Digital BW, The Print

Hi

If anyone is curious, I've posted a fairly lengthy review of the new PrintFIX PRO

http://www.northlight-images.co.uk/article_pages/printfix_pro.html

I was quite pleased with the quality of the results, especially comparing it with the price of 
other profiling solutions I've tried.

Of course, if you can afford a (much) more expensive solution -and- have the actual skills/
knowledge to use it, then I'd say go that route. 

I've not tried using it for direct B/W related stuff, but you can make spot readings (Lab D50 
2Deg.) which should be fine for linearising a QTR based system.

bye for now

Keith Cooper

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Keith Cooper" 
<yahoogroups@n...> wrote:
>
> Hi
> 
> If anyone is curious, I've posted a fairly lengthy review of the 
new PrintFIX PRO
> 
> http://www.northlight-images.co.uk/article_pages/printfix_pro.html
> 
> I was quite pleased with the quality of the results, especially 
comparing it with the price of 
> other profiling solutions I've tried.
> 
> Of course, if you can afford a (much) more expensive solution -and- 
have the actual skills/
> knowledge to use it, then I'd say go that route. 
> 
> I've not tried using it for direct B/W related stuff, but you can 
make spot readings (Lab D50 
> 2Deg.) which should be fine for linearising a QTR based system.
> 
> bye for now
> 
> Keith Cooper

Too add to this, you might need a utility to allow you to output the 
measurements to a text file. The old CM2C allowed this through 
software from the ColorSavvy site. It would give you Lab, and maybe 
density.

Keith, nice picture of the device and it's colored lights! A very good 
idea that was to take a long exposure!

> > I've not tried using it for direct B/W related stuff, but you can 
> make spot readings (Lab D50 
> > 2Deg.) which should be fine for linearising a QTR based system.

> 
> Too add to this, you might need a utility to allow you to output the 
> measurements to a text file. The old CM2C allowed this through 
> software from the ColorSavvy site. It would give you Lab, and maybe 
> density.
>

The only direct way of getting Lab values is to use the single patch measurement tool, in the 
prefs.

The data files are XML though, so you can get a set of readings by doing a dummy target 
read, and extracting the data (Lab values) directly from the file. It wouldn't be too difficult to 
script that side of things and convert the values to any format you wanted.

Keith

Keith, that was a pretty fair review, but the one thing that I didn't 
see (and may have over looked) was the amount of time it took to 
measure the 729 patch target.

Also, for other people reading this review... Take care to read some 
of the notes that Keith pointed out, some printer/paper/ink/driver 
setting combinations just do not work! It is often the printers that 
sell for next to nothing that this most aptly applies. Any printer 
can have a profile made, but not all profiles made for those printers 
will look good! Recently I spent considerable time with a customer 
trying to get one of those cheaper printers to behave, in the end 
there was no sale for a profile because the printer just would not 
print without crushing the blacks. Hopefully that person will come 
back when he replaces the printer with something that will behave 
better.

It should be noted that most any Epson printer will behave in the 
Color Controls driver setting, and you should get a good profile from 
that setting. But the gamut in CC is MUCH smaller than the ICM/No 
Color Adjustment setting (Keith mentions this in the review). And 
some of the cheaper printers just go completely mad when you use the 
ICM/NCA setting, even with the proper Epson papers, and inks for that 
printer.

If the Lab values from the DataColor 1005 are easy to retrieve, then 
it might work very well to use with QTR! It might even work well with 
Profile Prism, but you will need to do some work to get the Lab 
values into an image that PP can read (hint to Mike Cheney)...

On 11-Jan-06, at 2:04 PM, Greg wrote:

> Too add to this, you might need a utility to allow you to output the
> measurements to a text file. The old CM2C allowed this through
> software from the ColorSavvy site. It would give you Lab, and maybe
> density.


It won't talk to other software. You can read LAB values in the  
measure input thru preferences, and input L values in IJC to  
linearize, and I believe you can convert L values to density using  
Bruce Lindbloom's density calc for QTR, but I have not tried that.

http://www.brucelindbloom.com/index.html?CompandCalculator.html

Carolyn

On 11-Jan-06, at 2:33 PM, Greg wrote:

> Keith, that was a pretty fair review, but the one thing that I didn't
> see (and may have over looked) was the amount of time it took to
> measure the 729 patch target.

FWIW.. it takes me between 26 to 29 minutes, your milage will vary.  
I'm told it should take 20 or so minutes, but it depends on your  
system.. also, if you hit the enter key to measure, instead of  
clicking the spectro unit, it goes a bit faster. I now measure the  
three page print out of the 729 patch target, not the one page print,  
as that took longer first go around.

Carolyn

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Greg" <dfaprinting@y...> wrote:
>
> Keith, that was a pretty fair review, but the one thing that I didn't 
> see (and may have over looked) was the amount of time it took to 
> measure the 729 patch target.
Thanks...  Ah yes, there is no time, since I never measured 729 patches in one go!

I find patch measurement exceedingly tedious and the total time would have to include the 
cup of tea I went away and made, oh and the ten minutes I spent playing the piano, etc 
etc. :-)

If you run the video clip, you can see how long one measurement takes and multiply it by a 
thousand or so ;-) ... it's certainly quite a bit longer than measuring patches with my Eye One

bye for now
Keith

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Carolyn Frayn 
<cafrayn@y...> wrote:
> 
> FWIW.. it takes me between 26 to 29 minutes, your milage will 
vary.  
> I'm told it should take 20 or so minutes, but it depends on your  
> system.. also, if you hit the enter key to measure, instead of  
> clicking the spectro unit, it goes a bit faster. I now measure the  
> three page print out of the 729 patch target, not the one page 
print,  
> as that took longer first go around.
> 
> Carolyn
>

It's a little faster than the CM2C that I have. The larger the 
squares, the faster you can go since you don't have to spend as much 
time making sure that the colorimeter is positioned correctly. That 
of course runs out after you reach a certain size square. 1cm x 1cm 
is about the smallest I would recommend with a single patch at a time 
system. 1.5 x 1.5 cm is a little better, and anything over 2x2cm is 
getting kind of big.

Sounds like they may have actually made some improvements in the 
whole package. The stand alone application was really needed, and it 
seems like the colorimeter may be more accurate than the CM2C. This 
might finally be a better solution than a scanner system for low cost 
profiles.

With the older system that I have, I was getting better profiles with 
EZColor version 2.0. You can see why I was unhappy with it.

-----Original Message-----

From: Greg [mailto:dfaprinting@...]
Sent: Wednesday, January 11, 2006 11:04 AM
To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [Digital BW] Re: PrintFIX Pro info & review


Too add to this, you might need a utility to allow you to output the 
measurements to a text file. The old CM2C allowed this through 
software from the ColorSavvy site. It would give you Lab, and maybe 
density.


The .xml file contains lab values. You can cut and paste them into Xcel if needed. You can also obtain individual lab data right on screen while reading the targets.

Regards, Walt

-----Original Message-----

From: Keith Cooper [mailto:yahoogroups@northlight-images.co.uk]
Sent: Wednesday, January 11, 2006 11:21 AM
To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [Digital BW] Re: PrintFIX Pro info & review


The only direct way of getting Lab values is to use the single patch measurement tool, in the 
prefs.

The data files are XML though, so you can get a set of readings by doing a dummy target 
read, and extracting the data (Lab values) directly from the file. It wouldn't be too difficult to 
script that side of things and convert the values to any format you wanted.

Keith

You can get lab values directly onscreen by using your mouse to highlight the last file read. It will be at the right bottom of the screen.

Regards, Walt





Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, and other resources as they are often being updated.

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint

If you wish to receive no emails or just a daily digest, or you wish to unsubscribe, please edit your Membership preferences by visiting this same page.

Please follow these basic guidelines:
- As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to keep them short.
- Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or flames. Hostile, aggressive or argumentative users may be removed from the membership without notice.
- Keep your posts and threads related to the group topic of digital B&W printing. Users who persistently make off-topic posts may be removed from the membership.
- By posting on this forum you agree to abide by the group rules and guidelines, and to abide by the actions and decisions of the group Owner and Moderators. See “Group Topic, Rules and Guidelines” in the Files section:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint/files/

BY PARTICIPATING IN AND/OR POSTING MESSAGES TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO! GROUP YOU EXPRESSLY UNDERSTAND AND AGREE THAT THE “OWNER” AND “MODERATORS” OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP SHALL NOT BE LIABLE TO YOU FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, CONSEQUENTIAL OR EXEMPLARY DAMAGES, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO, DAMAGES FOR LOSS OF PROFITS, GOODWILL, USE, DATA OR OTHER INTANGIBLE LOSSES (EVEN IF THE  “OWNER” AND “MODERATORS” OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP HAVE BEEN ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES), RESULTING FROM: (i) THE USE OR THE INABILITY TO USE THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP; (ii) UNAUTHORIZED ACCESS TO OR ALTERATION OF YOUR TRANSMISSIONS OR DATA; (iii) STATEMENTS OR CONDUCT OF ANY THIRD PARTY ON THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP; OR (iv) ANY OTHER MATTER RELATING TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP.
 
