ISO 13655
>>>
>>> Thus, one can expect a much better inter-instrument agreement using two M1
>>> devices than two M0 devices.
>>> At least this is what we, at Konica Minolta, see when we compare the
>>> performance of our FD-7 and FD-5 devices (which are the first M1 capable
>>> devices on the market) to the technical specifications published by vendors
>>> of
>>> M0 devices for the graphic arts industry.
>>>
>>> I agree with you that you have to expect a bad inter instrument agreement
>>> when
>>> measuring FWA treated substrates and mixing M1 and M0 devices.
>>> But that is similar as if mixing M2 (“UV-cut”) and M0 devices. This is
>>> simply
>>> a mistake in using the devices. Thus we have to carefully educate our
>>> customers how to use the measurement modes correctly and how they can
>>> benefit
>>> from having the opportunity measuring FWA treated papers correctly
>>> (by means of using a measurement light source that corresponds to the
>>> viewing
>>> environment’s light source) for the very first time.
>>> Using our FD-7 (not FD-5) you can measure the viewing environment's light
>>> source to be registered to the FD-7,
>>> and then use this registered light source as a measurement light source for
>>> the reflection measurements. That means that you can not only use D50 as a
>>> measurement light source but also the exact light source you are using for
>>> your visual assessments in your viewing environment.
>>> In addition, the registered light source can also be used as reference
>>> illuminant for the calculation of colour values (CIELAB or CIEXYZ). That
>>> means
>>> when using the registered light source for both, measurement light source
>>> and
>>> calculation illuminant, you can measure as you see.
>>>
>>> The fact that UV content in today's used viewing booths are not equal to D50
>>> is correct but almost all vendors of ISO3664 viewing cabinets have changed
>>> their light sources to meet ISO 3664:2009 so that one can expect to have the
>>> correct UV content in the field’s viewing environments soon.
>>>
>>> Thanks for reading
>>>
>>> Claas
>>>
>>> Claas Bickeböller
>>> Application Engineer
>>> Graphic Imaging EMEA
>>>
>>> Konica Minolta Sensing Europe B.V.
>>> Swiss Branch Dietikon
>>> Riedstrasse 6
>>> CH - 8953 Dietikon
>>>
>>> Phone: +41 43 322 98 04
>>> Mobile: +41 79 861 71 77
>>> Fax: +41 43 322 98 09
>>> E-mail: email@hidden
>>> Website:http://www.konicaminolta.eu
>>>
>>> Am 10.04.2011 um 14:26 schrieb Tom Lianza:
>>>
>>>> Hi Mike,
>>>>
>>>> The whole UV issue is like a wound that won't stop itching. The inclusion
>>>> of optical brighteners in papers has led to a demand for "specified"
>>>> amounts
>>>> of UV in the measurement path. There are now four ISO measurement modes:
>>>> M0 - traditional tungsten illumination
>>>> M1 - illumination simulating D50 and/or matching the UV content of D50
>>>> relative to the visible portion
>>>> M2 - UV cut: minimal or no uv in the illumination sample
>>>> M3 - Crossed polarized and UV cut in the illumination beam.
>>>>
>>>> The goal of the M1 specification is to provide the illumination that
>>>> simulates the standard viewing conditions. It is not easy to control the
>>>> specific amount of UV without careful tuning and frankly M1, in my opinion
>>>> will add to confusion and cause greater instrument to instrument
>>>> disagreement. Given the fact that most viewing booths do not meet the UV
>>>> characteristics of D50, the M1 condition will lead to greater disagreement
>>>> between visual and instrument assessment.
>>>>
>>>> Isis is much older than the new specification, and hence, its design was
>>>> aimed at helping solve the problem in a different way. If you look at the
>>>> OBA module we provide, there are visible standards that are used to
>>>> correlate the iSis measurements with a specific media in a specific booth.
>>>> The goal here is to fold the effect of UV AS VISUALLY INTERPRETED, back
>>>> into
>>>> the profile.
>>>>
>>>> I am in the process of writing a White Paper on this subject for the ICC.
>>>> I
>>>> hope you see that this is not " dictated by devious instrument design
>>>> logic", but rather, a case of the instrument design preceding the ISO
>>>> specification AND a desire to actually solve the problem in real life.
>>>>
>>>> Take care
>>>> Tom Lianza
>>>> Co Chair ICC
>>>> Director Advanced Development R&D X-rite
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 4/10/11 4:38 AM, "Mike Strickler" <email@hidden> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Random observations about all this, as if anyone cares:
>>>>>
>>>>> 1. No one "needs" to upgrade, if that's the right word. There is no plan
>>>>> to
>>>>> confiscate your PM5 or Monaco. They're both working for now, at least on
>>>>> 10.6,
>>>>> and later on you can keep a copy on an old Mac or PC. What a crisis.
