On Monday 20 June 2005 09:50 am, Jan-Peter Homann wrote:
> Hello list (cc. Wolf Faust)
> If some people have succes by profilinig their printer via scanners.
> We should get even better results, if somebody produce an additional
> IT-8 chart as inkjet-print, measure this with a spectrophotometer and
> sells this chart incl. characterization-data like a photographic IT-8
> chart incl. the measurement-data.
>
> A user who buys this chart inkl. data makes a special scanner-profile
> only for reprofiling his printer.
>
> This would make only sense for pigmented ink, because prints of dye-inks
> have to heavy colordrifts over the time.
>
> Wolf, if some people would be interested on such thinks, would you like
> to distribute also such charts additional to your photographic produced
> charts ?
>
> :-) Jan-Peter
>

The problem is that there would have to be IT8.7 charts make for each specific 
ink being used.  Since there are many pigmented inks being used this would 
result in a large number of possibilities.  I think that the resulting charts 
would be very specialized and expensive.  Currently I can get standard 5x7 
Wolf Faust charts for $15 each.  These have a useful life of about 2 to 3 
years.  If charts were offered printed in MediaStreet Enhanced Generations 
gen 6 inks (the ink I currently use) I would expect these to be significantly 
more expensive - on the order of $75 per chart perhaps more.  On the other 
hand these might have a longer useful life than the current charts since the 
ink is rated for almost 200 years on some papers.

Having ink specific IT8.7 charts would make the creation of printer profiles 
using a scanner significantly more accurate then when using generic IT8.7 
charts since this would eliminate the metamerism problem.  I would also 
expect it to be easier to get good results. This is because the IT8.7target 
and the printer target would both shift in nearly the same way in response to 
a given light source (it might also be influenced by the papers used in both 
targets) and the resulting profiles could be nearly as good as those created 
with a spectrophotometer.

Would I pay $75 for an IT8.7 chart printed with the inks I use?  Perhaps since 
I understand the implications of this.  But many using scanner based 
profiling software might not understand how this would give them better 
results and many might be reluctant to spend that much more for something 
that they do not understand.  

On the other hand the profiles I am now getting using a standard Wolf Faust 
IT8.7 chart and an LED based scanner give me better output with my 3rd party 
inks and papers than the canned profiles Epson ships with the printer using 
the specified Epson inks and papers.  The difference is not huge but it is 
there none the less.  I should add though that it has taken me a lot of 
effort to get to this point and the learning curve is a steep one.  Would a 
ink specific IT8.7 chart be enough better to justify the extra cost?  The 
only way to know for sure would be to give it a try.  Since these charts do 
not currently exist there is no way to test this. 

I also agree with Jan-Peter that this only makes sense for pigment inks.  
First because these inks exhibit very stable colors after the inks are dry 
(say after 24 to 48 hours) and because pigment inks exhibit much higher 
levels of metamerism than do dye based inks.  It also appears that printer 
manufacturers are moving away from dye inks to pigment inks.  For example all 
of the newer Epson printers are using pigment type inks where as a few years 
ago most of the Epson printers were using dye inks.

> Bob Friesenhahn schrieb:
>  > profiling printer with a profiled scanner
> >
> > This is indeed an interesting issue.  At first glance it seemed like
> > nonsense to me, but after some more thought it seems that if the color
> > of the LEDs are indeed narrow-band light sources and their colors
> > happen to be located close to standard primary colors, then it should be
> > possible to capture a nice scan.
> >
> > Using primary-color light sources may not solve metamerism though since
> > there is still the sensor and the properties of what is being scanned to
> > consider.

This of course is true.  My point was not that this would totally eliminate 
metamerism but rather that total metamerism effects would be reduced to low 
enough levels that it becomes a minor rather than a major problem.  

I have seen this first hand in my own digital darkroom and many of those that 
post to the ProfilePrism mailing list report the same thing.  The author of 
ProfilePrism also uses LED based scanners to the exclusion of others for 
doing his own profiles.  

The real issue is not that the targets color shift in the scanner but rather 
that the printer target and the IT8.7 target tend to color shift in different 
directions and by different amounts.  If a different scanner light source 
like LEDs results in smaller shifts or reduces the difference in the shift 
direction in both targets you have an improvement in the profiles that are 
created.  Which of these are improved by using an LED based scanner I do not 
know but my gut feeling is that it is both.  The point is that if both 
targets sifted by the same amount and in the same direction you would get 
nearly perfect profiles even if the amount of color sift was large.  That is 
why Jan-Peter's idea of having ink specific IT8.7 targets is appealing.  This 
would result in both targets responding to the scanner light source in nearly 
the exact same way.  This would make the scanner light source much less 
critical and open up the possibility for more users to create high quality 
printer profiles without the need for very expensive equipment.  


-------------------------------------------------------
SF.Net email is sponsored by: Discover Easy Linux Migration Strategies
from IBM. Find simple to follow Roadmaps, straightforward articles,
informative Webcasts and more! Get everything you need to get up to
speed, fast. http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=7477&alloc_id=16492&op=click
_______________________________________________
Lcms-user mailing list
Lcms-user@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/lcms-user

Reply via email to