Yahoo! Groups Links

> > Keith, that was a pretty fair review, but the one thing that I didn't 
> > see (and may have over looked) was the amount of time it took to 
> > measure the 729 patch target.

There seems to be some confusion between this device( Datacolor 1005), and the much 
older serial device from ColorSavvy. This device takes readings in .67 seconds (it was 
several seconds, and a very stiff button on the ColorSavvy device), so that reading the 225 
patch target (all that most profiles require) is about a four minute affair. 729 patches can 
be read in under 20 minutes. Some beta testers may report longer times, as earlier betas 
had a built in lag on some systems. This has been dealt with, and the times I note here are 
practical on reasonably fast hardware... if your machine (or your reflexes) are a bit slower, 
it may be a bit  longer. Given that the profile calculating time is about 2 and a half minutes 
faster than with Pulse, for many profiles its a wash; for high patch profiles its slower, and 
in any case its well less than half the price... <G>


C. David Tobie
Product Technology Manager
ColorVision Business Unit
Datacolor Inc.
CDTobie@...
www.colorvision.com

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Greg" <dfaprinting@y...> wrote:

> It's a little faster than the CM2C that I have.

I have both, and its not just a litte faster... its a lot faster. The CM2C is about 4 seconds 
per patch, the 1005 is less than a second. Given that its a patch reader, not a strip reader, 
it coudn't get much faster than it is in the release version of PrintFIX PRO... 

C. David Tobie
Product Technology Manager
ColorVision Business Unit
Datacolor Inc.
CDTobie@...
www.colorvision.com

With all due respect, it can't calculate the profile 2 1/2 minutes faster than the Pulse.  My pulse calculates the profile in a matter of seconds.  I've just got a run of the mill pc.
   
  Tom Baker

cdtobie <CDTobie@...> wrote:
  
> > Keith, that was a pretty fair review, but the one thing that I didn't 
> > see (and may have over looked) was the amount of time it took to 
> > measure the 729 patch target.

There seems to be some confusion between this device( Datacolor 1005), and the much 
older serial device from ColorSavvy. This device takes readings in .67 seconds (it was 
several seconds, and a very stiff button on the ColorSavvy device), so that reading the 225 
patch target (all that most profiles require) is about a four minute affair. 729 patches can 
be read in under 20 minutes. Some beta testers may report longer times, as earlier betas 
had a built in lag on some systems. This has been dealt with, and the times I note here are 
practical on reasonably fast hardware... if your machine (or your reflexes) are a bit slower, 
it may be a bit  longer. Given that the profile calculating time is about 2 and a half minutes 
faster than with Pulse, for many profiles its a wash; for high patch profiles its slower, and 
in any case its well less than half the price... <G>


C. David Tobie
Product Technology Manager
ColorVision Business Unit
Datacolor Inc.
CDTobie@...
www.colorvision.com








Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, and other resources as they are often being updated.

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint

If you wish to receive no emails or just a daily digest, or you wish to unsubscribe, please edit your Membership preferences by visiting this same page.

Please follow these basic guidelines:
- As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to keep them short.
- Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or flames. Hostile, aggressive or argumentative users may be removed from the membership without notice.
- Keep your posts and threads related to the group topic of digital B&W printing. Users who persistently make off-topic posts may be removed from the membership.
- By posting on this forum you agree to abide by the group rules and guidelines, and to abide by the actions and decisions of the group Owner and Moderators. See “Group Topic, Rules and Guidelines” in the Files section:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint/files/

BY PARTICIPATING IN AND/OR POSTING MESSAGES TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO! GROUP YOU EXPRESSLY UNDERSTAND AND AGREE THAT THE “OWNER” AND “MODERATORS” OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP SHALL NOT BE LIABLE TO YOU FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, CONSEQUENTIAL OR EXEMPLARY DAMAGES, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO, DAMAGES FOR LOSS OF PROFITS, GOODWILL, USE, DATA OR OTHER INTANGIBLE LOSSES (EVEN IF THE  “OWNER” AND “MODERATORS” OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP HAVE BEEN ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES), RESULTING FROM: (i) THE USE OR THE INABILITY TO USE THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP; (ii) UNAUTHORIZED ACCESS TO OR ALTERATION OF YOUR TRANSMISSIONS OR DATA; (iii) STATEMENTS OR CONDUCT OF ANY THIRD PARTY ON THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP; OR (iv) ANY OTHER MATTER RELATING TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP.



    
---------------------------------
  YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS 

    
    Visit your group "DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint" on the web.
    
    To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
 DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
    
    Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service. 

    
---------------------------------
  

  



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

It would be good if there was a way to export measurements to a text 
file like there was with the CM2C(or S), which should be a stand alone 
application. And from this point onward, I better just keep quiet about 
this subject, so that I don't bring up the past...

In a message dated 1/12/06 4:16:44 PM, dfaprinting@... writes:


> It would be good if there was a way to export measurements to a text
> file like there was with the CM2C(or S), which should be a stand alone
> application. And from this point onward, I better just keep quiet about
> this subject, so that I don't bring up the past...
> 

The general trend of color management products has been from standalone 
hardware and standalone software, each of which supported various brands of the 
other, to dedicated hardware/software bundles that cost less combined than either 
hardware or software alone did a few years ago. The fact that the software 
companies Logo, Monaco, Horses, and ColorVision have all become divisions of 
hardware companies (Gretag, X-Rite, and Datacolor) is a major source of that 
trend. But, despite all that, I do intend to have a text export function for 
Spectro measurements in an upcoming version of PrintFIX PRO, and hope to 
incorporate other features for black and white uses eventually. After all, I'm not just 
a ColorGeek; I'm a B&WGeek too!

C. David Tobie
Product Technology Manager
ColorVision, Inc.
CDTobie@...
www.colorvision.com


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Can someone point me to the sample data that I recall being mentioned?
I'm guessing that it's a fairly easy task to write a little routine to
convert the output file into something suitable for QTR or IJC/OPM, or
directly into Excel.

Thanks,
Helen

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@...m, "Greg"
<dfaprinting@y...> wrote:

>
> It would be good if there was a way to export measurements to a text 
> file like there was with the CM2C(or S), which should be a stand alone 
> application. ...
>

What's the price of PrintFix Pro? It comes with Dr. Pro?

John V

In a message dated 1/13/06 12:05:16 AM, jvlist@... writes:


> What's the price of PrintFix Pro? It comes with Dr. Pro?
> 

Street price for PrintFIX PRO is $499 US. Street price for PrintFIX PRO Suite 
(which includes Spyder2PRO monitor calibration, and DoctorPRO printer profile 
editing, plus other freebies) is $599 US.

C. David Tobie
Product Technology Manager
ColorVision Business Unit
Datacolor Inc.
CDTobie@...
www.colorvision.com


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

I use a CM2C and Monaco Profiler and get wonderful profiles, sure it
takes a little time to read the target and to input the txt file to
Profiler, but how often do you acctually make a new paper profile? For
the average user not all that often. I only use a couple of papers on
a regular basis. Time is not of concern to me, but color accuracy is.
Print Fix Pro looks like a very good price to me. 
Unless some one out there has a good used eye-one that that want to
sell me!

Barry

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, CDTobie@a... wrote:
>
> 
> In a message dated 1/13/06 12:05:16 AM, jvlist@c... writes:
> 
> 
> > What's the price of PrintFix Pro? It comes with Dr. Pro?
> > 
> 
> Street price for PrintFIX PRO is $499 US. Street price for PrintFIX
PRO Suite 
> (which includes Spyder2PRO monitor calibration, and DoctorPRO
printer profile 

> editing, plus other freebies) is $599 US.
> 
> C. David Tobie
> Product Technology Manager
> ColorVision Business Unit
> Datacolor Inc.
> CDTobie@c...
> www.colorvision.com
> 
> 
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

In a message dated 1/13/06 12:36:42 PM, barry@... writes:


> Time is not of concern to me, but color accuracy is.
> Print Fix Pro looks like a very good price to me.
> 
PrintFIX PRO would certainly be faster, and more precise than the CM2 you are 
using now, as well as more convenient (being native USB, with an easy to use 
mouse-type button). Beyond that, it would be differences in the software 
involved, patch numbers used in profiling, bit depth of profiles etc... 

