QTR-Quadtone RIP

I've used QTR on and off over recent years, but I've never tried to
linearise or create profiles, as I didn't have access to an I1 Photo.
 I now have one, and also a new R2400, and am about to begin.

I promise not to ask too many noob questions and will search the
archives.  But I notice a recent post to the effect that the
documentation needs some updating, so I may need to ask a few questions.

First Question: I haven't used the i1 for printer profiling yet, and
so this may be largely a question of ignorance about its software.  Am
I correct in reading that the latest version of i1 Match (3.6.2) still
will not read the step wedge in order to create the data for
linearising?  Is it still the case, as stated in the
Eye-One-ReadMe.pdf, that I'll need to download a demo version of
ProfileMaker 5, and if so which is the best version to download in
order to get the measure tool?  I ask because I am on XP, and I prefer
not to have to install large pieces of software unless I know that I
have to.

Thanks for any advice.

Ferdinand

In the absence of any answers, I took the plunge and installed the
MeasureTool, and have been charging ahead using the various QTR - i1
user guides.

Qu1:  I have had real trouble getting the MeasureTool to read the
Step-21x4-random.tif in strip mode.  First time round I kept getting
too many errors.  Second time (with the tif file printed with the
linearised curves) I had some success, but there were some rows where
I kept being told that the software could not recognise the boundary
strips.  Does this sort of thing happen a lot?  Are there any tips of
avoiding it? I tried just about everything.

Qu2:  I realise that you can convert the L values to density, but is
there any easy way to get the MeasureTool with the i1 to give density
readouts?  I'd like to be able to measure dMax directly, and some
posts that I've read here imply that you can using the MeasureTool and
the i1.

Ferdinand

On 16/12/2007, ferdinand_paris <ferdinand_paris@...> wrote:
>
>
> Qu1: I have had real trouble getting the MeasureTool to read the
> Step-21x4-random.tif in strip mode. First time round I kept getting
> too many errors. Second time (with the tif file printed with the
> linearised curves) I had some success, but there were some rows where
> I kept being told that the software could not recognise the boundary
> strips. Does this sort of thing happen a lot? Are there any tips of
> avoiding it? I tried just about everything.
>

You have to be careful to start and stop after the strip. I marked up my i1
ruler to show where I need to start and stop.
after that reading was much more reliable. Also run the i1 smoothly and not
too fast across the strip.


   Qu2: I realise that you can convert the L values to density, but is
> there any easy way to get the MeasureTool with the i1 to give density
> readouts? I'd like to be able to measure dMax directly, and some
> posts that I've read here imply that you can using the MeasureTool and
> the i1.
>

Yes use spot measurement and select densitometric.

Mike




   Ferdinand
>
> 
>


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

--- In QuadtoneRIP@yahoogroups.com, "Michael King" <drmrking@...> wrote:
> > Qu1: I have had real trouble getting the MeasureTool to read the
> > Step-21x4-random.tif in strip mode. First time round I kept getting
> > too many errors. Second time (with the tif file printed with the
> > linearised curves) I had some success, but there were some rows where
> > I kept being told that the software could not recognise the boundary
> > strips. Does this sort of thing happen a lot? Are there any tips of
> > avoiding it? I tried just about everything.
> 
> You have to be careful to start and stop after the strip. I marked
up my i1
> ruler to show where I need to start and stop.
> after that reading was much more reliable. Also run the i1 smoothly
and not
> too fast across the strip.

I assume that you mean start just before the strip and finish just
after.  In your experience, is it sensitive to how far before and
after?  I thought I tried all these variations, but will try again.  

I assume also that it's sensitive to smoothness, but how sensitive is
it to speed?
 
>    Qu2: I realise that you can convert the L values to density, but is
> > there any easy way to get the MeasureTool with the i1 to give density
> > readouts? I'd like to be able to measure dMax directly, and some
> > posts that I've read here imply that you can using the MeasureTool and
> > the i1.
> 
> Yes use spot measurement and select densitometric.

I don't seem to have that option.  Is that because it is not longer
enabled in the demo (5.0.8), or because I only installed the
MeasureTool, and should have also installed some other components of PM5?

