Digital BW, The Print

Folks, 

I have been preparing to purchase a spectrophotometer - partly for the purpose of 
creating curves for QTR.  A big question for me is i1 or Pulse.  I ran across the following 
on Rob Galbreth's forum and found it helpful:  

"I have seen and played with the Pulse. Monaco obviously looked long and hard at all the 
nagging quirks of the Eye-One. The Pulse is well thought out, even including a flashing 
disco light. Measuring a strip of patches is fast and, compared to the Eye-One, painless. 
You can even measure a chart with the Pulse untethered. It does not make emissive 
measurements, hence the need for the Optix XR puck.

I have two concerns about the Pulse. The first is measurement resolution. X-Rites 
instruments measure color at 20nm intervals. GretagMacbeth's kit uses 10nm intervals. 
The Pulse interpolates to 10nm to make compatible files. Earlier X-Rite products, including 
the DTP-41, were hampered by the reduced resolution. I found the 41 less adept at 
handling metameric pigments than were Gretag's products. Monaco claims their data is 
clean enough that there should be no difference. I am having a chart measured by Monaco 
on the DTP-70 and will compare to what I measure on a Spectroscan. Whether splitting 
this particular hair has any real significance, I do not yet know.

Concern 2: Monaco's software does not automatically detect and compensate for optical 
brighteners with the same ability as does GMB's. This means measurements of papers with 
strong optical brighteners are off. The instrument reads the blue cast to the paper, and the 
profiles have a corresponding yellow cast in highlights. That's ugly. If you use Monaco's 
software, the UV filter is a must for papers with brighteners. That's too bad, as it degrades 
accuracy in blues. GMB has yet to announce plans regarding support for the Pulse or 
DTP-70, so it is uncertain if you can use GMB software with the new Monaco stuff. There 
appears to be a growing spat between the companies. Monaco has never supported GMB's 
iCColor, nor has GMB supported the XR/DTP-94." 

there was a response with the following.

"I share Ethan's concerns regarding the spectral resolution of the Pulse. The Eye One 
reports every 10nm from 380nm to 730nm, but it actually measures with 3nm resolution. 
On the other hand, the Pulse reports every 10nm from 400nm to 700nm, but it actually 
only measures with 20nm resolution and interpolates to create the additional points. The 
Eye One not only has a greater spectral range at both ends, but measures with three times 
the spectral resolution it actually reports. On the other hand, the Pulse reports twice the 
resolution it actually measures. The Eye One has six times the real resolution of the Pulse 
and 17% greater spectral range. Making an instrument with more native resolution than it 
reports is simply good measurement technique. 

Using a UV filter is a workable solution to dealing with brighteners, but it is dumbing down 
the measurement to brute force deal with the issue. Much better is to look at the real data 
and have software smart enought to competently deal with the brigheners."

The full thread can be found at:

http://forums.robgalbraith.com/showflat.php?Cat=&Number=286998

Both devices are reviewed at the following link

http://www.gnyman.com/ComparisonPulseEyeOne.htm

This review shows that profiles from both devices are very similar.

Does anyone on this forum have any thoughts on this data?

If anyone has come across any other information on these devices I'd be interested to see 
it.

Good luck.

Josh