I'm a big fan of "if it ain't broke, don't fix it", so if you are satisfied 
with what you have, there's certainly no hurry to buy something else!

C. David Tobie
Product Technology Manager
ColorVision Business Unit
Datacolor Inc.
CDTobie@...
www.colorvision.com


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

I've used this combination in the past, and it worked fairly well. But 
when I switched to an Xrite DTP22, I was able to get better results. 
Keep an eye on ebay for a DTP22 Digital Swatchbook, best if you can get 
the newest series, and make sure that it is a real DTP22 Digital 
Swatchbook! Xrite made several OEM versions, and those are not 
supported! Also make sure it has the correct calibration standard, the 
serial numbers must match on both the spectro and the cal. standard. If 
you find one with the UV filter, even better. As of about a year ago, a 
complete rebuild was around $400-$450, and that included putting the UV 
filter in the spectro. A regular check-up was much cheaper. Also keep 
your eyes out for i1 revision A spectros, again better if you get one 
with the UV filter.

And of course you should look for things like a DTP41 that might go for 
next to nothing, or some other supported tool.

The DTP22 will not be any faster than the CM2C. And if you happen to 
have the CM2S, then ignore it all and just keep using that device.

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Keith Cooper"
<yahoogroups@n...> wrote:
>
> Hi
> 
> If anyone is curious, I've posted a fairly lengthy review of the new
PrintFIX PRO
> 
> http://www.northlight-images.co.uk/article_pages/printfix_pro.html

Thank you greatly.

Most excellent information. I was looking for some data on this,
mainly the number of LEDs and their colors. You've at least given me
the number.

Hard to believe it's six. Not 16, not even 12.

There's controversy in grating or prism based spectros over whether
you need 31 bands to properly measure color (like SpectroLino or
DPT-41), or if 16 bands and some interpolation (like Eye-One and
Pulse) but one thing eveyone can agree on, is that 6 narrowband colors
is definitely not enough.

I'd put 6 narrow band colors up against 3 good colormetric filters (as
in a digital camera based solution) and expect the 6 narrow band
filters to lose, every single time.

The only way a system like this approaches workability is if the
people who created the system use it to make profiles of multiple
paper/ink combinations using a better (read "somebody else's")
spectro, then use their "limited" spectro only to adjust these
profiles to minor variations in a particular user's printer. As far as
I can tell, this is what the origional (scanner based) printfix did,
to such a degree that you could only use it to "profile" a small
assortment of ink and paper combinations.

For B7W use, a definite weakness of LED based narrowband systems is in
their ability to judge neutrality.

You are, of course, comparing a $500 solution that does a very good job of making profiles, to ones that range from $1000 to $7000!


Thank you greatly.

Most excellent information. I was looking for some data on this,
mainly the number of LEDs and their colors. You've at least given me
the number.

Hard to believe it's six. Not 16, not even 12.

There's controversy in grating or prism based spectros over whether
you need 31 bands to properly measure color (like SpectroLino or
DPT-41), or if 16 bands and some interpolation (like Eye-One and
Pulse) but one thing eveyone can agree on, is that 6 narrowband colors
is definitely not enough.

I'd put 6 narrow band colors up against 3 good colormetric filters (as
in a digital camera based solution) and expect the 6 narrow band
filters to lose, every single time.

The only way a system like this approaches workability is if the
people who created the system use it to make profiles of multiple
paper/ink combinations using a better (read "somebody else's")
spectro, then use their "limited" spectro only to adjust these
profiles to minor variations in a particular user's printer. As far as
I can tell, this is what the origional (scanner based) printfix did,
to such a degree that you could only use it to "profile" a small
assortment of ink and paper combinations.

For B7W use, a definite weakness of LED based narrowband systems is in
their ability to judge neutrality.

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Tom Baker
<tbaker1328@s...> wrote:
>
> With all due respect, it can't calculate the profile 2 1/2 minutes
faster than the Pulse.  My pulse calculates the profile in a matter of
seconds.  I've just got a run of the mill pc.

And don't forget, calculation time is time is not at all like
measurement time. Even if pulse took longer to calculate, it would not
be "a wash", because you don't have to be tending the machine during
calculation. After 1/2 an hour of reading patches, the calculation
time is "break time". Move around, get the cramp from measuring
patches out of your hand and arm, go sort some photos, drink a pop,
have a smoke, return some phone calls, come back in a few minutes....

In a message dated 1/14/06 12:04:03 PM, koloshor@... writes:


> Most excellent information. I was looking for some data on this,
> mainly the number of LEDs and their colors. You've at least given me
> the number.
> 
> Hard to believe it's six. Not 16, not even 12.
> 
Its 18 actually, but in sets of three, so there are six discreet colors of 
LED.
> 
> There's controversy in grating or prism based spectros over whether
> you need 31 bands to properly measure color (like SpectroLino or
> DPT-41), or if 16 bands and some interpolation (like Eye-One and
> Pulse) but one thing eveyone can agree on, is that 6 narrowband colors
> is definitely not enough.
> 
Enough for what? For printer profiling its all about measuring Lab values of 
printed color patches, not how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. So 
you take a laboratory-grade spectro as a standard, and you measure 
representative materials with the affordable, available devices, and you see what the 
resulting Lab values look like. No theorizing required, its an empirical issue. 
The Datacolor 1005 fairs amazingly well in such tests.
> 
> I'd put 6 narrow band colors up against 3 good colormetric filters (as
> in a digital camera based solution) and expect the 6 narrow band
> filters to lose, every single time.
> 
More theorizing...
> 
> The only way a system like this approaches workability is if the
> people who created the system use it to make profiles of multiple
> paper/ink combinations using a better (read "somebody else's")
> spectro, then use their "limited" spectro only to adjust these
> profiles to minor variations in a particular user's printer. As far as
> I can tell, this is what the origional (scanner based) printfix did,
> to such a degree that you could only use it to "profile" a small
> assortment of ink and paper combinations.
> 
PrintFIX used an RGB scanner to read patches. PrintFIX PRO uses an LED 
Spectrocolorimeter. Comparing the Lab values from the the Datacolor 1005 in PrintFIX 
PRO to the values from the PrintFIX scanner, and to a Pulse or EyeOne, would 
give you three closely grouped results, and a distant outlier. 
> 
> For B7W use, a definite weakness of LED based narrowband systems is in
> their ability to judge neutrality.
> 
> I'd suggest you measure some neutrals with a 1005 unit and decide what you 
think of it, rather than damning it sight unseen for an entire class of uses.

C. David Tobie
Product Technology Manager
ColorVision, Inc.
CDTobie@...
www.colorvision.com



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

In a message dated 1/14/06 12:52:56 PM, koloshor@... writes:


> After 1/2 an hour of reading patches, the calculation
> time is "break time".  Move around, get the cramp from measuring
> patches out of your hand and arm, go sort some photos, drink a pop,
> have a smoke, return some phone calls, come back in a few minutes....
> 
> 
Measuring even a 729 patch profile with PrintFIX PRO doesn't take me half an 
hour, I read them in under 20 minutes. The more commonly used 225 patch target 
is under 5 minutes. And the profile calculation time with PRO hardly 
qualifies as a break; my G5 builds high bit profiles in four seconds, so I don't 
bother to go out for coffee. But I detect a systematic prejudice here before you've 
even tried the product. I'd suggest at least using all the products we are 
discussing before dismissing them. I have Pulse, EyeOne, and PrintFIX PRO all 
here, side by side. They all have their pros and cons, they all build good color 
profiles. The thing that most distinguishes them to me is the cost: PrintFIX 
PRO is under five hundred dollars, and the others well over a thousand. 

There will always be those who champion more expensive products for a range 
of reasons, many of them legitimate; but in this case, with this kind of price 
difference, PrintFIX PRO will be affordable for a whole range of users that 
can't justify more expensive solutions. If it doesn't suit you, save your pennie
s towards something else; if you already have something else, then don't be 
sour grapes that there is now a cheaper alternative for some uses.