Ferdinand

On 16/12/2007, ferdinand_paris <ferdinand_paris@...> wrote:
>
>   --- In QuadtoneRIP@yahoogroups.com <QuadtoneRIP%40yahoogroups.com>,
> "Michael King" <drmrking@...> wrote:
> > > Qu1: I have had real trouble getting the MeasureTool to read the
> > > Step-21x4-random.tif in strip mode. First time round I kept getting
> > > too many errors. Second time (with the tif file printed with the
> > > linearised curves) I had some success, but there were some rows where
> > > I kept being told that the software could not recognise the boundary
> > > strips. Does this sort of thing happen a lot? Are there any tips of
> > > avoiding it? I tried just about everything.
> >
> > You have to be careful to start and stop after the strip. I marked
> up my i1
> > ruler to show where I need to start and stop.
> > after that reading was much more reliable. Also run the i1 smoothly
> and not
> > too fast across the strip.
>
> I assume that you mean start just before the strip and finish just
> after. In your experience, is it sensitive to how far before and
> after? I thought I tried all these variations, but will try again.
>

I found it hard to judge where the start and end were without the marks. I
think you have to be at least a square width before and after.

   I assume also that it's sensitive to smoothness, but how sensitive is
> it to speed?
>

quite sensitive to going too fast.

   > Qu2: I realise that you can convert the L values to density, but is
> > > there any easy way to get the MeasureTool with the i1 to give density
> > > readouts? I'd like to be able to measure dMax directly, and some
> > > posts that I've read here imply that you can using the MeasureTool and
> > > the i1.
> >
> > Yes use spot measurement and select densitometric.
>
> I don't seem to have that option. Is that because it is not longer
> enabled in the demo (5.0.8), or because I only installed the
> MeasureTool, and should have also installed some other components of PM5?
>

Its greyed out in the demo mode.

 Mike

   Ferdinand
>
> 
>


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

I had the same problem with all the strips, so I edited them in
Photoshop to make them slightly narrower,and then the eyeone had no
problems reading them.  Might work for you.
John Jenkins
--- In QuadtoneRIP@yahoogroups.com, "Michael King" <drmrking@...> wrote:
>
> On 16/12/2007, ferdinand_paris ferdinand_paris@... wrote:
> >
> >   --- In QuadtoneRIP@yahoogroups.com
<QuadtoneRIP%40yahoogroups.com>,
> > "Michael King" drmrking@ wrote:
> > > > Qu1: I have had real trouble getting the MeasureTool to read the
> > > > Step-21x4-random.tif in strip mode. First time round I kept
getting
> > > > too many errors. Second time (with the tif file printed with the
> > > > linearised curves) I had some success, but there were some rows
where
> > > > I kept being told that the software could not recognise the
boundary
> > > > strips. Does this sort of thing happen a lot? Are there any tips
of
> > > > avoiding it? I tried just about everything.
> > >
> > > You have to be careful to start and stop after the strip. I marked
> > up my i1
> > > ruler to show where I need to start and stop.
> > > after that reading was much more reliable. Also run the i1
smoothly
> > and not
> > > too fast across the strip.
Edited for brevity and bandwidth considerations
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

Narrower?  Like less wide, and not less high? So that each sample is
roughly square? Is there any change that you could share this edited file?

Ferdinand

--- In QuadtoneRIP@yahoogroups.com, "johncjmd" <johncjmd@...> wrote:

>
> I had the same problem with all the strips, so I edited them in
> Photoshop to make them slightly narrower,and then the eyeone had no
> problems reading them.  Might work for you.
> John Jenkins

--- In QuadtoneRIP@yahoogroups.com, "Michael King" <drmrking@...> wrote:
> I found it hard to judge where the start and end were without the 
> marks. I think you have to be at least a square width before and 
> after.

I wonder if my problem was printing the target in portrait mode on A4.
 It fits, but there isn't much blank paper either side

> > > Yes use spot measurement and select densitometric.
> >
> > I don't seem to have that option. Is that because it is not longer
> > enabled in the demo (5.0.8), or because I only installed the
> > MeasureTool, and should have also installed some other components 
> > of PM5?
> 
> It's greyed out in the demo mode.

I don't see it at all in "measuring chart" or "measuring spot".  It is
there but greyed out in "calculating".  But whatever, it does seem to
be a demo limitation.

