May 2013 - colorsync-users - lists.apple.com

Seeking advice to upgrade camera + scanner calibration tools (HCT)
by Paul Schilliger 05 May '13

05 May '13

Once again I'm left with tools that are incompatible with newer Mac and OS. BasiCColor Scan+ PPC is not supported by OS 10.8. The good surprise though, is that the calibration package I just purchased to calibrate my monitors, seems to offer a free scanner and camera profiling option ! (is it really operational at no additional cost?). However, my Hutchcolor HCT target (Velvia) is unfortunately not supported by X-Rite i1Profiler. So, as far as I can see, I'm left with those two options: — Upgrade BasiCColor Scan+ to BasiCColor Input (no idea of the cost). — Purchase a new IT8 target for the X-Rite software (no idea of the cost either). I came to like that target produced by Don Hutcheson. It is sort of wide gamut and extended range, compared to standard Kodak IT8 targets. Whether that alone makes better profiles, I assume it does, especially since I shot mainly Fuji Velvia in a former life, but I don't really know. My target is now many years old though (and so are my slides), but it was used maybe 4 or 5 times and stored in a dark cool place. BasiCColor still lists the HCT target. Their older software made good profiles for my Creo scanner. I now wish to calibrate my Canon 1Ds III as well. X-Rite software is more convenient to use (no need to register a machine specific TAN number that gets lost with any hardware upgrade or system renewal). Whether it would make as good or better camera profiles, I have no idea. Have you? Thanks in advance! Paul Schilliger

7 11

Re: Feedback on success, creating a camera profile
by ron＠colorwaveimaging.com 05 May '13

05 May '13

Ben- I do a lot of art reproduction, and use a Phase back, Capture One Pro for RAW processing, and finish in Photoshop with local color corrections. I start with a QPCard profile. My final result is quite accurate, but not without a lot of empirical adjustments and proofs, so I'd be eager to hear what your more analytical workflow entails. I'm all ears. Thanks, Ron

1 0

Re: Feedback on success, creating a camera profile
by Paul Schilliger 05 May '13

05 May '13

Ok, I have been googleing a bit and I think that the answer to my question is called ColorChecker and DNG Profile Editor. Is that the only way to easily create a .dcp camera profile for LightRoom, or would you suggest another way which can make use of the transparent HCT target for more precision? > I had to process the RAW files prior to seeing the right colors, and I wish now that there was a way to make a profile that can be virtually assigned directly in LightRoom in place of the generic canned profiles. Do you know if that is possible? (I mean, possible, even for me?) > > > > Paul Schilliger

8 15

Re: How to objectively measure quality of print profiles?
by Harold Boll 03 May '13

03 May '13

> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sTxaHhMYSYE Interesting video; I like that they emphasize the need to consider 2 gamuts: a proofer gamut (A2B1 Tag: device coordinates ->Lab direction) and a rendered gamut (B2A1 Tag: Lab -> device coordinates). The original poster of this thread mention 'gamut volume' as a quantitative measure of quality, but that criteria has to considered judiciously. For proofer gamuts, bigger (greater volume swept out by the transform) is always better; it should be a reflection of the native gamut of the hardcopy device that was characterized by measurements. But for the rendered gamut, bigger is not necessarily better - ideally, there is an optimal volume that lies between max volume and a much-too-small volume. The two gamuts should match up above the cusp (max chroma at given hue angle); but below the cusp, the rendered gamut should be somewhat inside the proofer gamut if the profile is any good. There are basically two reasons for this; the less important one is that constraints (TAC, ink limits, etc) imposes a smaller gamut. But the more important one is to preserve smoothness and continuity in the inks as you move toward the shadows. If you maintained a max gamut below the cusp, then small variations in color (Lab space) would result in large variation in inks. This would wreck havoc with shadow detail. Harold Boll ------------------------------------------ "Keep it simple, but no simpler!" ------------------------------------------

1 0

Re: Is there by chance an Open Source pilot for the Spectrocam ?
by Paul Schilliger 03 May '13