C. David Tobie
Product Technology Manager
ColorVision, Inc.
CDTobie@...
www.colorvision.com


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

David,
I agree. I have been using the older Profiler Pro for a long time. This older 
version that uses the Color Savvy mouse makes excellent profiles. I think 
it's easy to talk about specs, but the proof is in the profile. I would probably 
like the newer version based on the USB connection and quicker patch reading, 
but I coudn't be happier with the profiles.
Steve Burger


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

In a message dated 1/14/06 3:14:53 PM, sburger104@... writes:


> I agree. I have been using the older Profiler Pro for a long time. This 
> older
> version that uses the Color Savvy mouse makes excellent profiles. I think
> it's easy to talk about specs, but the proof is in the profile. I would 
> probably
> like the newer version based on the USB connection and quicker patch 
> reading,
> but I coudn't be happier with the profiles.
> 

The goal, when development started, was to build profiles equivalent to what 
SpectroPRO built; but as we added features (high bit profiles, more patches to 
the single page target, etc) and as the firmware and calibration functions of 
the beta hardware developed, I began to notice that it was no longer a matter 
of whether PrintFIX PRO built profiles as good as SpectroPRO had, they were 
consistantly better. So we exceeded our target goal of easier, more convenient, 
faster, cheaper, with equivalent results... by getting better results.

C. David Tobie
Product Technology Manager
ColorVision, Inc.
CDTobie@...
www.colorvision.com


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Walt Mucha"
<wkm@k...> wrote:
>
> You are, of course, comparing a $500 solution that does a very good
job of making profiles, to ones that range from $1000 to $7000!

The jury is out on whether or not it "does a very good job of making
profiles". In the words of Carl Sagan: "extraordinary claims require
extraordinary proof". Both the literature in this field and my own
personal experience designing LED spectors shows 6 colors is not
enough to do "a very good job".

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, CDTobie@a... wrote:
>
> In a message dated 1/14/06 12:04:03 PM, koloshor@y... writes:
>  
> > Most excellent information. I was looking for some data on this,
> > mainly the number of LEDs and their colors. You've at least given me
> > the number.
> > 
> > Hard to believe it's six. Not 16, not even 12.
> > 
> Its 18 actually, but in sets of three, so there are six discreet
colors of 
> LED.

Nice waffle, but you know what I meant.

> > There's controversy in grating or prism based spectros over whether
> > you need 31 bands to properly measure color (like SpectroLino or
> > DPT-41), or if 16 bands and some interpolation (like Eye-One and
> > Pulse) but one thing eveyone can agree on, is that 6 narrowband colors
> > is definitely not enough.
> > 
> Enough for what? For printer profiling its all about measuring Lab
values of 
> printed color patches, not how many angels can dance on the head of
a pin.

Man, you are rude and sarcastic. But I'll try to address your points
more prefessionally than you're addressing mine.

> So 
> you take a laboratory-grade spectro as a standard, and you measure 
> representative materials with the affordable, available devices, and
you see what the 
> resulting Lab values look like. No theorizing required, its an
empirical issue.

Yes, it's quite emperical. Because you're not reading enough colors,
you can have two metameres, colors that appear identical to both a
human eye and a "laboratory-grade" spectro, that will not map to the
same LAB values when converting from your 6 space to LAB 3 space. But
you already knew this. 
 
> The Datacolor 1005 fairs amazingly well in such tests.

Which tests would those be? Have you got some numbers to share, other
than "amazingly well"? Something like the papers that Color Savvy
presented about their eight color system?

> > I'd put 6 narrow band colors up against 3 good colormetric filters (as
> > in a digital camera based solution) and expect the 6 narrow band
> > filters to lose, every single time.
> > 
> More theorizing...

No, hard fact, based on my own testing with 4, 6, 8, 10, and 12 color
LED based systems, including ones that used 12 LEDs for the
illuminants and a three band detector to check for fluorescence.
 
> > The only way a system like this approaches workability is if the
> > people who created the system use it to make profiles of multiple
> > paper/ink combinations using a better (read "somebody else's")
> > spectro, then use their "limited" spectro only to adjust these
> > profiles to minor variations in a particular user's printer. As far as
> > I can tell, this is what the origional (scanner based) printfix did,
> > to such a degree that you could only use it to "profile" a small
> > assortment of ink and paper combinations.
> > 
> PrintFIX used an RGB scanner to read patches. PrintFIX PRO uses an LED 
> Spectrocolorimeter. Comparing the Lab values from the the Datacolor
1005 in PrintFIX 
> PRO to the values from the PrintFIX scanner, and to a Pulse or
EyeOne, would 
> give you three closely grouped results, and a distant outlier. 

I'd hazard that you would get a close grouping from the Pulse and
Eye-One and both the PrintFIX scanner and PrintFIX pro would be outliers.
 
> > For B7W use, a definite weakness of LED based narrowband systems is in
> > their ability to judge neutrality.
> > 
> > I'd suggest you measure some neutrals with a 1005 unit and decide
what you 
> think of it, rather than damning it sight unseen for an entire class
of uses.

I will, as soon as I have access to one.

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, CDTobie@a... wrote:
>
> 
> Measuring even a 729 patch profile with PrintFIX PRO doesn't take me
half an 
> hour, I read them in under 20 minutes.

I quoted the time mentioned here by someone who had used your product.

> The more commonly used 225 patch target 
> is under 5 minutes. And the profile calculation time with PRO hardly 
> qualifies as a break; my G5 builds high bit profiles in four
seconds, so I don't 
> bother to go out for coffee. But I detect a systematic prejudice
here before you've 
> even tried the product.

I don't know about "systematic", but yes, there is "prejudice", in the
non perjorative sense of deriving an opinion based on having a
substantial amount of experience in the field and with the technology
involved.

> I'd suggest at least using all the products we are 
> discussing before dismissing them. I have Pulse, EyeOne, and
PrintFIX PRO all 
> here, side by side. They all have their pros and cons, they all
build good color 
> profiles. The thing that most distinguishes them to me is the cost:
PrintFIX 
> PRO is under five hundred dollars, and the others well over a thousand. 

The cost would only be a distinguising characteristic if rated against
the benefits. Does the PrintFIX produce results at least half as good
as the devices that cost twice as much money?

> There will always be those who champion more expensive products for
a range 
> of reasons, many of them legitimate; but in this case, with this
kind of price 
> difference, PrintFIX PRO will be affordable for a whole range of
users that 
> can't justify more expensive solutions. If it doesn't suit you, save
your pennie
> s towards something else; if you already have something else, then
don't be 
> sour grapes that there is now a cheaper alternative for some uses.

Very nice waffle. If you wern't so rude in the rest of your message
and in the other one, it might even have come off as sincere.

In a message dated 1/16/06 3:33:25 PM, koloshor@... writes:


> > You are, of course, comparing a $500 solution that does a very good
> job of making profiles, to ones that range from $1000 to $7000!
> 
> The jury is out on whether or not it "does a very good job of making
> profiles". 
> 
The jury isn't out for Walt, he's tested it, made his determinations, and 
stated them, only to have them refuted on theory by people who haven't even used 
the product; apparently this product is shaking things up a bit...


> In the words of Carl Sagan: "extraordinary claims require
> extraordinary proof". Both the literature in this field and my own
> personal experience designing LED spectors shows 6 colors is not
> enough to do "a very good job".
> 
For measuring spikey emissive sources like fluorescent proofing lights, more 
bands are better. But for measuring broad, smoothly formed reflective spectra 
like printed inks, six bands seems to do an excellent job, as the L*a*b* 
values from the Datacolor 1005 show in testing. Datacolor is a major player in the 
spectro market, developing a number of laboratory grade spectros, and leading 
software for, among other areas, the textile industry. If you would like to 
disagree with their testing, I would recommend that you get a 1005 yourself, and 
ideally a lab spectro to use as a standard, and measure BCRA tiles, or actual 
print samples, with both (and other end user patch readers for comparison if 
you like) and see what you think of the results. I'm certainly not saying the 
1005 will prove better, only that it proves quite sufficient for the task at 
hand: L*a*b* values for building ICC profiles.

The more typical end user test of comparing the device to one competing 
product, and saying "it must be wrong because the results are not identical" is not 
effective, as neither of those units is identical to the lab standard either, 
and its simply not fair to define the competition as "right", thus defining 
the device in question as "wrong".

More to the point for end users is to compare prints made through PrintFIX 
PRO profiles to ones made through Pulse, EyeOne, or more costly GMB and X-Rite 
products. Many users simply will not see enough difference to justify spending 
a lot more money. Splitting Delta-Es and objecting on theory won't change 
that; this is not about who's best, in some theoretical sense, its about which 
product's cost, ease of use, and results meet the needs of various groups of 
users. Given the quality of the results, the extreme ease of use, and the very low 
price, all the theory in the world won't keep PrintFIX PRO from being a good 
choice for a lot of users; and coupled with PrintFIX PLUS, offer spectro-grade 
profiles to a   much larger group, who do not own any measurement hardware at 
all.

