CHROMiX

ScannerProfilingTests: i1Profiler vs SilverFast8 vs i1Match3

This topic is sort of a continuation from the previous topic: ScannerProfiling: X-Rite’s i1Pro & Eye-OneMatch3 VS SilverFast’s v.8 IT8 AutoCal.
What I am trying to do is provide the results from different scanner profiling softwares for anyone who is interested to download, review and hopefully post back with any comments, observations and advice.

The link to download the files for this first batch of tests is:
dropbox.com/s/o3qs2k6m3gh4t … OPCCSG.zip

This is a screen shot of what will be included in the download.

I tried to keep the naming scheme as consistent as possible for all parts of the tests:
1.Test Scans with Profiles Applied, 2.Profiles, 3.ScreenShots, 4.Scans of Targets no Color Management/Profile

Breakdown of Naming scheme for this Batch of tests:
130425_i1P-142 vs SF-IT8 vs i1Ma3_V750_SFv801r20_MONR20081101_CROPCCSG
130425 = Date: Year, Month, Day (more for my purposes to help keep me organized after doing so many tests)
i1P-142 = i1Profiler, version 1.4.2
SF-IT8 = SilverFast Ai IT8 Version 8.0.1r20 (Build number: 8688) - IT8 Calibration Feature (Not Auto)
i1Ma3 = Eye-One Match 3, version 3.6.3
V750 = Epson Perfection V 750 Pro
SFv801r20 = Scanning Software used - SilverFast Ai IT8 Version 8.0.1r20 (Build number: 8688)
MONR20081101 = Target Used for this Batch of tests: IT8.7/2-1993 - MONR2008:11-01 Version2

Breakdown of Naming scheme for the Test Scans with Profiles Applied:
EG. 130425_i1P-142_V750_SFv801r20_MONR20081101_400ppi48bit_AsgnPrfl&toProPho(PERC)inSF_CCSGcropto24
130425 = Date: Year, Month, Day
i1P-142 = i1Profiler version 1.4.2
V750 = Epson Perfection V 750 Pro
SilverFast Ai IT8 Version 8.0.1r20 (Build number: 8688)
MONR20081101 = Target Used: IT8.7/2-1993 - MONR2008:11-01 Version2
400ppi48bit = Scanned at 400ppi at Bit Depth of 48
AsgnPrfl&toProPho(PERC)inSF = Scanner Profile assigned and image converted to ProPhoto in SilverFast using Perceptual Rendering Intent.
CCSGcropto24 = Target that was used for the test scan.
Tests actually used entire CCSG but had to crop it to 24 classic patch set with extra gray patches to make it easier for upload & download.
(I hope this was a good choice as the subject to scan. I wanted to try and use a reference most would be familiar with.)

The tests performed in this first “Batch” of tests had SilverFast Assigning the profile and converting to ProPhoto.

Below is a screen shot of settings used for this batch of tests with SilverFast doing all the Assigning and Converting.

Below is a screen shot of settings used in SilverFast when scanning the targets to make the profiles.
(with no Color Management)
Also same settings for scan(s) provided in folder “4.Scans of Targets no Color Management/Profile”

Notes.

  • From what I’ve seen, assigning the profile and converting in SilverFast produces the same results as doing this manually in Photoshop.
    In folder #4 “Scans of Targets no Profile” I have provided a scan of the entire CCSG with no Color Management applied so whoever wants can
    assign the profiles and convert. Then compare the 2 results from SF & PS.
  • Using Eye-One Match 3 & SilverFast IT8 Cal. produces areas that completely jump out of the ProPhoto space. (esp. SF IT8)
    Is this correct, useful, detrimental?
  • I will be posting more “Batches” of tests using different Targets (Wolf Faust & CCSG) and using Epson Scan instead of SilverFast.
    (That’s the reason that folder #3 with the screen shots was included. To show comparisons of the results in
    i1Profiler and SilverFast IT8 Cal when the profile was created. This is more so to compare the different targets used.)

If anyone has any questions about the naming scheme or has any troubles downloading the files please don’t hesitate to post your questions or write to me directly.

More Tests are on the way. So check back every so often.

[size=125]This post includes the files for the second set of tests that were done.
dropbox.com/s/dfx3xdqm9cgmh … opto24.zip

Everything was done exactly the same way as the first set of tests I posted using the Monaco IT8 Target to produce the profiles.
The only difference in this set of tests is that I used a Wolf Faust IT8 Target.

Breakdown of Naming scheme for this Batch of tests is exactly the same as the first, except for the target used.
130426_i1P-142 vs SF-IT8 vs i1Ma3_V750_SFv801r20_R120505W_CCSGcropto24
R120505W = Wolf Faust_IT8.7-2-1993 2012;05_Charge:R120505

Again I used the CCSG target as the subject matter for these tests.
The entire CCSG was used for all tests but for upload/download purposes it has been cropped to The ColorChecker 24 Patch Classic target with some extra grays included.

My “reasoning” for doing the exact same tests using a different target was:
1.) to hopefully see the consistent differences between the profiling softwares/solutions
2.) to see the difference in results between the targets (I know not related to the topic of this thread)
3.) because I had the targets, was curious and thought maybe someone else might find it interesting

Throughout all these tests please keep an eye on the “3.ScreenShots” folder.
Especially the results from i1Profiler which displays the various Delta Es.
The next set of tests where I use the CCSG as the target to create the profiles might surprise some of you with the results from i1Profiler. (sure surprised me)

Not sure how many downloads of the files have been done till now because DropBox does not show this info.
So I do hope some of you are finding this interesting enough to download and check out the files.
If anyone has, maybe they can reply here with their thoughts, observations and comments.
(It’s actually kind of interesting when you drop the files in Photoshop as layers and turn them on & off[/size])

This post includes the files for the third set of tests that were done.
dropbox.com/s/0qgi4vx2od6xo … opto24.zip

Everything was done exactly the same way as the first & second sets of tests I posted using the Monaco IT8 Target & the Wolf Faust IT8 Target to produce the profiles.
The only difference in this set of tests is that X-Rite’s ColorChecker Digital SG was used to help create the profiles.

Breakdown of Naming scheme for this Batch of tests is exactly the same as the first, except for the target used.
130426_i1P-142 vs i1Ma3_V750_SFv801r20_ColorCheckerDigitalSG_CCSGcropto24
ColorCheckerDigitalSG = X-Rite’s ColorChecker Digital SG (semi-gloss)

Again I used the CCSG target as the subject matter for these tests.
The entire CCSG was used for all tests but for upload/download purposes it has been cropped to The ColorChecker 24 Patch Classic target with some extra grays included.

As I asked earlier, please see the results (in the “3.ScreenShots” folder) from i1Profiler
which displays the various Delta Es and compare to the results from the 1st & 2nd tests.
Not sure why there was such a difference in numbers.
I asked X-Rite about this. They didn’t really get into it.
Just told me that the CCSG was not originally/specifically designed to be used for profiling scanners just cameras.
They also mentioned some changes coming to scanner profiling in i1Profiler in the next update of v1.5!?!?

The next set of tests will use Eye-One Match and the i1 Scan target 1.4.
These will be the last of the reflective tests using SilverFast as the scanning software.