03 May '13

Tyler, I probably have the latest for OSX too (1.7.5). It is a PPC file. It works in Snow Leopard still, though I wished I could carry it through into Mountain Lion to have it more handy, but that is minor mater since I so seldom use it, and there might be some other problems using that old gear in ML. Yes as you recall, the scanning charts are built in Spectrocam software and measured (automatic patch recognition as you move the device), then exported in whatever format you wish (Spectral, IT8.7/3 Lab or XYZ, Logo, ColorBlind, ProfilerPro (Pantone-ColorVision, the one I still use too), Kodak Colorbus, ExportExample, Monaco, Onyx, Praxisoft, PrintOpen). I can see that there are some bugs when I measure patches one by one, but it's probably due to the soft part, not to the instrument, since as you move forward the "missed" patches suddenly fill with contents. When measurements are taken in a row, all works fine for me. Paul > From: Tyler Boley > Ergosoft supports it amongst others in a "universal" setting, perhaps try some other settings? Also, back in the Spectrocam days sometimes you saved out measurement files from the Avante software itself to import into profilers, I believe I had to do that with Colorvision at one point. I have mine stashed away somewhere, became very unreliable. I may have the last version of their software that was supported under OSX if you need it, have Windows too I think... > Tyler

1 0

Feedback on success, creating a camera profile
by Paul Schilliger 03 May '13

03 May '13

Since I bothered you all with my posts lately, I want to report some good news, to balance my whining about the lost heritage! You might laugh at me for my late findings but that is alright. It has been many years since I knew that I could make a specific profile for the digital camera. I even knew that I could use my scanner calibration gear to do that. Don Hutcheson had given me a hint on how I could do it. But not knowing how to handle that thing properly and probably scared by my lack of knowledge, I always procrastinated. But lately, after upgrading to LightRoom 4.0, I was so annoyed by the changes. The default settings in the 2012 process make my portrait images appear as washed out parrots splashed with apricot juice (where did I find that??). I believed that I needed to do something to improve the workflow. I could have taken a plunge into LightRoom's literature, but I decided to start building my own camera profile instead (for Canon 1Ds3). Again, not knowing a better way, I taped the HutchColor HCT Velvia target onto a daylight light box, and shot it with camera set to daylight, Adobe RGB, linear gamma and faithful colors. I opened the RAW in Camera raw, no end points correction, linear contrast, white balance "as shot", camera faithful profile, and saved it as 16 bit TIFF file in the Prophoto space. I suspected that some minor problem would arise from the mismatched in-camera Adobe RGB space, but it seems not to bother the process. I then tried the RoughProfiler software from José Pereira, suggested by one of the regular contributors. Being plain novice, I loaded the chart and the reference file, and left every slider and box in the default position. Well, the profile I could produce is posterized and useless, but again, it's most certainly due to my lack of knowledge. There are many options that require a deep understanding of what one is doing in that little piece of software. Put away, but not yet desperate, I dug out the old G4 that runs a copy of BasiCColor Scan+, which I used for my scanner profiling, and ran the plugin on the chart. It's no brainer since there are no options at all. All you can do is load both files, place the pattern on the image and name your profile. I picked the profiles created (I made one for the Nikon too) and installed them into the other computer where I could open some RAW files in Raw Converter. Again: linear, camera faithful, white balance as shot and saved as 16 bit TIFF in Prophoto RGB. Then, in Photoshop, I assigned the new profile I had thrown together in a matter of minutes with BasiCColor Scan+, instead of Prophoto RGB. I was expecting to see the results of my hasty move, but… WOW!!! The dull images turned into perfectly color balanced, gamma optimized, almost finished images! They were not the whishy washy digital shots I was used to deal with, they were the Fuji Velvia shots I used to contemplate on my light box in another age! Skin tones are rich and spot on, grey is grey, green is green and blue is blue… For a first attempt, the results are far above my expectations. I think I could beat myself to death for not having taken that move earlier. When I think of all the time and effort I have wasted over the years, trying to tweak the colors and contrast curves in LightRoom, for results that have always left me only half satisfied… Photographers, make yourself a favor : If you haven't already, build yourself you own camera's profile. Now, the moment of truth will be when I shoot a color chart and check the results, and there is certainly room for fine tuning and to make it even better. Perhaps, even make a set of profiles for different corrections. But having the right colors and grey balance at the start is already an invaluable asset. Any guideline as how to have more control over the process will certainly be useful to me and to others, if you wish to share your way of doing. I had to process the RAW files prior to seeing the right colors, and I wish now that there was a way to make a profile that can be virtually assigned directly in LightRoom, in place of the generic canned profiles. Do you know if that is possible? (I mean, possible, even for me?) Paul Schilliger

