Re: I1Profiler 1.6.1 Patch Viewer
On Apr 24, 2015, at 3:37 PM, Terence Wyse <wyseconsul@icloud.com> wrote:
I appreciate some of the changes that have been made and the new features….but this release shouldn’t have gotten out the door.
Meanwhile, I'm told there are both outside testers and a QE team that looked this build over. Should be all fixed, in about 9 months <g>. Andrew Rodney http://www.digitaldog.net/
From: Andrew Rodney
On Apr 24, 2015, at 3:37 PM, Terence Wyse <wyseconsul@icloud.com> wrote:
I appreciate some of the changes that have been made and the new features….but this release shouldn’t have gotten out the door.
Meanwhile, I'm told there are both outside testers and a QE team that looked this build over.
Should be all fixed, in about 9 months <g>.
The Patch Set Editor isn't quite as buggy in Windows as it is on a Mac - albeit not a high bar. It pales in functionality to what GMB offered 15 years ago with the free ColorLab program. That was (and still is) a useful program. Version 1.62 introduces a wonderful new feature when loading a previously saved measurement file. Yet another dialog appears prompting whether you want to save the file in the i1Profiler asset collection. Apparently X-Rite can't comprehend that one might be dealing with many measurements and not want to see each and every one in the list of assets. I wish X-Rite would figure out what market segment i1Profiler/i1Publish targets. At $1200 and change, it will not be on the short list of must have items for most weekend warriors. More likely the majority of customers will use it on at least a semi-regular basis, generating many a measurement file in the process. Given that a measurement is simply a snapshot of how a device behaved at a particular time, there is limited utility in having multiple screens full of measurement assets readily at hand. Add this to the list of annoyance dialogs one faces. There already was the "would you like to use the white point settings from the file that you selected to load?" prompt whenever a saved profile settings file is used. (That one is a beaut. If you manually change the settings in the Profile Settings using the sliders or bypass the pane entirely, the prompt never appears. What white point is used in then?) It makes one wonder whether anyone who needs to make profiles on a regular basis for more than just supporting a hobby actually tests this mess.
On Apr 24, 2015, at 5:34 PM, Ethan Hansen <ehansen@drycreekphoto.com> wrote:
It makes one wonder whether anyone who needs to make profiles on a regular basis for more than just supporting a hobby actually tests this mess.
I don't think they even have hobbiests testing this mess. This is why I'm calling them out again. There was a time when GMB/X-rite wrote great software, had a clue how to release it in a timely fashion. Those days are over and have been for awhile. It took them 3 years to go from 1.3.1 to 1.6.1, that should be enough evidence they either have one coder working 3 hours a week or a team that works all the time... at securing their own jobs. Either way, they should get their act together one of these days and act like a software company. Meanwhile, thankfully there are a few other software parities out there supporting our efforts in terms of filling the gaps from X-rite. What's a damn shame is they have a very good color scientist at X-rite but their software doesn't take advantage of this. And then there's ColorTrue, XRD, ugh! Andrew Rodney http://www.digitaldog.net/
On Apr 24, 2015, at 4:44 PM, Andrew Rodney <andrew@digitaldog.net> wrote:
There was a time when GMB/X-rite wrote great software, had a clue how to release it in a timely fashion. Those days are over and have been for awhile.
Once I discovered Argyll, many many moons ago, before the X-Rite acquisition, I never looked back. X-Rite is still making top-notch hardware. Their spectrometers and colorimeters are everything you could want in a graphic arts device, and you're not going to find a better reflectance target for field use than the ColorChecker Passport. Just don't bother unwrapping the CDs that come with their hardware and you'll have no reason to think anything but the best of X-Rite. And, for those who aren't color geeks and who aren't interested in anything other than the default options, their software would seem to be just fine. If somebody starts complaining about color, I wouldn't hesitate to advise buying the suitable model ColorMunki and using it with the default options -- with a caveat to come back to me in the unlikely event that they outgrow the defaults. b&
On Apr 25, 2015, at 11:21 AM, Ben Goren <ben@trumpetpower.com> wrote:
X-Rite is still making top-notch hardware. Their spectrometers and colorimeters are everything you could want in a graphic arts device, and you're not going to find a better reflectance target for field use than the ColorChecker Passport.
