Printer Profile Validation: M1 vs. M2 and ΔE2000 Evaluation

[know]

Is there a special reason why you prefer numbers as the strip labels? The default is alphabetic strip labels. Does it have to do with export to i1Profiler?

I guess we could update our presets to do as you did here, to put the labels in-between the helper markers and use two helper markers

But many of the preset charts have 10 x 15 patches per page, so a little denser. And that results in the following measurements for the 600 patch chart:

Thw patch width of 7.5mm is the standard for most the i1Pro presets, as it is the densest patch without any issues reading them.

I guess your chart has wider patches?

Cheers,
Knut

 

[jctay]

Is there a special reason why you prefer numbers as the strip labels? The default is alphabetic strip labels. Does it have to do with export to i1Profiler?

I guess we could update our presets to do as you did here, to put the labels in-between the helper markers and use two helper markers

But many of the preset charts have 10 x 15 patches per page, so a little denser. And that results in the following measurements for the 600 patch chart:
View attachment 19539
Thw patch width of 7.5mm is the standard for most the i1Pro presets, as it is the densest patch without any issues reading them.

I guess your chart has wider patches?

Cheers,
Knut

Strip Numbering
Identifying strips by number rather than by letter makes them easier to locate, especially when dealing with a large number of strips.

Labels Between Helper Markers
Great idea! The label font size should be small enough to minimize the risk of scanning errors. Of course, the font size should be user-configurable.

Pad Width
Pad with larger width make it easier to position the scanning ruler during measurement. Another important consideration is the risk of color smearing or bleeding from one patch into an adjacent patch.

Gap Between Strips
A white gap of 0.2–0.3 mm between strips would also serve as a helpful visual guide during measurement.

Pad Length
Minimizing measurement retries is my top priority, rather than reducing paper consumption. The potential for color bleeding between adjacent patches should also be considered. Frankly, I don't have a definitive answer on the optimal pad length.

 

[know]

Strip Numbering
Identifying strips by number rather than by letter makes them easier to locate, especially when dealing with a large number of strips.

Labels Between Helper Markers
Great idea! The label font size should be small enough to minimize the risk of scanning errors. Of course, the font size should be user-configurable.

Pad Width
Pad with larger width make it easier to position the scanning ruler during measurement. Another important consideration is the risk of color smearing or bleeding from one patch into an adjacent patch.

Gap Between Strips
A white gap of 0.2–0.3 mm between strips would also serve as a helpful visual guide during measurement.

Pad Length
Minimizing measurement retries is my top priority, rather than reducing paper consumption. The potential for color bleeding between adjacent patches should also be considered. Frankly, I don't have a definitive answer on the optimal pad length.

Color bleeding from adjacent patches is not an issue for 7.5 mm patch width. Aligning the instrument on the strip with this width requires you to use the ruler on the measurement jig an place it approx. 1mm below each strip. That works perfect. White gaps between strips just take more space and is not necessary, and frankly, if you worry about bleeding of colors, the white is much more high contrast compared to colors as neighbour and posses higher risk for affecting the reading, so I don't think that is a good idea.

The labels can be placed between the helper marker lines today, but will cause a red-text margin warning below the preview window. The text size is already configurable today for the labels:

Cheers,
Knut

 

[itsab1989]

The gap between strips can also be done

And with the strip label offset option you can achieve to move them between the markers. We made the layout engine pretty customizable. Although we personally did not need all of those options we wanted to make them available in case anyone would find them benefitial.

 

[pharmacist]

Something off topic: I am wondering if ChromIQ can print the row label (ABC or 123) smaller like i1Profiler does:

The reason is the scanning eye of the i1Pro1/2/3 must not register eventual letters/numbers does not interfere with the reading on small paper sizes like 10x15 or 13x18 cm.

This is the path of the scanning eye when you would start on the scanning board (white) and and end on the other side again on the scanning board (white), so no strange colour patches when starting from white and ending on white:

Thus the scan will be registered successfully without throwing an error.

This is what I have in mind using the picture aboven: you can see the headway of the path of the scanning eye will register black of the letters/numbers when moving completely from left to right (red bar area), as it goes in between the row labels when the letters/numbers are on the same height of the intermediate row markers, so very similar to the i1Profiler method, so giving less reading errors on small paper sizes (chances are high you will end the scanning eye on a letter or number and thus registered as a colour patch).

