Printer Profile Validation: M1 vs. M2 and ΔE2000 Evaluation

[know]

I used only the 576-patch chart, and the verification chart was generated using Profile Gamut mode.

Oh, ok... I should have noticed. You say you used the 572 patch chart for both profiling and the verification measurement... That makes sense, since the Worst Patches all were strip number 36, and the 192 patch chart does not have that many strips... Anyway, it seems strip/column 36 probably is a misread and would decrease the results of some metrics in the reports, thus should be read again. You can also try to run the “Analyse Profile Quality” in Check & Refine, while Run type is set to Verification. You would have to manually select the ti3 file and the ICC/ICM profile file. Currently that tab is not fully adapted to use for Verification charts, but the quality check still works and will give a listing of the worst patches, but also the results window is made for Profiling runs, not verification runs. I expect that will be improved upon. However, this will give a better idea where the worst readings are for your verification chart measurements.

The reports you posted have all the same problem, except the one-page report, which does not list worst patches.

Thanks for the files.

Cheers,
Knut

 

[know]

found strip-36

Cool!
Nice to see that my thinking was right. The red highlights are obviously in need of a re-measurement, as suspected

It is a good example of a misreading, where you most likely started sliding your instrument on the strip labels, or before the strip labels. Then, the change in color makes the chart reading think that the first patch is white, and you can see how the first 8 patches are shifted one position, but then suddenly corrects its self for 36I and after.

This is also a good example of the neighbour check function working very well to detect bad misreads.

Knut

 

[know]

@jctay

@itsab1989 has released a new beta addressing some of the issues discussed

https://github.com/itsab1989/ChromIQ/releases

 

[jctay]

 

[know]

View attachment 19486
View attachment 19487
View attachment 19488
View attachment 19491
View attachment 19492

Thanks for sharing all the charts and their highlighting
Very clear to see that you had the same problem on several strips, and you remeasured those strips with the misreadings, thus the patch highlighting became green when re-reading found the error was no longer there.

Nice to see.

The log you provided showed this, and thus @itsab1989 and claude made the last beta release to detect when this happens.

 

[jctay]

Suggestion: Require User Input Before Measuring the Next Page

Upon completing the final strip of the current page:
. Pause the measurement process and wait for user input.
. Require the user to press the physical Test Button on the i1Pro to resume measurement and proceed to the next page.

Thank you.

 

[jctay]

Feedback: 100 × 150 mm Photo Print

Some 4 × 6-inch photo printers have an actual print size of approximately 100 × 148 mm.

102 × 152 mm: Rejected by ChromIQ Print Direct.
100 × 150 mm: Accepted by ChromIQ Print Direct.

 

[know]

Some 4 × 6-inch photo printers have an actual print size of approximately 100 × 148 mm.

102 × 152 mm: Rejected by ChromIQ Print Direct.
100 × 150 mm: Accepted by ChromIQ Print Direct.

Hi again,
Thanks for your feedback...

You can try to change the chart size to fit what you are selecting to print out. If the chart you have chosen is 102x152, but the paper you print on is 100x148, then you can change the paper size to custom and put in the size of the paper exactly. That should work. Then you can check if the margins and patch sizes are acceptable (probably is in this case).

However, I agree that there probably should be a button option to fit the selected chart to the selected paper for printing, but that would mean you accept less control of the size of patches on the paper. The more exact solution is to set the correct size. I do however see that a couple of millimetre possibly should be accepted and resized on request...

@itsab1989 could take these thoughts into account when analysing the considerations for best design and usability.

Cheers,
Knut

 

[jctay]

Resolving Measurement Issues

After resolving the measurement issue with Strip 36 and rescanning several other strips with misread patches, selected excerpts from the measurement records are presented below.

A. Validation print check (ISO 12647-8) · Judged against ISO 12647-82021 values

B. Contract proof check (ISO 12647-7) · Judged against ISO 12647-72016 values

 

[itsab1989]

Resolving Measurement Issues

After resolving the measurement issue with Strip 36 and rescanning several other strips with misread patches, selected excerpts from the measurement records are presented below.

A. Validation print check (ISO 12647-8) · Judged against ISO 12647-82021 values
View attachment 19495

View attachment 19496
View attachment 19497
View attachment 19498

B. Contract proof check (ISO 12647-7) · Judged against ISO 12647-72016 values
View attachment 19499
View attachment 19500
View attachment 19501
View attachment 19502

Looks much better now!
Claude is working on your requested feature. It will be an option in preferences measure tab and off by default for now.
Currently Claude is running some tests and a final review in the end so this might take a few hours until you see the update.