Printer Profile Validation: M1 vs. M2 and ΔE2000 Evaluation

[jctay]

Just an update with the latest version of ChromIQ with the bug fix for the truncated values of i1Profiler.

I have scanned the same target again twice: the first with i1Profiler and the target generated with the i1Profiler engine (neutralize greys at 50 procent) and again with ChromIQ (with the ArgyllCMS i1Pro driver loaded) and the target generated by ChromIQ with standard settings:

View attachment 19718

This time the white point of both profiles are exactly the same. A slight difference in gamut volume (most probably by slight scanning deviations within the margin of error)

Softproof with the ChromIQ version 4.3.20 scanned and ChromIQ generated target:

View attachment 19721

Target with the new exported txf file from ChromIQ 4.2.20 for i1Profiler scanning and profile generating by i1Profiler:

View attachment 19722

The difference is now negligible and no slight yellowish hue in the ChromIQ profile softproofing like previously.

Digitization Resolution 100x100 and with wider pixel sampling

 

[jctay]

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

Hi @pharmacist

Could you upload the following files for checking?

Please ensure that all three files come from the same project in which the MXF file was created.

1. ChromIQ .it2 file
2. i1Profiler .mxf file
3. ChromIQ .it3 file (generated after importing the MXF file)

TIA!


( I'm troubleshooting the chart layout because the MXF file fails to import into ChromIQ for measurement. )

 

[pharmacist]

Hi @pharmacist

Could you upload the following files for checking?

Please ensure that all three files come from the same project in which the MXF file was created.

1. ChromIQ .it2 file
2. i1Profiler .mxf file
3. ChromIQ .it3 file (generated after importing the MXF file)

TIA!


( I'm troubleshooting the chart layout because the MXF file fails to import into ChromIQ for measurement. )

Here you are. The version v2 is done with the latest 4.3.20 version of ChromIQ (ti3/mxf) with the bug fix for the problem with truncated versions.

Note: the older version is scanned only with i1Profiler dual scan method and from this mxf I made 2 profiles with i1Profiler proprietary profile generator + imported in ChromIQ version 4.3.19 and converted to ti3 (which is a converted mxf from the earlier i1Profiler measurement), so actually the mxf and ti3 should be the same data.

The newer version (v2) has two measurements (so independently): the mxf with dual scan with i1Profiler and the ti3 is generated within the ChromIQ program version 4.3.20 and gives the v2.ti3 file. This session had 2 independent scan values.

This is you want to take into account for a fair comparison. The ti2 file is the same for both sessions (v1 and v2)

 

[jctay]

Here you are. The version v2 is done with the latest 4.3.20 version of ChromIQ (ti3/mxf) with the bug fix for the problem with truncated versions.

Note: the older version is scanned only with i1Profiler dual scan method and from this mxf I made 2 profiles with i1Profiler proprietary profile generator + imported in ChromIQ version 4.3.19 and converted to ti3 (which is a converted mxf from the earlier i1Profiler measurement), so actually the mxf and ti3 should be the same data.

The newer version (v2) has two measurements (so independently): the mxf with dual scan with i1Profiler and the ti3 is generated within the ChromIQ program version 4.3.20 and gives the v2.ti3 file. This session had 2 independent scan values.

This is you want to take into account for a fair comparison. The ti2 file is the same for both sessions (v1 and v2)

Thank you.


Group 1
TPI_Glossy_240_gsm_Epson_ET-18100_EPG_Standard_ChromIQ_target.mxf
TPI_Glossy_240_gsm_Epson_ET-18100_EPG_Standard_ChromIQ_target.ti3 (Sequential numbering)
TPI_Glossy_240_gsm_Epson_ET-18100_EPG_Standard_ChromIQ_target_v2.mxf

Where
TPI_Glossy_240_gsm_Epson_ET-18100_EPG_Standard_ChromIQ_target.ti3 is converted from
TPI_Glossy_240_gsm_Epson_ET-18100_EPG_Standard_ChromIQ_target.mxf
using Measurement Condition M2.


Group 2
TPI_Satin_240_gsm_Epson_ET-18100_EPG_standard_ChromIQ_target.ti2 (with SAMPLE_LOC)
TPI_Glossy_240_gsm_Epson_ET-18100_EPG_Standard_ChromIQ_target_v2.ti3 (with same SAMPLE_LOC)

No MXF file for this group


Left : Group 1
Right: Group 2

This is therefore a special project designed to make the .ti3 file compatible with ChromIQ Measurement for import.