Thanks.

Ferdinand

I'm still having terrible trouble reading the test strip printout in
strip mode and would appreciate any tips on how to edit it so as to
make it easier to read.

Do people have any views about whether the i1 is more accurate in test
or patch mode?  You can make the i1 fairly fast in patch mode by
putting it on an auto-delay.  I'd have thought that when the i1 is
stationary it may get a better read, provided you position it
correctly.  (However I'd hate to do colour profiling this way!)

F_P


--- In QuadtoneRIP@yahoogroups.com, "ferdinand_paris"
<ferdinand_paris@...> wrote:

>
> Narrower?  Like less wide, and not less high? So that each sample is
> roughly square? Is there any change that you could share this edited
> file?
> 
> Ferdinand
> 
> --- In QuadtoneRIP@yahoogroups.com, "johncjmd" <johncjmd@> wrote:
> >
> > I had the same problem with all the strips, so I edited them in
> > Photoshop to make them slightly narrower,and then the eyeone had 
> > no problems reading them.  Might work for you.
> > John Jenkins
>

If the strip read is giving you trouble, why not just read patches. We are
only talking about 21 steps here. It is not a 225 or 775 color target? Yes,
it should work but???   Do you have the sound turned on? I don't have an I1
right now but I did use one before. The hardest thing to get right WITHOUT
sound was strip reading. Man it was EASY when I learn that there was
supposed to be sound and turned it on. Worked great for music too!! Boss
didn't like it but hey, made work an ok place.    

 

Eric Neilsen Photography

4101 Commerce Street

Suite 9

Dallas, TX 75226

http://e.neilsen.home.att.net

http://ericneilsenphotography.com

Skype ejprinter

  _____  

From: QuadtoneRIP@yahoogroups.com [mailto:QuadtoneRIP@yahoogroups.com] On
Behalf Of ferdinand_paris
Sent: Tuesday, December 18, 2007 10:20 PM
To: QuadtoneRIP@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [QuadtoneRIP] Re: Which software for measuring?

 

I'm still having terrible trouble reading the test strip printout in
strip mode and would appreciate any tips on how to edit it so as to
make it easier to read.

Do people have any views about whether the i1 is more accurate in test
or patch mode? You can make the i1 fairly fast in patch mode by
putting it on an auto-delay. I'd have thought that when the i1 is
stationary it may get a better read, provided you position it
correctly. (However I'd hate to do colour profiling this way!)

F_P

--- In QuadtoneRIP@ <mailto:QuadtoneRIP%40yahoogroups.com> yahoogroups.com,
"ferdinand_paris"
<ferdinand_paris@...> wrote:
>
> Narrower? Like less wide, and not less high? So that each sample is
> roughly square? Is there any change that you could share this edited
> file?
> 
> Ferdinand
> 
> --- In QuadtoneRIP@ <mailto:QuadtoneRIP%40yahoogroups.com>
yahoogroups.com, "johncjmd" <johncjmd@> wrote:
> >
> > I had the same problem with all the strips, so I edited them in
> > Photoshop to make them slightly narrower,and then the eyeone had 
> > no problems reading them. Might work for you.
> > John Jenkins
>

 



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

ferdinand_paris wrote:
> I'm still having terrible trouble reading the test strip printout in
> strip mode and would appreciate any tips on how to edit it so as to
> make it easier to read.
> 
> Do people have any views about whether the i1 is more accurate in test
> or patch mode?  You can make the i1 fairly fast in patch mode by
> putting it on an auto-delay.  I'd have thought that when the i1 is
> stationary it may get a better read, provided you position it
> correctly.  (However I'd hate to do colour profiling this way!)
> 
> F_P


I'm still using a SpectroCam for measuring and I do not have 
any trouble when I use the random 21x4 or 51 patches 
targets. For profiling I use two random 51 patches now and 
make one profile with a spreadsheet step in between to get 
the patch numbers and measured results in line.

With the other targets it is often the lines in between that 
may not be observed by the meter. Either you have to set 
other spectrometer settings that it switches correctly or go 
slower or faster. For the Z3100 that I have I made the 
targets 300 PPI without resampling and print them 1:1 
through Qimage with extrapolation and sharpening off. They 
are larger that way but the lines are not too wide I have 
experienced. Anyway I use the random ones mainly.

