Seeking advice to upgrade camera + scanner calibration tools (HCT)
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
On 2 May 2013, at 10:24, Paul Schilliger <pschilliger@smile.ch> wrote:
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?
The best thing to do is keep criticising X-Rite for the dismal lack of features in i1 Profiler when compared to ancient products like Profilemaker. The i1 Profiler UI is a nightmare and has grown in inverse proportion to the amount of useful features... They've added limited scanner profiling… now they just need make a bit more effort so customers can feed in custom target data like you can easily do with Profilemaker. i1 Profiler's technology hidden behind Profilemaker 5's simple interface would be a massive improvement. -- Martin Orpen Idea Digital Imaging Ltd
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. 2013/5/2 Martin Orpen <martin@idea-digital.com>
On 2 May 2013, at 10:24, Paul Schilliger <pschilliger@smile.ch> wrote:
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?
The best thing to do is keep criticising X-Rite for the dismal lack of features in i1 Profiler when compared to ancient products like Profilemaker.
The i1 Profiler UI is a nightmare and has grown in inverse proportion to the amount of useful features...
They've added limited scanner profiling… now they just need make a bit more effort so customers can feed in custom target data like you can easily do with Profilemaker.
i1 Profiler's technology hidden behind Profilemaker 5's simple interface would be a massive improvement.
-- Martin Orpen Idea Digital Imaging Ltd _______________________________________________ Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored. Colorsync-users mailing list (Colorsync-users@lists.apple.com) Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription:
https://lists.apple.com/mailman/options/colorsync-users/jbueno61%40gmail.com
This email sent to jbueno61@gmail.com
On May 2, 2013, at 3:50 AM, Martin Orpen <martin@idea-digital.com> wrote:
The best thing to do is keep criticising X-Rite for the dismal lack of features in i1 Profiler when compared to ancient products like Profilemaker.
The i1 Profiler UI is a nightmare and has grown in inverse proportion to the amount of useful features...
A topic of which we both agree 100%. Glad I still have that old G5 Mac around to run ProfileMaker Pro (specifically MeasureTool). Oh and ColorPort 1.5 which runs on that OS is so much better than version 2.0 which can't. Talk about steps backwards. At least i1P builds better profiles than PMP. But that's been the story since the day it shipped and while still true, X-rite can't seem to keep the product moving foward in a timely fashion. I just did some testing of i1P CMYK profiles against ColorLogic's Copra using identical averaged data and X-rite better watch their back! The people at ColorLogic have quite a good color engine and ton's of useful features any ProfileMaker Pro user would drool over. Andrew Rodney http://www.digitaldog.net/
On 2 May 2013, at 14:39, Andrew Rodney <andrew@digitaldog.net> wrote:
A topic of which we both agree 100%. Glad I still have that old G5 Mac around to run ProfileMaker Pro (specifically MeasureTool). Oh and ColorPort 1.5 which runs on that OS is so much better than version 2.0 which can't. Talk about steps backwards.
I've got an old Windoze box that I keep just for Profiemaker now use -- never used the Mac version until i1 Profiler was launched. You can throw anything at it -- data from ECI profiles, data from the Spectroproofers, scanner targets made from custom ColorPort charts -- and Profilemaker will import it without complaint and generate a reasonably good profile from it. i1 Profiler can't do any of that :-(
At least i1P builds better profiles than PMP. But that's been the story since the day it shipped and while still true, X-rite can't seem to keep the product moving foward in a timely fashion.
We're getting great results here too -- but building the profiles is a depressing chore… and it really needn't be. -- Martin Orpen Idea Digital Imaging Ltd
I just did some testing of i1P CMYK profiles against ColorLogic's Copra using identical averaged data and X-rite better watch their back! The people at ColorLogic have quite a good color engine and ton's of useful features any ProfileMaker Pro user would drool over.
Very interesting. Not meaning to hijack the thread, but I'm very curious how The Digital Dog tests/evaluates the quality of profiles. Is this something that a well calibrated X-rite i1iSis could do "by the numbers" with "apples and apples" De2k's using MeasureTool 2.0.# on a PC? Or do I have flawed expectations?
Everything was visual. Lots and lots of real world and synthetic images. Some of Bill Atkinsion'stest images which are wonderful (28 Balls). I bring that up because I see his download page to those images and other great files are gone. Anyone know about this or have heard from Bill? The 28 Balls image is a ball breaker and shows a lot about the color engines. The Roman 16's are always used. Andrew Rodney http://www.digitaldog.net/ On May 2, 2013, at 5:02 PM, LdaSignup <ldasignup@gmail.com> wrote:
Very interesting. Not meaning to hijack the thread, but I'm very curious how The Digital Dog tests/evaluates the quality of profiles. Is this something that a well calibrated X-rite i1iSis could do "by the numbers" with "apples and apples" De2k's using MeasureTool 2.0.# on a PC?
