Basic Color vs. Other Profiling Software

Viewing 12 posts - 61 through 72 (of 88 total)
  • Author
    Topic: Basic Color vs. Other Profiling Software Read 20082 Times
  • Mark D Segal
    Mark D Segal
    Silver Member
    Posts: 721
    Basic Color vs. Other Profiling Software
    on: August 10, 2021 at 8:11 pm

    Have I understood the thread correctly?

    Yes and no! How’s that for an unambiguous response? 🙂

    The more important question is how much information you need and whether a product gives that to you. I don’t know whether you have special requirements that go beyond the information output available from basICColor Basic Version – the 89 dollar one (see the attachments Franz provided and my explanation of them in posts above).

    Maybe you don’t need either pieces of software. For example if you own, or if you buy an i1 Display Pro in the US you get that device for USD 260 (B&H) and it entitles you to use i1Profiler  for display profiling (then if you want to get into printer profiling that same software will work once you buy an X-Rite spectrophotometer). This is a decent entry level professional device and i1Profiler may just provide all you need for profiling your display. You can also use an i1 Display Pro with basICColor and spectraview if you wanted to demo those.

    I don’t know your exact requirements, but I’ll suggest anyhow that you may find all of these products produce profiles you’d find acceptable, and the preferred application may turn out to be the one you are most comfortable using.

    Mark D Segal Author: "Scanning Workflows with SilverFast 8, SilverFast HDR, Adobe Photoshop Lightroom and Adobe Photoshop". Please check the PhotoPXL Store for availability.

    Andrew Rodney
    Andrew Rodney
    Participant
    Posts: 303
    Re: Basic Color vs. Other Profiling Software
    Reply #1 on: August 10, 2021 at 8:16 pm

    In Elliot’s first post, he kind of indicated he’s got a SpectraView display (otherwise, why ask about the software that drives it, it will not work with anything else)?

    Elliot, do you have a SpectraView display, do you have an instrument already for that product?

    Author “Color Management for Photographers" & "Photoshop CC Color Management" (pluralsight.com)

    Mark D Segal
    Mark D Segal
    Silver Member
    Posts: 721
    Re: Basic Color vs. Other Profiling Software
    Reply #2 on: August 10, 2021 at 8:51 pm

    vz. Andrew- – it will not work with anything else…

     

    Franz should confirm, but I believe NEC/Sharp displays can be hardware calibrated and profiled with basICColor software. Anyhow mine (NEC PA272W) is and it works just fine.

    Another note on compatibility, Spectraview can accommodate many sensor models (https://www.sharpnecdisplays.us/support-and-services/spectraviewii/4#softwarecompatibility/).

    So there is a lot of mixing and matching one can play with.

    Mark D Segal Author: "Scanning Workflows with SilverFast 8, SilverFast HDR, Adobe Photoshop Lightroom and Adobe Photoshop". Please check the PhotoPXL Store for availability.

    Andrew Rodney
    Andrew Rodney
    Participant
    Posts: 303
    Re: Basic Color vs. Other Profiling Software
    Reply #3 on: August 10, 2021 at 8:57 pm

    So there is a lot of mixing and matching one can play with.

    My point was, SpectraView software can only be run on a SpectraView Display**. So since the OP is asking about SpectraView software**, we need to know if indeed he has that display. And if so, i1Profiler is suboptimal.

    Lastly, if he has no instrument or software, he can save a lot of money getting the SpectraView branded X-rite Colorimeter with SpectraView software.

    **it will not work with anything else…

    Author “Color Management for Photographers" & "Photoshop CC Color Management" (pluralsight.com)

    Mark D Segal
    Mark D Segal
    Silver Member
    Posts: 721
    Re: Basic Color vs. Other Profiling Software
    Reply #4 on: August 10, 2021 at 9:55 pm

    Andrew, perhaps you can elaborate on the respects in which i1Profiler is sub-optimal for profiling an NEC display. If Elliot has an NEC display (there is not a Spectraview Monitor) but no software, he has a number of choices for which cost is not all that distant. The Spectraview+NEC Colorimeter route is 300, while the i1Profiler + i1Display Pro is 260, both at B&H. If he has a compatible colorimeter already, then he can buy the Spectraview software for 100, or basICColor Display 6 for 90 (rounding up the pennies). For some people a difference of a few bucks may matter, but for many, within these price ranges it seems the way to go depends more on what one is most comfortable with, and how the results work out in trials aimed at satisfying one’s needs.