Currently the row markers are on the path of the scanning eye with ArgyllCMS derived targets: on A4 targets and with ChromIQ this is not a real problem: the row markers (ABC) are outside the action radius of the scanning jig of the i1Pro1/2/3, thus never a problem:

On smaller pages you risk this (13x18 cm):

The A is registered if you do not take care stopping the scanning eye on the white area between the row and the row marker A and thus throw an error: so a clear headway would be nice so the scanning eye can pass this area and land on the white area of the scanning jig (which should not be a problem unlike scanning the letter black letter A).

The design of i1Profiler with that veru small row marker towards the row marker strips, so the scanning eye passes in between, is more ergonomical. Targets made with i1Profiler can be easily read even you pass over the area of the patch area without throwing an error.

 

[itsab1989]

@pharmacist
I am in the cinema with my daughter at the moment so short answer:
See Knuts screenshot, size should be adjustable. Offset of the labels as well, only in one direction. Rotation is possible though. Needs some playing around to get your desired result. And maybe another option…

 

[know]

Currently, the label offset is a strictly Y direction offset on the page. If one would add a X direction offset, then it would be possible to place the labels in the position you want.

Edit:
@itsab1989 has added this feature already in the latest release:
https://github.com/itsab1989/ChromIQ/releases

There is though a small bug with the warning text when the row labels are small size, and I have the Clip-border content field set to ChromIQ Branding with a defined left-side text. There is a big empty gap where the left side of the row labels are not allowed to go further left than 10.5mm. At 10.0mm the whole clip border text disappears, but at 10.5 or 11mm there is still a big gap. In the image above the text size is 6 pt.

Here is the warning:

Apparently the row labels require a total of 15.5mm margin, but there is free space.

I attached the file "i1Pro-100x150mm-600p-5pages-Portrait-TEST-zip" which contains the preset made above, so that it can be analysed for its settings.

 

[jctay]

Currently, the label offset is a strictly Y direction offset on the page. If one would add a X direction offset, then it would be possible to place the labels in the position you want.
View attachment 19548


Edit:
@itsab1989 has added this feature already in the latest release:
https://github.com/itsab1989/ChromIQ/releases

View attachment 19553
View attachment 19554

There is though a small bug with the warning text when the row labels are small size, and I have the Clip-border content field set to ChromIQ Branding with a defined left-side text. There is a big empty gap where the left side of the row labels are not allowed to go further left than 10.5mm. At 10.0mm the whole clip border text disappears, but at 10.5 or 11mm there is still a big gap. In the image above the text size is 6 pt.

Here is the warning:
View attachment 19555
Apparently the row labels require a total of 15.5mm margin, but there is free space.

I attached the file "i1Pro-100x150mm-600p-5pages-Portrait-TEST-zip" which contains the preset made above, so that it can be analysed for its settings.

I’ve downloaded the file and will test it using ChromIQ-Windows-x64_v4.3.13.


Two Issues with ChromIQ_v4.3.11

1. Project CP1500-600p — Project Corruption and Strip Pointer Glitch

Following extensive testing, the project CP1500-600p appears to have become corrupted.

Symptom: During profile verification, the strip pointer unexpectedly jumps to another strip and extends across multiple pages.

2. Project CP1500-600p-1 — Measurement Failure

When opening the newly created project CP1500-600p-1, the profile verification run cannot be completed successfully.

Symptom: The system fails to read certain strips during measurement, preventing the verification process from being completed.

Is there a way to clean up the log file? Can I simply delete it?

/logs file is attached

 

[jctay]

Preset: i1Pro-100x150mm-600p-5pages-Portrait-TEST

Minor Issues
1. The helper markers are visible in the TIFF file but are completely missing from the printed target.
2. The text at the bottom is partially cut off.

Preset for Verification Target: i1Pro-100x150mm-600p-5pages-Portrait-TEST-verify (attached)

Print Helper Makers- Distance from Edge: 4.0 from 2.0
Print Helper Makers- Marker Length: 3.0 from 2.0

Instrument Margins Right: 5.2 from 5.0
Instrument Margins Left: 11.0 from 10.0

 

[jctay]

Project: CP1500-600p-2 (Part 1)

ChromIQ v4.3.13

Patches Distribution - Verification Target vs Profiling Target

Profile Quality Assessment