Or do I have flawed expectations?
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? * How important is it to have "flexibility" so that the same profile to handle more situations? Or would a pro printer be inclined to use multiple separate profiles for the same printer + paper + ink for different photos ... like portraits vs landscapes? (ignoring b/w which I have no experience with) * Depending on photo and customer, should flesh tones be given extra weight in a "De2k + gamut-volume based figure of merit"? * Should "Intent" be a consideration: Perceptual vs RelativeColor vs Saturation vs Absolute? * What are characteristics of a series of good test prints? Lots of gamut vs low-gamut vs reasonable gamut? * I would think that one profile might be better for flesh tones, but not so good with synthetics. One profile might "win" 4 out of 8 print tests, but the other profile would "win" flesh tones, and they would "tie" on the other three. Which profile "wins"? Depends? ... * For those with access to an i1iSis, how useful would it be to have aligned i1iSis patches integrated into a test print? The top part of the letter sized test-print would be about 150 to 1000+ carefully chosen patches, and the separately printed bottom part could be "28 balls" or "Roman 16". Or the bottom half was a series of human "Shirleys" with carefully exposed, non-synthetic flesh tones? Or i1iSis patches on the equivalent of the OutbackPhoto test print? ... * Obviously, the correct answer to many or most of the above questions would be: "it depends". * Here are some examples that this admittedly CM newbie has been trying out: http://berean.zenfolio.com/isis_test_prints http://berean.zenfolio.com/isis_test_prints/h5ddc538a#h5ddc53b6 ... * What if the evaluation broke out different "categories" of patches, like Thomas Fors / Rags Gardner's AcrCalibrator freeware .jsx scripts do for camera profiles: ** blacks and dark grays, mid grays, light grays and white ** dark reds, mid-reds, saturated reds ** dark blues, mid-blues, saturated blues, multiple sky blues, ** dark greens, mid-greens, saturated greens, multiple grass greens ** etc ... ** orange, cyan, pink, violet/purple, periwinkle, "sky purple", etc. ** light flesh tones, mid flesh-tones, dark flesh-tones, by continent? ** etc, etc.
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@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? * How important is it to have "flexibility" so that the same profile to handle more situations? Or would a pro printer be inclined to use multiple separate profiles for the same printer + paper + ink for different photos ... like portraits vs landscapes? (ignoring b/w which I have no experience with) * Depending on photo and customer, should flesh tones be given extra weight in a "De2k + gamut-volume based figure of merit"? * Should "Intent" be a consideration: Perceptual vs RelativeColor vs Saturation vs Absolute? * What are characteristics of a series of good test prints? Lots of gamut vs low-gamut vs reasonable gamut? * I would think that one profile might be better for flesh tones, but not so good with synthetics. One profile might "win" 4 out of 8 print tests, but the other profile would "win" flesh tones, and they would "tie" on the other three. Which profile "wins"? Depends? ... * For those with access to an i1iSis, how useful would it be to have aligned i1iSis patches integrated into a test print? The top part of the letter sized test-print would be about 150 to 1000+ carefully chosen patches, and the separately printed bottom part could be "28 balls" or "Roman 16". Or the bottom half was a series of human "Shirleys" with carefully exposed, non-synthetic flesh tones? Or i1iSis patches on the equivalent of the OutbackPhoto test print? ... * Obviously, the correct answer to many or most of the above questions would be: "it depends". * Here are some examples that this admittedly CM newbie has been trying out: http://berean.zenfolio.com/isis_test_prints http://berean.zenfolio.com/isis_test_prints/h5ddc538a#h5ddc53b6 ... * What if the evaluation broke out different "categories" of patches, like Thomas Fors / Rags Gardner's AcrCalibrator freeware .jsx scripts do for camera profiles: ** blacks and dark grays, mid grays, light grays and white ** dark reds, mid-reds, saturated reds ** dark blues, mid-blues, saturated blues, multiple sky blues, ** dark greens, mid-greens, saturated greens, multiple grass greens ** etc ... ** orange, cyan, pink, violet/purple, periwinkle, "sky purple", etc. ** light flesh tones, mid flesh-tones, dark flesh-tones, by continent? ** etc, etc. _______________________________________________ Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored. Colorsync-users mailing list (Colorsync-users@lists.apple.com) Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription: https://lists.apple.com/mailman/options/colorsync-users/graxx%40videotron.ca This email sent to graxx@videotron.ca
On May 3, 2013, at 3:46 AM, Roger Breton <graxx@videotron.ca> wrote:
Everyone should have a ColorChecker chart on its shelves
The ColorChecker really is a wonderful tool. It's the ultimate white balance and exposure tool, as well -- though the ColorChecker Passport is even better. Develop the raw file with linear gamma and UNIWB; create a matrix profile from the result; and do a reverse lookup of D50 white. The result will tell you the channel multipliers you need to normalize white balance and exposure both. (Of course, you can do this with any chart, but the ColorChecker, especially the Passport, is so handy and ubiquitous.) Another really useful (though, I'm sure, unintended) feature of the ColorChecker is that your local paint store can match the paints for you (though you might need to go to a newer store with newer formulations with a sufficient gamut). The results you get will be spectral matches, within the historically-observed variation for the charts. If the store will sell you pint-sized samples, for about as much as you might spend on a new ColorChecker you can get a lifetime supply of paint to make your own in any size you might want. In the next week or so, I'll be making some for macrophotography, including one just 4mm x 6mm.... Cheers, b&
On May 2, 2013, at 6:28 PM, LdaSignup <ldasignup@gmail.com> wrote:
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?