    Mark D Segal Author: "Scanning Workflows with SilverFast 8, SilverFast HDR, Adobe Photoshop Lightroom and Adobe Photoshop". Please check the PhotoPXL Store for availability.

    Andrew Rodney
    Andrew Rodney
    Participant
    Posts: 303
    Re: Basic Color vs. Other Profiling Software
    Reply #5 on: August 10, 2021 at 11:00 pm

    Andrew, perhaps you can elaborate on the respects in which i1Profiler is sub-optimal for profiling an NEC display.

    We went over this pages ago Mark. Remember how SpectraView (and Franz’s software) can create multiple calibration targets, load them in the panel electronics on the fly and load the associated profile? i1P can’t do that. There is a lot more.

    If Elliot has an NEC display (there is not a Spectraview Monitor) .

    If and when Elliot tells us what he’s got or will get or wants to do, we can go there. IF he is getting or has a SpectraView display, i1P is suboptimal. As for the price, there is a difference getting the display and Colorimeter/software bundle alone or with the display differ. And again, we have no idea yet, what Elliot has or will perhaps have. We’ve even heard from Franz today that there is, as I stated again earlier, proprietary NEC/Sharp functionality ONLY NEC/Sharp have access to; remember the bit about the SDK?  I made my statement about what to use and why, with respect to software to drive a SpectraView display. Pages ago. Every data point forward, (and not all data point from me), continue confirm this.

     

    Author “Color Management for Photographers" & "Photoshop CC Color Management" (pluralsight.com)

    Elliot Puritz
    Elliot Puritz
    Silver Member
    Posts: 74
    Re: Basic Color vs. Other Profiling Software
    Reply #6 on: August 10, 2021 at 11:04 pm

    Hi Andrew:  Yes…I have the Spectraview Software which I purchased separately from B and H.  I called the NEC people when I bought the monitor (PA 242W ) and of course they recommended Spectraview…along with the iProfiler puck.

    Perhaps it makes some sense to review how this sequence of posts began:

    Because of the erudite and excellent posts by Mark I reread his review of the Basic Color Software…and thus all the questions.  In truth I had considered the Basic Software some years ago when the program was sold and supported by Freestyle Photo and Eric Joseph.  I have much respect for both Mark and Eric,  and if they react positively to a program or paper then I will often decide to delve further into the subject. I also admit to reading your book Andrew…and learning from many excellent articles, etc. on your site.  In truth, for those wishing to learn about color management taking the time to watch and read your presentations, etc., will be extremely beneficial.

    With the appearance of new and interesting papers I thought it time to review my work flow to be certain that my color management was both reasonable and current.

    I did not realize that several years ago Basic had gone Bankrupt and then thankfully emerged with some new “wrinkles” in their excellent programs. Certainly from the standpoint of one who is not an expert in color management, Basic Color seemed to have some interesting bells and whistles….and hence my questions to Mark who as usual made a diligent effort to clarify the subject.

    Mark is correct:  All I wanted to know is if Basic had any advantages vs. Spectraview…and then somehow the wheels began to wobble on the track.  Thankfully it appears that we have settled back into our usual polite and informative exchanges.

    I believe that it now makes sense to adhere to the “if it isn’t broken then don’t fix it” axiom.  Since all I apparently need is basic monitor profiling without the need to construct ICC profiles  Spectraview used with the NEC Monitor is fine.  Should I decide that more in- depth color management becomes necessary…or interesting…then the Basic Color Pro would appear to be the perfect choice.

