On Jun 14, 2011, at 1:10 PM, Neil Snape wrote:
I did most of the testing on an HP Z3200, as that is what I have have here. I did profile the 9900, 4800, and a few 3800s. The balance of what is changed where you gain and loose seems to read as an ongoing moving target. I almost always try to optimise with a neutral image , mixing in a fair number of original patches automatically selected. The greys can be better or worse. I've seen both, so no empirical studies, yet visuals were inconsistent.
Take a before and after optimisation profile and verify the gamut volume. Whereas the small patch charts consistently were improved in linear grey output and better more accurate colour, without affecting the gamut boundaries (much).
I will do this. Thanks Neil. Walker
On Jun 14, 2011, at 6:59 PM, Walker Blackwell wrote:
Have you validated this with epson brown and neutral axis in i1Profiler? My validation of 1258 patch CMYK and then 350 patch optimization was that Neutral axis, neutral noise, and near neutrals were much more accurate (and less noise) than just 1258 patch set and no optimize. I have not validated this against a higher patch (say 2500 or 3500) non optimized profile but in my experience of building other high-patch profiles for epson printers using epson LUTs or dithers is that higher patch profiles degrade and add noise. Have you seen that very problem on 3rd and 4th generation epsons? There are so many variables at play it is hard to be totally empirical in testing.
Neil Snape
Walker Blackwell 802.821.4451 www.walkerblackwell.com aim: greendirtblues