But that doesn't stop one from wondering why some people "doth protest too 
much?"

C. David Tobie
Product Technology Manager
ColorVision Business Unit
Datacolor Inc.
CDTobie@...
www.colorvision.com


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

David,
You sure as hell make me want one! I would like a Eye One but I can't
afford one at the moment. I do have a couple of questions though,
please forgive if these have already been answered.
1.  How suitable is the Printfix pro for making gray profiles, such as
I might need using QTR?
2. Is there a software utility to output a txt lab file for use in
another profile program such as Monaco Profiler?

Thanks,
Barry

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, CDTobie@a... wrote:
>
> 
> In a message dated 1/16/06 3:33:25 PM, koloshor@y... writes:
> 
> 
> > > You are, of course, comparing a $500 solution that does a very good
> > job of making profiles, to ones that range from $1000 to $7000!
> > 
> > The jury is out on whether or not it "does a very good job of making
> > profiles". 
> > 
> The jury isn't out for Walt, he's tested it, made his
determinations, and 
> stated them, only to have them refuted on theory by people who
haven't even used 
> the product; apparently this product is shaking things up a bit...
> 
> 
> > In the words of Carl Sagan: "extraordinary claims require
> > extraordinary proof". Both the literature in this field and my own
> > personal experience designing LED spectors shows 6 colors is not
> > enough to do "a very good job".
> > 
> For measuring spikey emissive sources like fluorescent proofing
lights, more 
> bands are better. But for measuring broad, smoothly formed
reflective spectra 
> like printed inks, six bands seems to do an excellent job, as the
L*a*b* 
> values from the Datacolor 1005 show in testing. Datacolor is a major
player in the 
> spectro market, developing a number of laboratory grade spectros,
and leading 
> software for, among other areas, the textile industry. If you would
like to 
> disagree with their testing, I would recommend that you get a 1005
yourself, and 
> ideally a lab spectro to use as a standard, and measure BCRA tiles,
or actual 
> print samples, with both (and other end user patch readers for
comparison if 
> you like) and see what you think of the results. I'm certainly not
saying the 
> 1005 will prove better, only that it proves quite sufficient for the
task at 
> hand: L*a*b* values for building ICC profiles.
> 
> The more typical end user test of comparing the device to one competing 
> product, and saying "it must be wrong because the results are not
identical" is not 
> effective, as neither of those units is identical to the lab
standard either, 
> and its simply not fair to define the competition as "right", thus
defining 
> the device in question as "wrong".
> 
> More to the point for end users is to compare prints made through
PrintFIX 
> PRO profiles to ones made through Pulse, EyeOne, or more costly GMB
and X-Rite 
> products. Many users simply will not see enough difference to
justify spending 
> a lot more money. Splitting Delta-Es and objecting on theory won't
change 
> that; this is not about who's best, in some theoretical sense, its
about which 
> product's cost, ease of use, and results meet the needs of various
groups of 
> users. Given the quality of the results, the extreme ease of use,
and the very low 
> price, all the theory in the world won't keep PrintFIX PRO from
being a good 
> choice for a lot of users; and coupled with PrintFIX PLUS, offer
spectro-grade 
> profiles to a   much larger group, who do not own any measurement
hardware at 
> all.
> 
> But that doesn't stop one from wondering why some people "doth
protest too 

> much?"
> 
> C. David Tobie
> Product Technology Manager
> ColorVision Business Unit
> Datacolor Inc.
> CDTobie@c...
> www.colorvision.com
> 
> 
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

Perhaps some protest too much. Perhaps others promote
too much. How do we make the call?

Guy

--- CDTobie@... wrote:

> 
> In a message dated 1/16/06 3:33:25 PM,
> koloshor@... writes:

snip...

> But that doesn't stop one from wondering why some
> people "doth protest too 
> much?"
> 
> C. David Tobie
> Product Technology Manager
> ColorVision Business Unit
> Datacolor Inc.
> CDTobie@...
> www.colorvision.com
> 
> 
> [Non-text portions of this message have been
> removed]
> 
> 
> 
> Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files,
> and other resources as they are often being updated.
> 
>
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint
> 
> If you wish to receive no emails or just a daily
> digest, or you wish to unsubscribe, please edit your
> Membership preferences by visiting this same page.
> 
> Please follow these basic guidelines:
> - As threads develop, trim off excess portions of
> earlier messages to keep them short.
> - Good manners are required at all time. No personal
> attacks or flames. Hostile, aggressive or
> argumentative users may be removed from the
> membership without notice.
> - Keep your posts and threads related to the group
> topic of digital B&W printing. Users who
> persistently make off-topic posts may be removed
> from the membership.
> - By posting on this forum you agree to abide by the
> group rules and guidelines, and to abide by the
> actions and decisions of the group Owner and
> Moderators. See \ufffdGroup Topic, Rules and
Guidelines\ufffd
> in the Files section:
>
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint/files/
> 
> BY PARTICIPATING IN AND/OR POSTING MESSAGES TO THE
> DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO! GROUP YOU EXPRESSLY
> UNDERSTAND AND AGREE THAT THE \ufffdOWNER\ufffd AND
> \ufffdMODERATORS\ufffd OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO
GROUP
> SHALL NOT BE LIABLE TO YOU FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT,
> INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, CONSEQUENTIAL OR EXEMPLARY
> DAMAGES, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO, DAMAGES FOR
> LOSS OF PROFITS, GOODWILL, USE, DATA OR OTHER
> INTANGIBLE LOSSES (EVEN IF THE  \ufffdOWNER\ufffd AND
> \ufffdMODERATORS\ufffd OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO
GROUP
> HAVE BEEN ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH
> DAMAGES), RESULTING FROM: (i) THE USE OR THE
> INABILITY TO USE THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO
> GROUP; (ii) UNAUTHORIZED ACCESS TO OR ALTERATION OF
> YOUR TRANSMISSIONS OR DATA; (iii) STATEMENTS OR
> CONDUCT OF ANY THIRD PARTY ON THE DIGITAL BW, THE
> PRINT YAHOO GROUP; OR (iv) ANY OTHER MATTER RELATING
> TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP.
>  
> Yahoo! Groups Links
> 
>
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint/
> 
>    
>
DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
> 
>  
> 
> 
> 


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com

In a message dated 1/17/06 12:57:39 PM, barry@... writes:


> You sure as hell make me want one!
> 
Well, the goal is always to make a product that is "wantable"... 
(desirable?); the only question is whether it is appropriate to the rather esoteric needs 
of this specialty group, as opposed to the general printing public... I joined 
back up on a couple of B&W lists (I have to quit all my lists when traveling) 
mostly to see what is currently what, and get a feel for the currrent needs, 
as I look at the possibility of special B&W functions for PrintFIX PRO.

>  I would like a Eye One but I can't
> afford one at the moment. I do have a couple of questions though,
> please forgive if these have already been answered.
> 
Not here, there's been little actual discussion of the product so far on this 
list...

> 1.  How suitable is the Printfix pro for making gray profiles, such as
> I might need using QTR?
> 
PrintFIX PRO, in its current form, focuses on one thing: ICC color profiles. 
These color profilies can be used for printing B&W images with color inks, 
with pretty good results, but there is the issue of light source specific 
metamerism. There are even controls in PrintFIX PRO for adjusting for specific 
viewing light brightness and color temperatures, but again, this is not the same as 
a specialized B&W printing system to reduce metamerism, it just allows a 
correction for one, fixed, situation.

PrintFIX PRO also takes L*a*b* value readings from any printed patch you 
choose to place the spectro on, so you can use that info (either as immediately 
displayed spot readings, or series of saved values to be reviewed later) for 
such tasks as linearizing RIPs, or building special profiles. 

What PrintFIX PRO does not currently do is convert these L*a*b* values to 
density values, which would be handy for QTR curve purposes... thats not too 
difficult, but the focus for initial release was on the standard color profiling 
workflow, thats the major market. As you've seen, there are those who wish to 
shoot the product down on every possible detail, so we wished to have the 
initial release as well detailed as possible for its main use, to minimize 
opportunities for criticism.

PrintFIX PRO also does not offer text file export in the initial shipping 
version. This will be an even simpler item to add than density support, and I 
suspect we may add it to a beta version in the near future. Anyone who was a 
pre-release beta tester for PrintFIX PRO, or who purchases a release copy, and 
wishes to test interum betas with possible features such as text export, or 
density values, should send me a private note (PLEASE do not reply to the list, 
just to me; don't clog the list with personal email!) and I will see about adding 
you to the ongoing testing.