    For example, as my monitor is aging, it would be nice to know if the display is uniform across the entire screen…from Mark’s review I learned that Basic will check the display and report about uniformity.  AFAIK there is no way that Spectraview can furnish this information…please tell me if I have missed a feature of the Spectraview software Andrew!

    At any rate, it is reassuring to know that the experts here are willing and able to help those who come to a subject with curiosity.

    Franz Herbert
    Franz Herbert
    Participant
    Posts: 10
    Re: Basic Color vs. Other Profiling Software
    Reply #7 on: August 11, 2021 at 8:37 am

    The best. Of very kind of monitor. Trust but verify. As yet, no verification of the above claim, even for ONE display.

    Andrew, I now did what you asked. Here is a comparison of a Softproof calibration done with display 6 vs. SpectraView II. The PatchTool color list, even the longest one with 132 patches is not well suited to validate a profile, there are only single color ramps and a grayscale. An additivity failure like red + green != yellow would not even be reported. We have the ISO14861 profile accuracy target with 318 patches included, so I used it for the comparison. Here is the summary:

    display 6            SpectraView

    Average ∆E00:             0.54                        0.64

    Max ∆E00:                    3.06                        3.19

    Standard Deviation:    0.43                        0.72

    Andrew Rodney
    Andrew Rodney
    Participant
    Posts: 303
    Re: Basic Color vs. Other Profiling Software
    Reply #8 on: August 11, 2021 at 8:50 am

    I’ll look over the PDFs but I have two comments based on the three metrics above.

    First generally speaking, no idea why the longest 132 isn’t well suited to validate ‘a profile’ (or the actual calibration).

    2nd, the difference above as we both know are invisible and well within the difference we’d see if we ran the same test identically (tiny, insignificant device differences). I can find similar tiny delta’s running the identical target though an iSis XL two times in a row. There is no way running this three times in a row, from the same software would show much of a difference in the max or avg dEs. If I saw lower dEs I’d be rather suspicious of the reporting values.

    I will examine the PDF later today. Initial reaction is; the two are insignificantly ‘different’ and virtually identical (avg dE between o.54 and 0.64). Flip a coin; no difference.

    Author “Color Management for Photographers" & "Photoshop CC Color Management" (pluralsight.com)

    Mark D Segal
    Mark D Segal
    Silver Member
    Posts: 721
    Re: Basic Color vs. Other Profiling Software
    Reply #9 on: August 11, 2021 at 8:55 am

    Hi Andrew – you beat me to it by a hare’s breath – I was going to observe as well that the apparent differences of dE validation as reported in the post are not large enough to be significant, but I did download the two PDF documents and had a brief look. We should continue this discussion when we’ve all had a chance to examine them with some care, because the devil may be in the details, as it often is. I’ve already seen some data that I have questions about, but I’ll hold off till I have a better understanding of what we’re dealing with.

    Mark D Segal Author: "Scanning Workflows with SilverFast 8, SilverFast HDR, Adobe Photoshop Lightroom and Adobe Photoshop". Please check the PhotoPXL Store for availability.

    Franz Herbert
    Franz Herbert
    Participant
    Posts: 10
    Re: Basic Color vs. Other Profiling Software
    Reply #10 on: August 11, 2021 at 9:02 am

    First generally speaking, no idea why the longest 132 isn’t well suited to validate ‘a profile’ (or the actual calibration).

    because it doesn’t include any patches that mix colors, except for a grayscale.

    Secondly, you challenged me to make a better calibration than SpectraView, and I did. The fact is, that the SpectraView calibration is excellent, and I wouldn’t recommend using my product because of it, but you insisted that for many reasons SpectraView would do a better job, and it doesn’t.

    Andrew Rodney
    Andrew Rodney
    Participant
    Posts: 303
    Re: Basic Color vs. Other Profiling Software
    Reply #11 on: August 11, 2021 at 10:48 am

    Franz Herbert wrote:because it doesn’t include any patches that mix colors, except for a grayscale.

    So make a target that does! But that’s moot, bigger fish to fry here.