I agree 100%. The Passport target and even it's associated software are Lightroom plug-in were both excellent and it's the last time I've seen anything impressive out of X-rite software. And their hardware is also excellent. It's a shame they don't take the same level of pride in i1Profiler. Andrew Rodney http://www.digitaldog.net/
Can someone explain what Apple is trying to tell it's customer with respect to display calibraiton here? ---- http://www.apple.com/imac/design/ Individually calibrated for true-to-life color. None of these innovations would matter much if the iMac display didn’t deliver vivid, true-to-life color. Which is why we put every display through an exacting color-calibration process using state-of-the-art spectroradiometers. This equipment is tuned to meet color standards recognized around the world for precision and accuracy. ---- Aside from the marketing hype starting with calibrated for true-to-life color, what are they calibrating for, and what color standards recognized around the world for precision and accuracy are they talking about? Andrew Rodney http://www.digitaldog.net/
What I would do before taking one to my studio, is is i1Publish and i1Pro hardware, and see if I can profile the iMac. Cheers David
On May 26, 2015, at 7:14 AM, Andrew Rodney <andrew@digitaldog.net> wrote:
Can someone explain what Apple is trying to tell it's customer with respect to display calibraiton here? ---- http://www.apple.com/imac/design/ Individually calibrated for true-to-life color. None of these innovations would matter much if the iMac display didn’t deliver vivid, true-to-life color. Which is why we put every display through an exacting color-calibration process using state-of-the-art spectroradiometers. This equipment is tuned to meet color standards recognized around the world for precision and accuracy. ---- Aside from the marketing hype starting with calibrated for true-to-life color, what are they calibrating for, and what color standards recognized around the world for precision and accuracy are they talking about?
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/spinnakerphotoimagin...
This email sent to spinnakerphotoimagingcenter@dnmillerphoto.com
On May 27, 2015, at 8:02 AM, Spinnaker Photo Imaging Center <spinnakerphotoimagingcenter@dnmillerphoto.com> wrote:
What I would do before taking one to my studio, is is i1Publish and i1Pro hardware, and see if I can profile the iMac.
Apple stores tend to be friendly for trying that sort of thing. But it would still be nice to have somebody @apple.com (John?) chime in with a technical explanation of the marketing gobbledygook. Is it a wide-gamut display? Does each machine ship with a ROM LUT matching a factory serial-number-specific measurement? Maybe there's even some internal hardware doing some sort of colorimetry to keep the display consistent as it ages? I can think of all sorts of things I'd go and implement if given a directive worded similarly to the blurb...but I can also imagine ways to cheaply meet the bare minimum requirements of the buzzphrases. For example, you could grab a grey card at the local photo store, stop by an university and get a spectroradiometer measurement of it, scribble the resulting RGB numbers on the card with a sharpie, and then have your techs fiddle with the color controls until an RGB patch looks close enough to the card laying on the desk. I'm sure that's not what Apple is doing...which is why it'd be really nice to know what Apple really is doing. b&
Well... Just note that it isn't the displays that are "tuned to meet color standards recognized around the world for precision and accuracy." It's "This equipment." And 'this equipment', refers to the spectroradiometers, not the displays. Mike On May 26, 2015, at 9:14 AM, Andrew Rodney wrote:
Can someone explain what Apple is trying to tell it's customer with respect to display calibraiton here? ---- http://www.apple.com/imac/design/ Individually calibrated for true-to-life color. None of these innovations would matter much if the iMac display didn’t deliver vivid, true-to-life color. Which is why we put every display through an exacting color-calibration process using state-of-the-art spectroradiometers. This equipment is tuned to meet color standards recognized around the world for precision and accuracy. ---- Aside from the marketing hype starting with calibrated for true-to-life color, what are they calibrating for, and what color standards recognized around the world for precision and accuracy are they talking about?
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/typhoon%40correctcol...