> 2. Is there a software utility to output a txt lab file for use in
> another profile program such as Monaco Profiler?
> 
> At one time there were color software companies, and color hardware 
companies. Both types of products were expensive, but the software supported various 
instruments, and the instruments supported various software. More recently Logo 
was purchased by Gretag, Monaco was purchased by X-Rite, and Horses and 
ColorVision were purchased by Datacolor. Now all three combined companies sell 
bundled solutions, at the affordable end, that only support their own products. At 
higher price points, there is still some interoperability, but given that 
usually the combined products cost less than either the hardware alone, or the 
software alone, did a few years ago, there's not too much to complain about.

All that said, the text export function of PrintFIX PRO could be used to read 
targets from other packages,as long as the targets did not exceed 729 
patches. You could even read them in sections if they were larger than that. But 
there is no hardware-only option for purchasing the PrintFIX PRO spectro, so you'd 
end up with two software solutions for profile building. You could see which 
you preferred for RGB profiles, and use the other package if you wanted to 
build CMYK profiles, which is not an option with the current PrintFIX PRO 
software.

C. David Tobie
Product Technology Manager
ColorVision Business Unit
Datacolor Inc.
CDTobie@...
www.colorvision.com



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

In a message dated 1/17/06 1:15:00 PM, guido02474@... writes:


> >Perhaps some protest too much. 
> 
Agreed...

> >Perhaps others promote
> too much. 
> 
Always possible; I've never been a fan of marketing hyperbole on lists... let 
me know if you hear any of that from me...

> How do we make the call?
> 

Generally by the merit of content... I'll stick to answering feature and 
function questions, if others stick to asking them. My favorite part of any new 
product release is finally being able to talk about it publicly. My least 
favorite part is dealing with the inevitable hecklers who spring up with every 
product release; some have a grievance with whatever company is involved, others 
have committments to competing products, others wish to argue theory. 

My favorite example is when the Spyder was released, and the competitive spin 
was all over the lists: "Only a spectrophotometer is sufficient to measure a 
monitor! A colorimeter is just not good enough!"   So now that competitor is 
busy building low cost monitor calibration colorimeters to compete with the 
Spyder. If you can afford a competing monitor calibrator, its largely thanks to 
ColorVision for leading the way to lower prices. Perhaps this is why the 
criticisms about only a spectrophotometer being good enough to measure printed color 
patches sounds so familiar...

C. David Tobie
Product Technology Manager
ColorVision Business Unit
Datacolor Inc.
CDTobie@...
www.colorvision.com


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, CDTobie@a... wrote:
...
> > >Perhaps others promote
> > too much. 
> > 
> Always possible; I've never been a fan of marketing hyperbole on
lists... let 
> me know if you hear any of that from me...

I have to take a minute to jump to David's defense. Of the many people
with commercial interests in this community I've yet to meet anyone
more concerned about their on-line integrity.
I've met some with no such concern at all. Frankly it's nice to see
him here, he's been much less visible on lists since his formal
relationship with Colorvision started, previous to that he was amongst
the most educational of list contributors.

I wish I had time to put a review of this product up for the list, I
am impressed with it and will get to it soon. For those interested it
would be best to attend to those actual reviews from users and their
results, perhaps a bit less about theory.

Tyler

In a message dated 1/16/06 3:33:25 PM, koloshor@... writes:


> > You are, of course, comparing a $500 solution that does a very good
> job of making profiles, to ones that range from $1000 to $7000!
> 
> The jury is out on whether or not it "does a very good job of making
> profiles". 
> 

I'm not a color geek and frankly could care less how or why devices work. I do care that a product does as advertised and I do care about price/performance. I'm a professional photographer. I actually make a living selling my work. It is my passion, my life and my job. As such I'm concerned that my images look the very best they can. What I do need, is a hardware/software solution that will allow me to adjust my image on screen and accurately translate those adjustments to the printed version of the image. I "discovered" color management through these forums. My first solution was a scanner based program called WYSIWYG. I abandoned that in short order and purchased Colorvisions ProfilerPro and color mouse. That setup was good for my needs but was very slow so in the following years. I have purchased and use or have used Colorvision, Xrite and GMB hardware/software solutions. My devices are the i1, DTP-41 and Spectrolino. MY printers are 5 Epson 1280s running MIS dyes, 2 Epson 7600s running MIS Pro pigments. When testing Colorvisions PrintFix Pro and it's little brother PrintFix Plus, I tried to do so through the eyes of a first time buyer with little or no experience in color profiling. What I find exiting about PrintFix Pro is that it is relatively inexpensive and easy to use and delivers good profiles for my uses. When visually comparing prints made with these profiles, to prints made with MUCH more expensive solutions. I find that they work as good as any I have made with the more expensive equipment and software. That's my bottom line. A print for pay professional would likely have, or have a need for, a more sophisticated solution and this may not be for them, but, for the guy/gal that just needs good solid profiles, PrintFix Pro will likely satisfy their needs and at half the cost! What really excites me is this programs little brother, PrintFix Plus. This program will simply "blow out of the water" ANY scanner based solution and at a rumored price of less than $100. 

I'm impressed with your knowledge and experience with a range of instruments, but, not with your out of hand dismissal of a product you have never even used. It will probably not suit your needs, but, it will meet the needs of many others. 

My hat is off to Colorvision and in particular C.David Tobie for bringing a good product to market for the little guy. There is little doubt that their competitors will take notice and that's good for all of us. 

I've done beta testing for a number of companies, some well known and some not so well known. I don't beat around the bush with these folks and on ocassion I have submitted unfavorable data and have been dismissed from their programs. Colorvision has addresed my concerns with this program (believe me I had very few minor ones) immediately and in a very professional manner. I believe if C.D Tobie has anything to do with it, that will also translate into great customer service. I don't ask for and very seldom receive anything for my time and materials. I do get to "play" with some really neat toys though. Again I HAVE NO AFFILIATION WITH COLORVISION. Sorry for the long post.

All the best, Walt

> The goal, when development started, was to build profiles equivalent to what 
> SpectroPRO built; but as we added features (high bit profiles, more patches to 
> the single page target, etc) and as the firmware and calibration functions of 
> the beta hardware developed, I began to notice that it was no longer a matter 
> of whether PrintFIX PRO built profiles as good as SpectroPRO had, they were 
> consistantly better. So we exceeded our target goal of easier, more convenient, 
> faster, cheaper, with equivalent results... by getting better results.
> 
> C. David Tobie

David,

The quality now falling somewhere between
ProfilerPro+Spectrometer and SpectroPro ?

What wonders me a bit is the name of the PrintFix Pro. The
nice feature of PrintFix was the automatic
measuring. Though the quality of PrintFix Pro profiles will be
better, the task of measuring isn't more convenient etc than
what PrintFix has. Any plans for the future to make an
integrated system again but this time with the
spectrocolorimeter internals ?

Ernst

                    --
           Ernst Dinkla


www.pigment-print.com
(         unvollendet         )

It's easy for me to make the call, Guy, partly because I've been on 
at least one digital-print list with David Tobie for years now, going 
back at least to Mitchell Leben's lists, well before Horses, to say 
nothing of ColorVision and Datacolor. And over the course of these 
years, I long ago came both to respect and to trust David Tobie 
because of his behavior on these lists, especially as a color guru.

It's also easy for me to make the call partly because David Tobie has 
been, as he should have been, up front about where he's coming from. 
What he has put above the signature quoted below makes it obvious 
that David is not disinterested in PrintFIX Pro. Nor should he be. 
And I'm glad he's not, because consumers need such advocacy to choose 
among competing products in a free market. I don't think David has 
done too much of that, certainly neither on this list nor on the 
MacEpsonList (also at Yahoo).