    Secondly, you challenged me to make a better calibration than SpectraView, and I did. The fact is, that the SpectraView calibration is excellent, and I wouldn’t recommend using my product because of it, but you insisted that for many reasons SpectraView would do a better job, and it doesn’t.

    I sure wish the old (ColorBlind) Franz would show up more to replace the newer (Marketing) Franz. No sir you’ve done no such thing. Your testing methodology is incomplete at this point so your conclusions are therefore flawed (at this time). I outlined the fact, yes fact, that the same instrument can provide small dE deviations measuring the same patches. I shouldn’t have to point this out to of all people you sir. Or Mark. My iSis XL has this stated Inter-instrument agreement: Average 0.4 DE*94 (deviation from X-Rite manufacturing standard at a temperature of 23°C on 12 BCRA tiles (D50, 2°) Short-term repeatability: 0.1 DE*94 (D50, 2°),on white!  So when I measure the same target twice, do tell me which is the ‘better” iSis measurement? 😉

    What instrument did you use ONCE per SINGLE test and what is its Inter-instrument agreement Average?

    Further, when you ran you one ‘test’ did you run this on the SpectraView calibration first or 2nd, how long in between the measurements did you wait, and when sir, will you repeat this test say 10 times in a row, mixing up the two software products to produce an actual Avg and Max dE report?

    Now say you do this and each time, the differences are this tiny, invisible ‘better’ (your words), calibration. Then you can state colorimetrically that the challenge to you to make a better calibration than SpectraView, albeit utterly invisible by a massive amount, does actually exists. For that one display model.

    I shouldn’t have to ask you to run a colorimetric test without bias and scientifically and yet I do have to ask the newer Franz. That’s really said.

    As for your idea of my “insistence:” It has been 6 pages, I don’t recall ever saying or insisting that SpectraView would do ‘a better job’ than fill in the blank. IF I did, I will gladly correct that. Unlike you, I haven’t tested all SpectraViews against (fill in the blank) so I’d retract such a knee-jerk statement. My statement is copied and pasted below in the conclusions if you get that far.

    Here is what we do know today and what will exist here in the future:

    1. Your very first post ever to these forums started with a personal attack towards me (I don’t care, but it shows a posting agenda). This paper trail will exist in the future for others; keep that idea in mind when switching between old and new Franz.

    2. The statement that got you all up in arms was exactly this:“ I’m referring to far more than just switching Mark; Spectraview has proprietary control over the panel electronics.” And Will’s copy and paste clearly state this is true!  After what Will stated clearly after a statement that is a bit (as I read it) ‘politically correct’ for public forums (“in a word yes”), he made it clear that there are proprietary areas you have no idea about, they are outside the SDK you have. You conveniently ignored this fact when I pointed it out here. Or do you want to go on record here and tell us, proprietary code/functionality outside the SDK you have is information that isn’t proprietary and you know all about it? If so, Will, who may be lurking here may be interested in such an admission.

    3. You made a bogus statement that if not for me, you wouldn’t have retracted (thank you old Franz). The statement you made was as we all now know is: “basICColor display 6 gets the very best out of every kind of monitor, using DDC/CI controls for monitors from Dell, BenQ and many more.” The “old” Franz returned and had to fix what was a nutty marketing designed sentence provided without a lick of proof.

    Conclusions thus far for both our readers (and Mark, do comment): Franz, you’ve ignored what Will stated, you got called out on a Marketing statement you had to retract and now you’ve shown a single test that shows an invisible (by a huge factor) metric that alone comes with a flawed conclusion. Please Franz, slow down, don’t get personal, get the facts that can be verified presented and stop digging a hole for yourself here which can be referenced outside this limited audience. I would not expect this behavior and writings from the old Franz, I wish he would return; as in the past 30 years, I have a lot to learn from that old guy.

    Author “Color Management for Photographers" & "Photoshop CC Color Management" (pluralsight.com)

Viewing 12 posts - 61 through 72 (of 88 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.