This email sent to typhoon@correctcolor.org
On one hand, I appreciate this feature (option to move assets to where they belong). Testcharts (.TXF) files can especially be a problem if not located in the proper asset folder (think iSis barcodes)..but there has to be a better way of managing the measurement assets. I’ve taken to using subfolders inside the Measurements folder to manage the several hundred measurement files I’ve accumulated ...but then, of course, they no longer appear within i1P’s asset panes…pane in the ass. :-) After the 1.6 update (Win7), I immediately had a problem with some previously created testcharts formatted for the i1iO2….patch dimensions were not preserved and I ended up needing to create the alyout all over again and saving new target files…and re-printing them. Backawards compatibility issues like this are inexcusable in my opinion. At work I have to maintain over 80 devices, mix of iGen, Indigo and inkjet. Imagine if I had to recreate testcharts for all these and update all the test forms that I use? I really appreciate the new features but they simply have to get this stuff right before they release it. As it was back when some of us were doing beta testing for X-Rite, one wonders whether they actually even USE this stuff before releasing it. Terry
On Apr 24, 2015, at 7:34 PM, Ethan Hansen <ehansen@drycreekphoto.com> wrote:
Version 1.62 introduces a wonderful new feature when loading a previously saved measurement file. Yet another dialog appears prompting whether you want to save the file in the i1Profiler asset collection. Apparently X-Rite can't comprehend that one might be dealing with many measurements and not want to see each and every one in the list of assets.
I wish X-Rite would figure out what market segment i1Profiler/i1Publish targets. At $1200 and change, it will not be on the short list of must have items for most weekend warriors. More likely the majority of customers will use it on at least a semi-regular basis, generating many a measurement file in the process. Given that a measurement is simply a snapshot of how a device behaved at a particular time, there is limited utility in having multiple screens full of measurement assets readily at hand.
On Apr 25, 2015, at 8:26 AM, Terence Wyse <wyseconsul@mac.com> wrote:
As it was back when some of us were doing beta testing for X-Rite, one wonders whether they actually even USE this stuff before releasing it.
If they do try using it, they are awful internal testers, if they don't, there's no excuse for releasing the software. Either way, the methods X-rite has used to develop and provide software to it's customers in the last half dozen years or so is pitiful. And that's why they should be called out in a forum like this. There's no excuse for it. Andrew Rodney http://www.digitaldog.net/
It's important to read the corporate history to understand why this company is such a mess. From about 1996 to 2012 their primary focus was on acquisitions - destroying sources of competition by buying it out. Then they themselves were bought out by Danaher, another technology conglomerate with a diversified product line, huge operation, and probably relatively little managerial attention to the needs or interests of the colour management community they are supposed to be serving. If corporate management attention is so firmly oriented on corporate manipulation to stifle competition and inflate profits, something is going to suffer - and what suffers is the quality of the business they are in. This is not surprising. A good example of it is to be found in my recent review on Luminous-Landscape of the new Epson V850 scanner which comes bundled with both XRite scanner profiling software and LaserSoft Imaging's SilverFast (Germany) which also does scanner profiling. As a reviewer and tester I had to try both options. The SilverFast option creates a scanner profile literally with two mouse clicks - one to select the Auto Profile option and the other to complete the process. The Xrite option is a 20 step procedure - I kid you not - I documented every step of it. Totally asinine, the result of one sloppy pastiche after another, and the end-result performs no better than the SilverFast option. Why does this happen? Simple - it's all bound-up in management. The senior management of LaserSoft Imaging is a relatively smaller outfit dedicated to its own limited number of product lines, its survival depends on them, it has a managerial vision of the objectives it wants to achieve - in this case end-user simplicity combined with quality of results, and they drive their developers to create just that - with day to day attentiveness on the progress of technical substance. X-Rite would appear to have no such vision or concentration of any relevance to their customers, because they can make their money by manipulating market structures and from there, the customers. Very often, all you need to do is look at where the interests are and follow the money to understand why certain things don't work in ways they should or you would expect them to. Unlike at the Ford Motor Company, from numerous appearances and accounts, "Quality is NOT Job Number One" at X-Rite, for some pretty clear reasons. I wouldn't expect much to change until the corporate environment changes, or they are suddenly faced with some meaningful competition, say from places that are technologically on the move like Israel, Singapore, India or China - that would be nice. Mark From: Andrew Rodney <andrew@digitaldog.net> To: 'colorsync-users?lists.apple.com' List <colorsync-users@lists.apple.com> Sent: Saturday, April 25, 2015 10:39 AM Subject: Re: I1Profiler 1.6.1 Patch Viewer
On Apr 25, 2015, at 8:26 AM, Terence Wyse <wyseconsul@mac.com> wrote:
As it was back when some of us were doing beta testing for X-Rite, one wonders whether they actually even USE this stuff before releasing it.