>>>>>
>>>>> 2. Colorport works, but what a dreadful user experience! Like Brookhurst
>>>>> Avenue in Anaheim, CA, an incoherent jumble of signs and ugly typography.
>>>>> Like
>>>>> Windows, come to think of it. The same with Monaco, actually. Nice
>>>>> profiles,
>>>>> but an interface only an engineer can love. (I hope you're not reading
>>>>> this,
>>>>> George.) The best thing about the new software is that it grabbed some of
>>>>> Monaco's best features, like the flexible black generation curve, and
>>>>> rolled
>>>>> it up with the Profilemaker/EyeOne usability and lovely interface. Then,
>>>>> for
>>>>> some reason, they stopped short and left us with Colorport for measuring?
>>>>> Doesn't fit the philosophy or aesthetics. Maybe they ran out of time.
>>>>>
>>>>> 3. On Monaco's supposed supremacy over PM5 (from Marc): For some things,
>>>>> maybe, but I could never demonstrate that it made a better printer
>>>>> profile,
>>>>> not visually, not by the numbers. I know the features and why they should
>>>>> be
>>>>> better, including Intelligent Black. It was so cool! Problem is, I was
>>>>> always
>>>>> able to duplicate these effects in PM5 very closely (and those of some
>>>>> very
>>>>> brainy ink-savings programs as well). Maybe I'm just not smart enough to
>>>>> appreciate the advantages, don't have the palate, you might say. X-Rite
>>>>> apparently thought both programs needed improvement, thus Prism.
>>>>>
>>>>> 4. Marc, we've already been told that iterative L*a*b* profile
>>>>> optimization
>>>>> doesn't work, and we must accept it, regardless the evidence. Please get
>>>>> with
>>>>> the program, so to speak. I will be refusing all prompts to optimize.
>>>>>
>>>>> 5. A major crime remains unredressed with this release, or has it? The
>>>>> wondrous iSis, jewel in the i1 crown, runs at half-speed for those who
>>>>> insist
>>>>> on including ultra violet in their measurements as it doggedly adds a
>>>>> second
>>>>> pass in UV-cut mode (technically no-UV-included, as there's no UV to cut).
>>>>> Can
>>>>> someone finally tell us why UV-filtering freaks get the only fast mode?
>>>>> Why
>>>>> is
>>>>> this the default in this day and age? Is this dictated by devious
>>>>> instrument
>>>>> design logic? Is a UV-excluded pass perversely needed to simulate the UV?
>>>>> Anyone? Marc? Ray Cheydleur?
>>>>>
>>>>> 6. No one has griped about the lack of a scanner profiling module. A
>>>>> no-brainer, this one: Scanner operators are real men, and they don't
>>>>> whine.
>>>>> They also tend not to believe in color management, and now they've been
>>>>> paid
>>>>> back by being officially obsoleted. (Note to Epson/Silverfast owners: Do
>>>>> not
>>>>> reply; you do not own a scanner.)
>>>>>
>>>>> MS _______________________________________________
>>>>> 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
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The information contained in this e-mail and any accompanying attachments
>>>> may
>>>> contain information that is privileged, confidential or otherwise protected
>>>> from disclosure. If you are not the intended recipient of this message, or
>>>> if
>>>> this message has been addressed to you in error, please immediately alert
>>>> the
>>>> sender by reply e-mail and then delete this message and any attachments.
>>>> Any
>>>> dissemination, distribution or other use of the contents of this message by
>>>> anyone other than the intended recipient is strictly prohibited. The
>>>> company
>>>> accepts no liability for any damage caused by any virus transmitted by this
>>>> email or any attachments.
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored.
>>>> Colorsync-users mailing list (email@hidden)
>>>> Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription:
>>>> .n
>>>> ame
>>>>
>>>> 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
>>
>>
>> The information contained in this e-mail and any accompanying attachments may
>> contain information that is privileged, confidential or otherwise protected
>> from disclosure. If you are not the intended recipient of this message, or if
>> this message has been addressed to you in error, please immediately alert the
>> sender by reply e-mail and then delete this message and any attachments. Any
>> dissemination, distribution or other use of the contents of this message by
>> anyone other than the intended recipient is strictly prohibited. The company
>> accepts no liability for any damage caused by any virus transmitted by this
>> email or any attachments.
>
The information contained in this e-mail and any accompanying attachments may contain information that is privileged, confidential or otherwise protected from disclosure. If you are not the intended recipient of this message, or if this message has been addressed to you in error, please immediately alert the sender by reply e-mail and then delete this message and any attachments. Any dissemination, distribution or other use of the contents of this message by anyone other than the intended recipient is strictly prohibited. The company accepts no liability for any damage caused by any virus transmitted by this email or any attachments.
_______________________________________________
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