Critical deconstruction of such promotion also has a role to play in 
the marketplace. But I'm leery of it when I can't tell where it's 
coming from or what it's promoting instead.
--
Sam


At 10:05 AM -0800 1/17/06, guy washburn wrote:

>
>Perhaps some protest too much. Perhaps others promote
>too much. How do we make the call?
>
>Guy
>
>[snip]
>
>>  But that doesn't stop one from wondering why some
>>  people "doth protest too
>>  much?"
>>
>>  C. David Tobie
>>  Product Technology Manager
>>  ColorVision Business Unit
>>  Datacolor Inc.
>>  CDTobie@...
>>  www.colorvision.com
>  >
>  > [snip]

In a message dated 1/18/06 3:38:06 AM, E.Dinkla@... writes:


> 
> The quality now falling somewhere between
> ProfilerPro+Spectrometer and SpectroPro ?
> 
You are apparently distinguishing our old software with a third party 
spectro, from the same stuff with the bundled CM2C device. One beta tester used our 
previous software and a DTP41, with 729 patch profiles as his standard, and 
felt that there was a smidgen of advantage with either the 41, or the more 
patches, over a PrintFIX PRO 225 patch profile. Whether that smidgen was enough for 
him to bother to run a 729 patch PrintFIX PRO profile for more direct 
comparison, I don't recall hearing. Personally, most of my fine art printing of late 
has been large art paper and matte canvas prints of landscapes and 
architectural shots from around the world, and I have been using 225 patch PrintFIX PRO 
profiles for all of that. Unless I was dealing with really saturated colors in 
demanding corners of the gamut or, conversely, trying to print B&W with color 
inks, I don't even consider the need for 729 patch profiles for my own work, 
and I'm not a pushover when it comes to print quality expectations...
> 
> What wonders me a bit is the name of the PrintFix Pro. 
> 
Yes, thats a tricky one..

> The
> nice feature of PrintFix was the automatic
> measuring.
> 
Yes, I'd agree with that...

>  Though the quality of PrintFix Pro profiles will be
> better, the task of measuring isn't more convenient etc than
> what PrintFix has.
> 
Correct, and for those with a history in the field, there is no doubt that 
the new product is more closely related to ProfilerPRO/SpectroPRO than it is to 
PrintFIX, though even there the changes are radical. Note that it has naming 
components from each, however. Pricepoints are closer to that of PrintFIX, and 
despite the trashtalk you see on lists by demanding users, PrintFIX has been a 
very successful product in a larger market than ProfilerPRO/SpectroPRO ever 
saw. Its that larger market that PrintFIX PRO is designed for: we aren't trying 
to sell it to people that already own an EyeOne... but to those who have 
never been able to afford a spectro-based solution before; or as a very affordable 
upgrade to previous users of all our packages. So the ease of use and 
documentation have been developed to support new color management users. One other 
detail that supports that choice is that ProfilerPRO/SpectroPRO offered both RGB 
and CMYK profiling, while PrintFIX has always been RGB only. So instead of 
calling it an upgrade to SpectroPRO, and getting criticized for the feature 
loss, its simpler to call it a new product in the PrintFIX line, and have it beat 
the features of the previous product on all counts, except patch reading time, 
as you note. Thats the price you pay for precision.

>  Any plans for the future to make an
> integrated system again but this time with the
> spectrocolorimeter internals ?
> 
That is not something I can speculate on in public; all I can say is that its 
certainly the company's intention to continue developing new and innovative 
hardware products...

C. David Tobie
Product Technology Manager
ColorVision Business Unit
Datacolor Inc.
CDTobie@...
www.colorvision.com


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

CDTobie@... wrote:

>>  Any plans for the future to make an
>> integrated system again but this time with the
>> spectrocolorimeter internals ?
>>
> That is not something I can speculate on in public; all I can say is that its 
> certainly the company's intention to continue developing new and innovative 
> hardware products...

I understand and am less limited :-)

Though in another market segment the Eye One iO seems the way 
to go to make better profiles easily.
Automated measuring is convenient, delivers consistent results 
but will also make the task easier for measuring more patches, 
more printed targets, more measurement runs of a target.
Within the limits of the sensor technology there is some gain 
possible by averaging measurements and increasing patch 
numbers. The software should then allow averaging but Excel 
could do the job if it isn't available in the software.
The hardware for it shouldn't be that expensive. The iO 
solution is a nice design but a more conventional plotter 
design with the sensor integrated would work as well. Monitor 
calibrators are already low in price so there's no need for 
double functions. Single patch readings may not be easy then 
but with a clever design that could be solved too.

Ernst

                    --
           Ernst Dinkla


www.pigment-print.com
(         unvollendet         )

While on the subject of Colorvision products, a much more sensible price on
the Colorfacts Pro software would not go astray either (and a Mac version).

> From: Ernst Dinkla <E.Dinkla@...>
> Reply-To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> Date: Thu, 19 Jan 2006 13:46:28 +0100
> To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Re: PrintFIX Pro info & review
> 
> CDTobie@... wrote:
> 
>>>  Any plans for the future to make an
>>> integrated system again but this time with the
>>> spectrocolorimeter internals ?
>>> 
>> That is not something I can speculate on in public; all I can say is that its
>> certainly the company's intention to continue developing new and innovative
>> hardware products...
> 
> I understand and am less limited :-)
> 
> Though in another market segment the Eye One iO seems the way
> to go to make better profiles easily.
> Automated measuring is convenient, delivers consistent results
> but will also make the task easier for measuring more patches,
> more printed targets, more measurement runs of a target.
> Within the limits of the sensor technology there is some gain
> possible by averaging measurements and increasing patch
> numbers. The software should then allow averaging but Excel
> could do the job if it isn't available in the software.
> The hardware for it shouldn't be that expensive. The iO
> solution is a nice design but a more conventional plotter
> design with the sensor integrated would work as well. Monitor
> calibrators are already low in price so there's no need for
> double functions. Single patch readings may not be easy then
> but with a clever design that could be solved too.
> 
> Ernst
> 
>                     --
>            Ernst Dinkla
> 
> 
> www.pigment-print.com
> (         unvollendet         )

In a message dated 1/20/06 3:00:06 PM, stevekale@... writes:


> While on the subject of Colorvision products, a much more sensible price on
> the Colorfacts Pro software would not go astray either (and a Mac version).
> 

You want ColorVision to reduce the price significantly, while building a 
whole new version? ColorFacts Pro (since most list memebers won't be familiar with 
it) is the leading Home Theater Calibration product for professionals. These 
are people who earn a living (often in the range what a doctor or dentist 
earns) doing custom adjustment of home theaters. These users aren't begging us to 
lower prices; quite the opposite, they prefer a high bar to admission. 
Lowering prices requires a model where you sell to a lot more people, and ColorFacts 
Pro is not designed for use by the general public. Its a high end, highly 
technical tool.

However, ColorVision has added a product for consumers interested in 
calibrating their own home theaters without any special knowledge or access to service 
menus, called SpyderTV. And now there is an advanced version called SpyderTV 
PRO with more advanced controls, for the more advanced end user; but still 
short of the specialty status of ColorFacts Pro. 

A Mac version of CF Pro would require a major rewrite of the product; given 
that a professional traveling around calibrating other's systems and making 
good money can afford to have a PC laptop for the job, thats not really critical. 
But I'd love to see SpyderTV and SpyderTV PRO both become crossplatform 
applications, as end users are platform specific, and need versions specific to 
their systems.

Personally, I run my home theater based on an EyeTV tuner, and a Mac Mini, 
and calibrate the Viewsonic LCD TV using Spyder2PRO, since its running through a 
computer.

C. David Tobie
Product Technology Manager
ColorVision Business Unit
Datacolor Inc.
CDTobie@...
www.colorvision.com


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Just like an Eye One Pro package...and that at least includes a
spectrophotometer.  Hmmm.  Nonetheless here is not the place to debate it.
I guess I could put up with Windoze for as long as it takes to calibrate my
display.  But not twice the price of an EyeOne Pro package which as noted
above actually includes hardware.