1 0

Re: How to objectively measure quality of print profiles?
by Pat Herold 03 May '13

03 May '13

Yes, there is not much in the way of "quantifiable" ways to evaluate printer profiles. But I really like the idea of viewing the rendered gamut in ColorThink Pro: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sTxaHhMYSYE This is a visual means of comparing profiles, but it's really quite illuminating and gives you clear, objective reasons for preferring one profile engine over another. This video talks about checking the smoothness of the rendering, and shows how you can see if the rendering of out of gamut colors is making the most use of the printer's total ability to print. Pat Herold > > From: Roger Breton <graxx(a)videotron.ca> > Date: May 3, 2013 3:46:42 AM PDT > To: 'LdaSignup' <ldasignup(a)gmail.com>, "''colorsync-users?lists.apple.com' List'" <colorsync-users(a)lists.apple.com> > Subject: RE: HowTo? Objectively measure quality of print profiles? > > > Dear LdaSignup, > > The test of Output Profiles can be arduous and not necessarily reducible to > simple colorimetric accuracy. > > The iSis or some other automated instrument -- I'm still fond of my > Spectroscan tables -- can and should be used to assess the colorimetric > accuracy for proofing but no more. The rest, the appearance of neutrals, the > rendering of skintones and other memory colors should be done visually. For > what it's worth, I am a die-hard ColorChecker user, I like checking the > accuracy of the colorimetric table of my Output Profiles with a custom > measured chart. It's fast, simple, not too many samples and the samples are > large enough to have a good stab at visual comparison between the original > and its reproduction. Heck! Everyone should have a ColorChecker chart on its > shelves -- thank you so much Cal McCamy! BTW, have you ever seen the > ColorChecker made up of yarn that they have at the Munsell Institute of > Color Science, in Rochester? Wow... > > Best / Roger > > -----Original Message----- > From: colorsync-users-bounces+graxx=videotron.ca(a)lists.apple.com > [mailto:colorsync-users-bounces+graxx=videotron.ca@lists.apple.com] On > Behalf Of LdaSignup > Sent: Thursday, May 2, 2013 8:29 PM > To: 'colorsync-users?lists.apple.com' List > Subject: HowTo? Objectively measure quality of print profiles? > > Starting a new thread to avoid hijacking another, unrelated thread about > picking a camera ... >>> I'm very curious how Andrew Rooney (aka "The Digital Dog") >>> tests/evaluates the quality of profiles. > >> Everything was visual. Lots and lots of real world and synthetic images. >> Some of Bill Atkinson's test images are wonderful (28 Balls). >> The 28 Balls image is a ball breaker and shows a lot about the color >> engines. >> The Roman 16's are always used. > >>> Is this test/evaluation something that a well calibrated X-rite >>> i1iSis could do "by the numbers" with "apples and apples" De2k's >>> using the X-Rite MeasureTool's Compare freeware (2.0.# on a PC, 1.5.# on > a Mac)? > > Hypothetically, suppose someone claimed that profiles from ArgyllCms are > typically as good or better than those from ProfileMaker-5, and almost as > good as i1Profiler 1.4.2. Is that something that could be objectively > measured by an automated spectro, rather than an informed, but still > subjective, opinion? > > * Could there be some kind of weighted "figure of merit" of, for example, > De2k + Adjusted-Gamut-Volume? > > * Are De2k accuracy + gamut-volume the primary considerations when > evaluating profile quality? What else? Banding? Is there a way to measure > that, and reduce to a number grade by a machine?

