i1Profiler optimize from ColorPort data?
Hey everyone. I got to try out i1Profiler a few days ago but my time was limited and I didn't get to test everything. As the software doesn't support DTP70s but does support exporting of cXF data and importing of CGATS I was wondering the following. If I build a patch set in i1P and import that data to ColorPort, print and read with a DTP70 and then export/import that data to i1P via CGATS, will i1P let me build out an optimization patch-set? I didn't validate this when I had my hands on the software. All the best, Walker Blackwell ps: I also found a few bugs in the software. It doesn't allow optimization on 16bit/High Quality profiles. But all in all, I thought the software was pretty freaking good. I built an optimized Eye One 1258 patch profile on top of a StudioPrint/SP9800 linearized environment and the neutral axis and color were superb.
Print enough patches and you won't need (or benefit) from optimization. Scott Martin (from phone) www.on-sight.com On Jun 14, 2011, at 9:30 AM, Walker Blackwell <forums@walkerblackwell.com> wrote:
Hey everyone. I got to try out i1Profiler a few days ago but my time was limited and I didn't get to test everything. As the software doesn't support DTP70s but does support exporting of cXF data and importing of CGATS I was wondering the following. If I build a patch set in i1P and import that data to ColorPort, print and read with a DTP70 and then export/import that data to i1P via CGATS, will i1P let me build out an optimization patch-set?
I didn't validate this when I had my hands on the software.
All the best, Walker Blackwell
ps: I also found a few bugs in the software. It doesn't allow optimization on 16bit/High Quality profiles. But all in all, I thought the software was pretty freaking good. I built an optimized Eye One 1258 patch profile on top of a StudioPrint/SP9800 linearized environment and the neutral axis and color were superb.
_______________________________________________ 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: http://lists.apple.com/mailman/options/colorsync-users/scott%40on-sight.com
This email sent to scott@on-sight.com
The optimisation routines are really for very small patch sets <450 or so. From my testing if you do optimise a say > 1700 you degrade quality. The best profiles so far have always been a reasonable patch set no optimisation. Anything from 700-2500 patches has worked out famously. On Jun 14, 2011, at 6:30 PM, Walker Blackwell wrote:
Hey everyone. I got to try out i1Profiler a few days ago but my time was limited and I didn't get to test everything. As the software doesn't support DTP70s but does support exporting of cXF data and importing of CGATS I was wondering the following. If I build a patch set in i1P and import that data to ColorPort, print and read with a DTP70 and then export/import that data to i1P via CGATS, will i1P let me build out an optimization patch-set?
Neil Snape 2
On Jun 14, 2011, at 12:42 PM, Neil Snape wrote:
The optimisation routines are really for very small patch sets <450 or so. From my testing if you do optimise a say > 1700 you degrade quality.
Yes. I understand this. And I have also seen noise problems with high-patch CMYK sets and the eye one with no optimize.
The best profiles so far have always been a reasonable patch set no optimisation. Anything from 700-2500 patches has worked out famously. Neil Snape
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. Walker
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). 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
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
participants (3)
-
Neil Snape
-
Scott Martin
-
Walker Blackwell