Printer Profile Validation: M1 vs. M2 and ΔE2000 Evaluation

[know]

The reason is that i1Profiler can correct exactly the influence of standard UV-light on OBA when scanning (i1Pro1: 2-pass method, and i1Pro3 in 1-pass), and the corresponding readings are written as separate data with the extension MO, M1 or M2 to the file. This way you can generate several profiles under certain desired environments.

I did not know that.

 

[pharmacist]

OK, I just have succesfully scanned a ChromIQ target with i1Profiler using the dual scan method and it works like charm.

I have moved the letters of the row in such a way it is not scanned by the spectro (using the standard ChromIQ setting a big black letter is on the headway of the scanning eye). I can now safely start from the scanning jig white over the white paper edge and end on the other side of the scanning jig white without any errors:

The 3 page target (13x18 cm) with 702 patches is considered a one long page in i1Profiler.

Now I am saving the scanned data in mxf format for ChromIQ to generate the target:

I have generated a target too with i1profiler and with ChromIQ using the same data from the mxf-file and it is interested there is a slight difference (but negligible) in the white point, which is interesting, but to be expected because of the slight difference how those 2 engines handle perceptual intent.

Here a softproof (relative colorimetric with BP=on), first picture with the i1Profiler generated target:

The softproof using the ChromIQ generated target (using the standard settings):

 

[itsab1989]

Sounds great! Just out of curiosity: would you consider either Argyll or i1Profiler strictly better for building the profile out of the measurements or are both good - just in their own ways?

 

[jctay]

RGB Values in Profiling Charts

i1Profiler uses 8-bit integer RGB values for profiling. When a patch set is loaded into i1Profiler, any fractional parts of the RGB values are truncated, rather than rounded, to the nearest integer.

Examples:
42.5001 → 42
84.9999 → 84


CP1500-600p-i1profiler.txt

CGATS.5
ORIGINATOR "ChromIQ"
DESCRIPTOR "CP1500-600p"
CREATED "October 20, 2026"
INSTRUMENTATION "Not specified"
MEASUREMENT_SOURCE "Not specified"
PRINT_CONDITIONS "Not specified"
KEYWORD "SampleID"
NUMBER_OF_FIELDS 4
BEGIN_DATA_FORMAT
SampleID RGB_R RGB_G RGB_B
END_DATA_FORMAT

NUMBER_OF_SETS 600
BEGIN_DATA
1 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
2 0.0000 0.0000 42.5001
3 0.0000 0.0000 84.9999
4 0.0000 0.0000 127.5000
5 0.0000 0.0000 170.0001
6 0.0000 0.0000 212.4999
7 0.0000 0.0000 255.0000
8 0.0000 42.5001 0.0000
9 0.0000 42.5001 42.5001
.....

 

[jctay]

OK, I just have succesfully scanned a ChromIQ target with i1Profiler using the dual scan method and it works like charm.

View attachment 19700

View attachment 19701

I have moved the letters of the row in such a way it is not scanned by the spectro (using the standard ChromIQ setting a big black letter is on the headway of the scanning eye). I can now safely start from the scanning jig white over the white paper edge and end on the other side of the scanning jig white without any errors:

View attachment 19702

The 3 page target (13x18 cm) with 702 patches is considered a one long page in i1Profiler.

View attachment 19703

Now I am saving the scanned data in mxf format for ChromIQ to generate the target:

View attachment 19704
I have generated a target too with i1profiler and with ChromIQ using the same data from the mxf-file and it is interested there is a slight difference (but negligible) in the white point, which is interesting, but to be expected because of the slight difference how those 2 engines handle perceptual intent.

View attachment 19705


Here a softproof (relative colorimetric with BP=on), first picture with the i1Profiler generated target:

View attachment 19706

The softproof using the ChromIQ generated target (using the standard settings):

View attachment 19707

Take a breather!

Potential error: Digitization inaccuracies resulting from the alignment of the two targets
Data points: 100x60 = 6000
Color Space: sRGB