CHROMiX

MonacoPROFILER Platinum vs. ProfileMaker 5 Platinum

I am the EPP manager of a dye sublimation printer. We are profiling multiple devices including presses and inkjets with both sublimation ink and commercial ink. My question is, what does everyone think would be better for my environment; MonacoPROFILER Platinum or ProfileMaker 5 Platinum. I am getting ready to make a purchase and would just like some feedback. Thanks.

I am surprised that this topic hasn’t been discussed at any great length in these forums. This is a classic question and there are strong proponents for both software packages.

I’ll give you the nickel tour, but I hope others will chime in with their opinions too. My comments will be concerning the printer profile creation aspect only.

Monaco Profiler is very good. It seems to have the edge in terms of making “pleasing” color profiles. The profiles have smooth transitions, full saturation, and does a great job with grays/neutrals with a minimum of patches. The downside is that Profiler is sort of a closed-loop system. It’s hard to get at the measurement data if you want to diagnose a problem, use another program, etc.

ProfileMaker is known for perhaps stressing accuracy over pleasing color. In later versions, they changed their algorithms for perceptual rendering intent to make them more “colorful”. ProfileMaker targets intentionally over-sample the near-neutrals in order to make gray scales more accurate. Whether this makes them more accurate than Profiler without near-neutral patches is an open question. But ProfileMaker profiles are also very good. The ProfileMaker suite of tools is more open ended. You can make profiles that were measured with different devices, the measurement data is open to analysis, (measurement data is even embedded into the profile itself). It’s easy to underestimate this benefit, but having the ability to analyze different parts of your workflow chain really helps when you’re in the midst of a color problem.

Other comments in ColorForums:

colorforums.com/viewtopic.ph … ofilemaker

Thank you. Super helpful

I used both concurrently for over five years, and Patrick covered the main points. I preferred the gamut mapping of the Monaco profiles especially in blues and reds. Monaco is much less flexible in the targets and formats that it will take. Browsing to a folder containing a spectral file crashes Monaco on my machine.

Profilemaker has some benefits with respect to spectral data, with some sort of optical brightener compensation and tuning to a specific light source. You can also make a profile from just about any profiling chart.

Overall, I would recommend Monaco. I am hoping for a new program that combines the best of both programs, but I am not holding my breath.

Bret