1 0

Re: Is there by chance an Open Source pilot for the Spectrocam ?
by Tyler Boley 03 May '13

03 May '13

Ergosoft supports it amongst others in a "universal" setting, perhaps try some other settings? Also, back in the Spectrocam days sometimes you saved out measurement files from the Avante software itself to import into profilers, I believe I had to do that with Colorvision at one point. I have mine stashed away somewhere, became very unreliable. I may have the last version of their software that was supported under OSX if you need it, have Windows too I think... Tyler > Message: 2 > Date: Thu, 02 May 2013 20:34:42 +0200 > From: Paul Schilliger<pschilliger(a)smile.ch> > To: "colorsync-users(a)lists.apple.com" > <colorsync-users(a)lists.apple.com> > Subject: Is there by chance an Open Source pilot for the Spectrocam ? > Message-ID:<5182B1C2.7020105(a)smile.ch> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed > > Some of you pointed Argyll Open Source calibration software, that supports an array of devices. Would you know if something Intel OS-X native exists, that would support the Avantes Spectrocam UV for measuring patches ? > > Paul Schilliger >

1 0

Re: Seeking advice to upgrade camera + scanner calibration tools (HCT)
by Paul Schilliger 03 May '13

03 May '13

José, thanks for the tip about Jose Pereira's website. There are many fine resources there, and an opportunity to improve my spanish! I'll give his profiler a try. Paul Schilliger > > From: José Ángel Bueno García > Targets may be updated (purchased a new one) every few years, depends on > the use and manipulation. I really don't know nothing about camera > calibration since data from profiling applications don't remain in the > camera but in the profiles folder, and you need shot in raw and workflow > where camera profiles can be used. I assume you know. > > Don't know other than Adobe Photoshop/Lightroom with ColorChecker. If you > own any other target can make use of ACR Calibration Scritp that "acts" on > camera profiles in the Calibration tab. Have never known if acts on RIMM or > ROMM. roughProfiler (ArgyllCMS based wrapper from Jose Pereira) supports > HCT and in his site you can find other usefull tools. PictoColor's inCamera > Photoshop plug-in works with HCT too. I really don't know if you are going > to get a dE value less than 2.8 CIEDE2000.

2 1

Re: Is there by chance an Open Source pilot for the Spectrocam
by Paul Schilliger 03 May '13

03 May '13

Wished I knew what types or formatting makes the ColorSync server unhappy ! New trial… They are good instruments, and scanning a 729 patches chart with it was quick (at the time) but required a steady hand. Mine still yields precise measurements after over ten years of usage. I have not used it much though, just for producing my own printers profiles, which were very good even with the metameric inks. Mine is even the pre-USB model and I have to use the Keyspan adapter. Still works! ... touch wood. Graeme, no worries as far as I am concerned. I have to keep a Snow Leopard setting anyway and the thing works (well, most of the time) with Rosetta. Paul Schilliger > > From: Ernst Dinkla > > It is no longer in the catalog of Avantes and the last time it was available must be more than two years ago. A friend then tried to get a recalibration done and they sold him a new one at a lower price than they initially asked. I do not think there is a wide user base left. In a sense the Xenon lamp etc with continuous spectral output into UV gave it better specs than even the latest X-rite Eye1 models. The electronic circuits inside are however more than a decade old in design not to mention the Xenon flash capacitors that age. My SpectroCam went belly up 3 years ago; unreliable measurements. >> Avantes has a wide range of scientific spectrometers, another market. >> >> >> -- >> Met vriendelijke groet, Ernst Dinkla >> >> http://www.pigment-print.com/spectralplots/spectrumviz_1.htm >> December 2012: 500+ inkjet media paper white spectral plots. > From: Graeme Gill > Paul Schilliger wrote: > > Some of you pointed Argyll Open Source calibration software, that supports an array of devices. > > Would you know if something Intel OS-X native exists, that would support the Avantes Spectrocam UV > > for measuring patches ? > > Sorry, there's no Spectrocam support. Are they still available ? > > [It's a lot of work to add such support, and I'd rather spend it > on newer devices.] > > Graeme Gill.

1 0