[Tool] ChromIQ – a macOS and Windows GUI for ArgyllCMS printer profiling (v3.8.0)

[itsab1989]

Sounds like a nice idea.
What do you think would be the best way to implement this into the app? In general I would say it would be easier to place this somewhere in manual. For one in this mode there are more options anyway and you are choosing non-default options for this… hm…
Have you seen the user preset dropdown in manual? Maybe I could use this for your target? A preset with a name of your choice (maybe Pharmacist TC9.18 target) an choosing this would then load this? Would be a little different than how this usally works but why not? What do you think?

 

[pharmacist]

You can give it a try. I am now configuring which type of targets I am going to make for both most used spectro's: Colormunki/i1Studio and the i1Pro1/2.

You might have read my post about how much patches are enough for a good printer profile: together with @Ink stained Fingers we came to the conclusion that actually a very low amount of patches is already enough for a satisfactory printer profiles. As you know the SpyderPrint "High Quality Target" already produces very good printer profiles on modern printers (very linear in behaviour) and has only 225 patches. So we can start with something with around 200-250 patches for a single sheet of A4 for the Colormunki (triple density) with some special -a and -A argument up to the point you get a target that is exactly configured that you can use a standard ruler to guide the Colormunki over the patches with the previous row border as a reference like this:

I could squeeze more than 300 patches on a single sheet of A4 using this method and up to 480 with a special 3D-printed jig/guider:

Now that would be a bit too much to be scanned for the unexperienced, because it needs a steady experienced hand to do and therefore I will probably stick around 200-250 per A4.

 

[itsab1989]

@pharmacist

Would this be good?

I am currently letting Claude write a note how it implemented this so further presets should be faster to add hopefully. After that I will push the update.

Edit: Should be available in 5 minutes

Great idea for the Colormunki target by the way. Thanks for the effort! This would probably be a good guided mode option between double and triple density. More patches than double and more easy to read. Great!

 

[pharmacist]

That would be very good, but I suggest to change the name a bit: "TC9.18 + Extended grays by Pharmacist"

Now I have played with the Colormunki/i1Studio method with the triple density method and I could press 324 patches on a single A4 (landscape), which already generates a pretty accurate printer profile.

Arguments:

For a larger target with 2 sheets of A4:

second page (page 2/2):

arguments:

This can easily read with a 3D-printer guider/jig (note this version is a larger one, I might redesign the jig for landscape scanning as for the larger portrait version it exceeds the size of most large 3D printers: I have the Creality Max 3D). I have tested the modus operandi several times and it works flawlessly even for those with not so steady hand with this jig.

The above workflow on 2 sheet of A4 with 648 patches for the Colormunki/i1Studio will produce way better profiles than the standard 50 + 50 method or even the 50 + 2x50 (B/W optimized) Colormunki/i1Studio software method. and uses the same amount of paper. Unlike the Colormunki 2 step method you can have your target dry properly for an hour or even 1 day before scanning: with the Colormunki method you are stuck after scanning the first target (needs at least 10 minutes drying, which I think is way too short especially for dye ink printers)..

For this you can name the first version the "324 patch standard quality target by Pharmacist" and the second one "648 patch high quality target by Pharmacist". Should it be possible to have these workflows only to be selected when you choose the device: Colormunki/i1Studio and the special targets (TC9.18 + Extended Grays) should only be visible when the i1Pro1/2/3 is selected.

 

[itsab1989]

I change the name.
For the Colormunki targets I think those arguments are pretty much the default arguments I have set when adding the triple density mode (for the printtarg part at least). So you consider the layout to be good?
I will add those suggestions as presets.


Thanks for putting your knowledge into this. You can still save your own presets btw. The difference will be that for user presets only the values will be set and you have to click generate still. For the built in presets they will be automatically generated when selected

Funny thing I noticed: You are now using light mode although you did not like it in the beginning. Was the same for me but after the adjustments I now like it more than dark mode

 

[itsab1989]

@pharmacist
I gave this link to a 3D printing service in my hometown and asked whether the can make it big enough for the long side of A3. This is what they came up with and it works (pretty fragile though)

https://www.printables.com/model/649532-colormunki-photoi1studio-ruler

 

[pharmacist]

The reason why I choose the landscape method is the fact that most 3D printers cannot print such large items. I am now printing a new jig especially for this ChromeIQ patch layout.

 

[pharmacist]

I change the name.
For the Colormunki targets I think those arguments are pretty much the default arguments I have set when adding the triple density mode (for the printtarg part at least). So you consider the layout to be good?
I will add those suggestions as presets.


Thanks for putting your knowledge into this. You can still save your own presets btw. The difference will be that for user presets only the values will be set and you have to click generate still. For the built in presets they will be automatically generated when selected

View attachment 18693


Funny thing I noticed: You are now using light mode although you did not like it in the beginning. Was the same for me but after the adjustments I now like it more than dark mode

Yes because now the contrast of the text is much better: in the beginning the text color was so light there was hardly possible to read against a white background. I think there was some complaints too on dpreview.com

 

[itsab1989]

I think for the triple density layout it fits the same amount of patches on either A4 landscape or portrait. So it does not really matter this much.

But you are REALLY invested in this topic it seems
Which is good. We made a lot of progress already!

 

[itsab1989]

Yes because now the contrast of the text is much better: in the beginning the text color was so light there was hardly possible to read against a white background. I think there was some complaints too on dpreview.com

I take your feedback serious