Perhaps, but there are a slew of potential 'issues' with color engines that are seen faster, easier and more totally by looking at images than dE reports and the like. Output Bill Atkinson's 28 ball's image with two profiles and examine the blue ball and other balls for smoothness, reverse banding (bad) or blues shifting magenta as just one example. Profiles don't know squat about color in context. They treat a white dog on snow the same as a black cat on coal. They treat individual color pixels without having a clue about the color image in context making both visual and number based reporting necessary. Some of the analysis just ends up being subjective. Unless all you want to do with the profiles is solid color patches. Andrew Rodney http://www.digitaldog.net/
Perhaps, but ...
Uncle ... mostly ... and thanks for another patient reply to this CM semi-newbie who is one of those seeking the "holy grail" of "by the numbers"
A little learning (knowledge?) is a dangerous thing ... A. Pope ... So is a lot. ... A. Einstein :-)
This semi-dangerous, semi-newbie wrt CM will study 28 balls (if possible ... where?), and Romans 16. Also take a look at one or more ColorThink you-tubes. I've attempted to read several of the better CM books, but much was over my head. I'll once again put a "library hold" on one or more of those books. (done ...)
Some of the analysis just ends up being subjective. Unless all you want to do with the profiles is solid color patches.
Or synthetic pictures of Balls? or Romans? (no pun/innuendo intended ... sorry) But .... suppose the two best profiles you (DigitalDog) made and then proceeded to evaluate using "28 balls" were noticeably different to a printing expert such as yourself, but good-to-excellent in their own way. Would a metric such as AdjSyntheticDe2k + AdjGamutVolume + AdjFleshToneDe2k + AdjBanding + Adj??? (a.k.a. half-baked-cm-metric) be of interest? Suppose one of the two profile you made for a specific printer+paper+ink was noticeably better for flesh tones to a well-trained eye, and the other was noticeably better for landscapes/synthetics? Would you advise keeping two well-labeled profiles? Could the half-baked-cm-metric serve as a "quick&dirty filter" to remove obviously unacceptable profiles? Suppose a non-expert, non-professional printer had less time to pick a profile than the exhaustive SOP you mentioned? Or less budget for paper + ink? Suppose a really thorough printing professional typically made 10+ profiles for a new combination of printer + ink + paper. Would a "more-baked-cm-metric" be likely to be among the top three or five? -----Original Message----- From: Andrew Rodney Sent: Friday, May 03, 2013 8:47 AM To: 'colorsync-users?lists.apple.com' List Subject: Re: HowTo? Objectively measure quality of print profiles? On May 2, 2013, at 6:28 PM, LdaSignup <ldasignup@gmail.com> wrote:
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?
Perhaps, but there are a slew of potential 'issues' with color engines that are seen faster, easier and more totally by looking at images than dE reports and the like. Output Bill Atkinson's 28 ball's image with two profiles and examine the blue ball and other balls for smoothness, reverse banding (bad) or blues shifting magenta as just one example. Profiles don't know squat about color in context. They treat a white dog on snow the same as a black cat on coal. They treat individual color pixels without having a clue about the color image in context making both visual and number based reporting necessary. Andrew Rodney http://www.digitaldog.net/ _______________________________________________ Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored. Colorsync-users mailing list (Colorsync-users@lists.apple.com) Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription: https://lists.apple.com/mailman/options/colorsync-users/ldasignup%40gmail.co... This email sent to ldasignup@gmail.com
participants (7)
-
Andrew Rodney
-
Ben Goren
-
José Ángel Bueno García
-
LdaSignup
-
Martin Orpen
-
Paul Schilliger
-
Roger Breton