> From: <CDTobie@...>
> Reply-To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> Date: Fri, 20 Jan 2006 15:20:03 EST
> To: <stevekale@...>, <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Re: PrintFIX Pro info & review
> 
> 
> In a message dated 1/20/06 3:00:06 PM, stevekale@... writes:
> 
> 
>> While on the subject of Colorvision products, a much more sensible price on
>> the Colorfacts Pro software would not go astray either (and a Mac version).
>> 
> 
> You want ColorVision to reduce the price significantly, while building a
> whole new version? ColorFacts Pro (since most list memebers won't be familiar
> with 
> it) is the leading Home Theater Calibration product for professionals. These
> are people who earn a living (often in the range what a doctor or dentist
> earns) doing custom adjustment of home theaters. These users aren't begging us
> to 
> lower prices; quite the opposite, they prefer a high bar to admission.
> Lowering prices requires a model where you sell to a lot more people, and
> ColorFacts 
> Pro is not designed for use by the general public. Its a high end, highly
> technical tool.
> 
> However, ColorVision has added a product for consumers interested in
> calibrating their own home theaters without any special knowledge or access to
> service 
> menus, called SpyderTV. And now there is an advanced version called SpyderTV
> PRO with more advanced controls, for the more advanced end user; but still
> short of the specialty status of ColorFacts Pro.
> 
> A Mac version of CF Pro would require a major rewrite of the product; given
> that a professional traveling around calibrating other's systems and making
> good money can afford to have a PC laptop for the job, thats not really
> critical. 
> But I'd love to see SpyderTV and SpyderTV PRO both become crossplatform
> applications, as end users are platform specific, and need versions specific
> to 
> their systems.
> 
> Personally, I run my home theater based on an EyeTV tuner, and a Mac Mini,
> and calibrate the Viewsonic LCD TV using Spyder2PRO, since its running through
> a 
> computer.
> 
> C. David Tobie
> Product Technology Manager
> ColorVision Business Unit
> Datacolor Inc.
> CDTobie@...
> www.colorvision.com
> 
> 
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> 
> 
> 
> Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, and other resources as
> they are often being updated.
> 
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint
> 
> If you wish to receive no emails or just a daily digest, or you wish to
> unsubscribe, please edit your Membership preferences by visiting this same
> page.
> 
> Please follow these basic guidelines:
> - As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to keep
> them short.
> - Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or flames.
> Hostile, aggressive or argumentative users may be removed from the membership
> without notice.
> - Keep your posts and threads related to the group topic of digital B&W
> printing. Users who persistently make off-topic posts may be removed from the
> membership.
> - By posting on this forum you agree to abide by the group rules and
> guidelines, and to abide by the actions and decisions of the group Owner and
> Moderators. See „Group Topic, Rules and Guidelines‰ in the Files section:
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint/files/
> 
> BY PARTICIPATING IN AND/OR POSTING MESSAGES TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT
> YAHOO! GROUP YOU EXPRESSLY UNDERSTAND AND AGREE THAT THE „OWNER‰ AND
> „MODERATORS‰ OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP SHALL NOT BE LIABLE TO YOU
> FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, CONSEQUENTIAL OR EXEMPLARY
> DAMAGES, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO, DAMAGES FOR LOSS OF PROFITS, GOODWILL,
> USE, DATA OR OTHER INTANGIBLE LOSSES (EVEN IF THE  „OWNER‰ AND „MODERATORS‰ OF
> DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP HAVE BEEN ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH
> DAMAGES), RESULTING FROM: (i) THE USE OR THE INABILITY TO USE THE DIGITAL BW,
> THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP; (ii) UNAUTHORIZED ACCESS TO OR ALTERATION OF YOUR
> TRANSMISSIONS OR DATA; (iii) STATEMENTS OR CONDUCT OF ANY THIRD PARTY ON THE
> DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP; OR (iv) ANY OTHER MATTER RELATING TO THE
> DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP.
>  
> Yahoo! Groups Links
> 
> 
> 
>  
> 
> 
>

In a message dated 1/20/06 4:48:38 PM, stevekale@... writes:


> Just like an Eye One Pro package...and that at least includes a
> spectrophotometer.  Hmmm.  Nonetheless here is not the place to debate it.
> I guess I could put up with Windoze for as long as it takes to calibrate my
> display.  But not twice the price of an EyeOne Pro package which as noted
> above actually includes hardware.
> 
What are you saying is "just like an EyeOne Pro package?" EyeOne Pro doesn't 
relate to any of these. ColorFacts Pro is an exhaustively detailed, highly 
specific home theater package, unlike anything that Gretag sells. It works with 
signal generators and all sorts of exotic hardware. SpyderTV and SpyderTV PRO 
are much cheaper than an EyeOne spectro, and are designed specifically, again, 
for home theater, so again no direct comparison anywhere. I realize you would 
like to stick that "only a spectro is good enough, and it ought to come from 
Gretag" line in here somewhere, but I don't really see where it fits...   but 
if it will cheer you up, you can use that EyeOne with ColorFacts Pro if you 
like.

 C. David Tobie
Product Technology Manager
ColorVision Business Unit
Datacolor Inc.
CDTobie@...
www.colorvision.com


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

I'm well aware that it works with the i1 spectro and no it doesn't have to
be an GM product - a little sensitive about GM aren't we?  GM was not part
of my argument except to reference another technical colour management
product for technical users.  I merely said that each package is designed
for the technical user.  Of course they are for different albeit rapidly
converging markets.  The fact remains that you manage to keep the price of
Colorfacts exorbitantly high due to a lack of direct competition in that
space.  That's fine - that's business.  But as a customer that doesn't mean
that I won't continue to believe it is exorbitantly priced, refuse to
purchase it and look for alternatives.  I suspect that technology will solve
that problem for me soon enough as calibration of plasma and lcd "tv"
displays moves further to the fore and ICC profiling features are
incorporated.  As for the few customers who do purchase Colorfacts (to the
best of my knowledge there are only two people in the UK offering
professional home theatre calibration services using software such as
Colorfacts) of course they'd like the price point to remain out of the reach
of most enthusiasts: it is that which keeps them in business.  BTW I don't
see SpyderTV PRO on your website but I'll take that up with Felix v.
Vogelsang who contacted me today.

> From: <CDTobie@...>
> Reply-To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> Date: Fri, 20 Jan 2006 17:47:51 EST
> To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Re: PrintFIX Pro info & review
> 
> 
> In a message dated 1/20/06 4:48:38 PM, stevekale@... writes:
> 
> 
>> Just like an Eye One Pro package...and that at least includes a
>> spectrophotometer.  Hmmm.  Nonetheless here is not the place to debate it.
>> I guess I could put up with Windoze for as long as it takes to calibrate my
>> display.  But not twice the price of an EyeOne Pro package which as noted
>> above actually includes hardware.
>> 
> What are you saying is "just like an EyeOne Pro package?" EyeOne Pro doesn't
> relate to any of these. ColorFacts Pro is an exhaustively detailed, highly
> specific home theater package, unlike anything that Gretag sells. It works
> with 
> signal generators and all sorts of exotic hardware. SpyderTV and SpyderTV PRO
> are much cheaper than an EyeOne spectro, and are designed specifically, again,
> for home theater, so again no direct comparison anywhere. I realize you would
> like to stick that "only a spectro is good enough, and it ought to come from
> Gretag" line in here somewhere, but I don't really see where it fits...   but
> if it will cheer you up, you can use that EyeOne with ColorFacts Pro if you
> like.
> 
>  C. David Tobie
> Product Technology Manager
> ColorVision Business Unit
> Datacolor Inc.
> CDTobie@colorvision.com
> www.colorvision.com

In a message dated 1/20/06 6:34:36 PM, stevekale@... writes:


> >GM was not part
> of my argument except to reference another technical colour management
> product for technical users. 
> 
In that case GM ProfileMaker Pro (software only, works with a range of third 
party hardware, costs thousands for software alone) would be the obvious 
comparison to ColorFacts Pro; not EyeOne, which is an intentionally feature reduced 
package for lower end users. Its still early days for home theater products, 
they haven't settled into the market the way ICC software has.


> > I merely said that each package is designed
> for the technical user.
> 
No, that would be ProfileMaker Pro, see above...

> > Of course they are for different albeit rapidly
> converging markets.  The fact remains that you manage to keep the price of
> Colorfacts exorbitantly high due to a lack of direct competition in that
> space. 
> 
ColorVision has already lowered the price on this package since acquiring it; 
and ColorVision has a long history of supplying affordable solutions, and 
forcing other companies in the market to reduce prices as well, if they wish to 
compete...


> > That's fine - that's business.  But as a customer that doesn't mean
> that I won't continue to believe it is exorbitantly priced, refuse to
> purchase it and look for alternatives. 
> 
Are you a professional, certified Home Theater calibrator? If not, then you 
are not part of the ColorFacts Pro target market. I realize that the same type 
of individuals who like to reverse engineer printers and use them for 
specialty black and white would probably enjoy having sharp tool for use with home 
theaters. But that does not make them the norm in any sense. I also realize that 
the pro-calibration market as it exists in North America may not fit well into 
the a British format; ColorFacts Pro sells well in Germany (demand is 
sufficient that it was recently translated into German), it may take some work to 
determine how it can be adapted for Britain.

> >BTW I don't
> see SpyderTV PRO on your website but I'll take that up with Felix v.
> Vogelsang who contacted me today.
> 
SpyderTV PRO is a brand new product, not yet quite available, but Felix can 
tell you about that, without clogging up the bandwidth on this black and white 
printing list. So can we get back to black and white printing issues? I'm 
concerned that this is dangerously close to the SPAM that Mike Larsen is 
complaining about.

C. David Tobie
Product Technology Manager
ColorVision, Inc.
CDTobie@...
www.colorvision.com


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]