More off-topic:

As I'm using this on a Z3100 the method is slightly 
different. I first do an internal calibration of the Z3100, 
it measures about 48 grey patches in total then of the 4 K 
inks (and more of the hues). That's more or less the 
linearisation. Then I have to select a HP Z3100 ABW driver 
mode that delivers a near linear output before I can make 
the profile. Right now I can see on the profiling target 
whether I had the driver mode correct for near linear output 
On a 51 patches target reading there always is a step or two 
not precisely in line. With the internal calibration of the 
Z3100 the base is kept consistent and the profile gives me 
the softproof and the perceptual adaption of the image file 
to the paper.

I write more or less the linearisation as it calibrates the 
4 K ink tone ranges separately and not the resulting tone 
range of the four or three partitioned K inks together like 
QTR linearisation does. I think it works however, no bumps 
or dips visible where the 3 or 2 partition transfer points 
must be. My best guess is that HP shifts the partitioning to 
the calibration numbers otherwise it would show. I faced the 
same issue when I made a quadtone driver on my Wasatch 
SoftRip before QTR could drive an Epson 9000 quad.

When I use another mode with the Z3100 driver, feed the ABW 
driver R=G=B monochrome/color files (AdobeRGB assigned) with 
driver CM on (+AdobeRGB space) but greyscale printing (all 
according HP's manual for B&W) then I get what I think 
almost the same output as with the QTR profile. So HP did it 
well for normal B&W use. I still have to test that on the 
numbers but it doesn't give me the softproof or a choice of 
rendering in the conversion so I probably wouldn't use it 
other than for a case where I have no profile yet. Lots of 
sliders in the ABW mode to do it another way but that is 
different and the preview is on a constructed image not of 
the one you print.


-- 
Met vriendelijke groeten,  Ernst


|  Dinkla Grafische Techniek  |
|     www.pigment-print.com    |
|             ( unvollendet )            |

> Do people have any views about whether the i1 is more accurate 
> in test or patch mode? 

In an informal comparison of spectros and individual patch v. strip reading,
I concluded the single patch readings were more consistent.  Whether the
variation is significant -- i.e., makes a visible difference -- was not
evaluated.  The different spectro types were the i1, PFP, and X-Rite
"Digital Swatchbook."  The Lab L readings in single patch readings were
quite similar among the units.  The Lab A and B often varied up to 1 unit,
and perhaps a bit more, in the neutral range, which is all that was tested
with the test strips we circulated.  In discussions with C. David Tobie, I
concluded the Lab A & B inconsistencies were a function of the price most of
us are willing to pay.  The really accurate units are very expensive and not
worth the marginal expense for individual photographers.

I personally concluded the inexpensive PFP would be all I needed for B&W,
but for color strip reading is definitely needed, since the color targets
with small numbers of patches are not very good.  

The PFP text output is very convenient to use with QTR and other B&W
profiling.  I personally open the file with Excel and graph results to get a
quick visual picture of where I'm at.  For manually working up a set of
curves, the Lab L graph can simply be compared to a straight line that is
drawn on the paper.  It's then obvious which areas need to be made darker or
lighter.  The better the curves set going into linearization (no sharp
kinks, for example), the better the final output.  Easy graphing has become
very important to me.

Paul
www.PaulRoark.com

Thanks for all the feedback.  Some good points.

@Eric:  I have been reading the patches, because I have had little
alternative.  I have persisted in trying to get the strip reading
working (with the sound on!) for several reasons.  First, I had the
impression that the 21x4 random file was the preferred file, so that's
84 readings.  And I have been reading each printout twice to test for
consistency (of my technique and/or the instrument), so this all adds
up.  Second, if my technique is ok, then I guess this is telling me
something about the quality or the calibration of the newly acquired i1.

I looked at the supplied test charts for PM5, and compared them to the
charts for i1 Match.  The PM5 ones all had gaps between each square. 
I created a version of the 21*4 chart with gaps and .... it didn't
help.  I'm about ready to give up with strip reading, although I was
still hoping that John Jenkins might offer to share his version.

At least Paul's report that patch reading seems more consistent is
reassuring.  Thanks for that.

F_P