If they do try using it, they are awful internal testers, if they don't, there's no excuse for releasing the software. Either way, the methods X-rite has used to develop and provide software to it's customers in the last half dozen years or so is pitiful. And that's why they should be called out in a forum like this. There's no excuse for it. 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/mgsegal%40rogers.com This email sent to mgsegal@rogers.com
If you're dealing with patches, you want Babelcolor's Patchtool software. If arrays or patches or color lists are your thing, it does everything one needs except make coffee to wake you up. http://www.babelcolor.com/#PatchTool The i1 Pro2 hardware is really solid, the print profiler is decent. Xrite have managed to put out solid updates to their hardware and software in spite of a wave of mergers and acquisitions and the turmoil and staff turnover that such mergers imply ; however it is clear that some features available in the old Xrite and Gretag software are simply not there. Specialists who want them should get add-on software, eg. Babelcolor and Patchtool, and also BasicColor Display for profiling screens which has a lot of useful options. Full disclosure - I'm a blogger and everybody gives me review copies. This means I can afford to be equally nasty about everybody, and people will tell you that I do so with zest and verve :) Edmund ᐧ On Sat, Apr 25, 2015 at 4:05 PM, MARK SEGAL <mgsegal@rogers.com> wrote:
It's important to read the corporate history to understand why this company is such a mess. From about 1996 to 2012 their primary focus was on acquisitions - destroying sources of competition by buying it out. Then they themselves were bought out by Danaher, another technology conglomerate with a diversified product line, huge operation, and probably relatively little managerial attention to the needs or interests of the colour management community they are supposed to be serving. If corporate management attention is so firmly oriented on corporate manipulation to stifle competition and inflate profits, something is going to suffer - and what suffers is the quality of the business they are in. This is not surprising.
A good example of it is to be found in my recent review on Luminous-Landscape of the new Epson V850 scanner which comes bundled with both XRite scanner profiling software and LaserSoft Imaging's SilverFast (Germany) which also does scanner profiling. As a reviewer and tester I had to try both options. The SilverFast option creates a scanner profile literally with two mouse clicks - one to select the Auto Profile option and the other to complete the process. The Xrite option is a 20 step procedure - I kid you not - I documented every step of it. Totally asinine, the result of one sloppy pastiche after another, and the end-result performs no better than the SilverFast option.
Why does this happen? Simple - it's all bound-up in management. The senior management of LaserSoft Imaging is a relatively smaller outfit dedicated to its own limited number of product lines, its survival depends on them, it has a managerial vision of the objectives it wants to achieve - in this case end-user simplicity combined with quality of results, and they drive their developers to create just that - with day to day attentiveness on the progress of technical substance. X-Rite would appear to have no such vision or concentration of any relevance to their customers, because they can make their money by manipulating market structures and from there, the customers. Very often, all you need to do is look at where the interests are and follow the money to understand why certain things don't work in ways they should or you would expect them to. Unlike at the Ford Motor Company, from numerous appearances and accounts, "Quality is NOT Job Number One" at X-Rite, for some pretty clear reasons. I wouldn't expect much to change until the corporate environment changes, or they are suddenly faced with some meaningful competition, say from places that are technologically on the move like Israel, Singapore, India or China - that would be nice. Mark From: Andrew Rodney <andrew@digitaldog.net> To: 'colorsync-users?lists.apple.com' List < colorsync-users@lists.apple.com> Sent: Saturday, April 25, 2015 10:39 AM Subject: Re: I1Profiler 1.6.1 Patch Viewer
On Apr 25, 2015, at 8:26 AM, Terence Wyse <wyseconsul@mac.com> wrote:
As it was back when some of us were doing beta testing for X-Rite, one wonders whether they actually even USE this stuff before releasing it.
If they do try using it, they are awful internal testers, if they don't, there's no excuse for releasing the software. Either way, the methods X-rite has used to develop and provide software to it's customers in the last half dozen years or so is pitiful. And that's why they should be called out in a forum like this. There's no excuse for it.
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/mgsegal%40rogers.com
This email sent to mgsegal@rogers.com
_______________________________________________ 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/edmundronald%40gmail...
This email sent to edmundronald@gmail.com
participants (8)
-
Andrew Rodney
-
Ben Goren
-
edmund ronald
-
Ethan Hansen
-
G Mike Adams
-
MARK SEGAL
-
Spinnaker Photo Imaging Center
-
Terence Wyse