I have been using the SilverFast v.8 Demo with my Epson V750 for a little while now and will be purchasing the upgrade.
(Previously used with SF v.6.6)
During emails back and forth they mentioned a coupon code. 25% off the upgrade and their targets when purchased together.
This got me thinking.
Till now I have been profiling my scanner with X-Rite’s i1Pro & Eye-One Match 3 and have been pretty satisfied.
But in my correspondence with LaserSoft they state I will get better results with one of their targets and the Auto IT8 Calibration Feature.
I am not a color expert and that is why I am asking for a little help.
[b][size=150]What provides a “Better” result?[/size] [/b]Profiling your scanner using X-Rite’s solution (i1Pro & i1Match) OR SilverFast’s solution (Auto IT8 & Their Targets)
Any comments or advice would be much appreciated.
I don’t have any experience with SilverFast’s IT8 auto Calibration and am just looking to get the most accurate scans possible.
Thank you in advance.
I question the methodology that SilverFast suggests. Typically you will NOT want to have a scanner profile affecting the measurement scan of an IT8.
The idea is that you want to measure the scanner and light emitted through the iT8 target in a ‘wide-open’ aspect so that the measurement captures the range adequately, with a neutral/linear condition as possible, and WITHOUT the influence of any color adjustment including that of a profile. On some of the older drum scanners there was a curve adjustment that was used to achieve this state. On the newer flatbed scanners, you will find these settings in the driver software (white balance adjustment, etc.). NOTE… some of these scanner software driver controls are rather austere, some are good.
The best procedure I can recommend is from Don Hutchesons instructions for his wonderful HCT targets.
If Silverfast is taking into account the automatic lamp adjustment in the scanner, then that might be of dubious value. Ideally you want to have every kind of color reproducing device to be as stable as possible when you profile it. If they make some adjustment for the lamp regularly, that would tend to make the scanning conditions change, wouldn’t it? I guess it depends how much lamp degrading would happen over time, and that would relate to how accurate your initial profile will stay over time?
If as you say you’re looking for the most accurate scans possible, then that’s why they made the HCT’s. The IT8’s are okay and do a pretty good job. The HCT’s have many more patches (528 compared to 288), and have been designed for the purpose of getting that last bit of accuracy.
By the way, this is sort of off-topic, but X-Rite is slated to come out with a new version of their i1Profiler software that includes scanner profiling. It was supposed to come out this week, so it might be only days away.
I see from another forum that you’re talking about reflective scans.
Here’s an idea that hasn’t been mentioned yet. You can use your i1Pro to make your own measurement of the EyeOne Scan target 1.4 and create your own custom reference. This would likely be quite a bit more accurate than whatever generic reference file you’re using for this target now. You’d actually measure with the i1Pro the very same target you’ll use to scan - so your reference file will be accurate and up-to-date and taking into account any drift your physical target might have had since it was originally printed.
And I know what you’re going to ask next - Yes, you can create and print your own scanner target too and include how many patches you want.
People often forget that they can make their own custom scanner targets and custom-measured reference files. If you have an i1Pro and a target with big enough patches that the i1Pro can read them, you should be in good shape.
I forgot to mention that I primarily do reflective scans.
Thanks for the link. I did quickly review his instructions.
Whenever I scan the target through SilverFast I have all adjustments turned off.
Actually I never use any of the features. I always have any and all adjustments off.
I did want to include a couple of screen shots in this post to show you how I am scanning but couldn’t figure out how. Sorry!
What I wanted to show you is that under the CMS options in SilverFast all the profile settings are set to none.
Does this mean there is still the influence of a profile.
I always thought there wasn’t with these options set to NONE.
About measuring the target.
I am using the i1Extreme package I got from Chromix.
The i1Pro with the included Eye-One Scan Target 1.4 and Eye-One Match.
So far I’ve seen a huge improvement of my scans.
I wish you and everyone at Chromix a Merry Christmas.
I will give you the response I got from LaserSoft after asking them the same question.
"Dear Mr. …
The auto IT8 calibration will automatically set the input profile for the scanner.
Other options can be set/changed manually as needed.
In most cases calibrating the scanner using silverFast will be more precise.
It takes into account the automatic lamp adjustment a scanner performs.
An externally generated profile can not do that.
But this will only influence brightness levels not the color tones of cause and mostly is not noticeable.
You should perform a few scans before calibrating to ensure the entire device is at it’s normal working temperature.
LSI Support Manager -"
Is this correct info?
Does it make sense?
Someone at X-Rite told me about the update to i1Profiler to include Scanner Profiling.
Have been watching for it everyday. Not sure what happened they did say someday last week!
After it is released, that will make for another topic (or two) for the forums here.
Patrick, what can I say.
This is why I love you guys at Chromix.
I forgot to mention what I scan and you found out anyway.
This is how I have been working till now.
I scan the target on my V750 and bring the TIFF into Eye-One Match then measure the target in Eye-One Match with the i1Pro. Again, great results.
The only reason this entire post got started because X-Rite had no Scanner Profiling solution going forward and I was looking for another solution.
That is why the idea of using SilverFast’s Auto IT8 feature ever came up.
Otherwise I am pretty happy with my results so far using the current X-Rite solution.
Of course with just recently finding out that they are including Scanner profiling in i1Profiler that changes everything!
About the 2nd half of your post.
What are you talking about!
This is the first time that I have heard that we can make our own custom scanner targets.
When you get a chance you will have to please elaborate/explain how to do this.
Also if you have a chance maybe you can check out this same topic I posted at Luminous-Landscape.
One very evil member there (Onsight) made a very tempting comment but will not elaborate.
“Stay tuned for a new option that will surpass all of those…”
Can you get the color police after him or something.
Or at least find out what he is referring to.
Sorry for all the long posts all at once.
I hope you and everyone there have a Merry Christmas as well.
At last! X-Rite just release the new version of their i1Profiler software that handles scanner profiling. You can update from within i1Profiler or go to the X-Rite website: xrite.com/product_overview.a … rt&ID=1397
I see they are already at version 1.4.2 so they must have had problems with v. 1.4.1 which held them up for a few weeks.
I have to laugh at your frustration of not getting more information out of LL. I have been a beta tester for many products in the business including earlier versions of i1Profiler, and as such you’re kept under strict agreement to not disclose anything about the product until the company decides to release the information to the public. So I know how Onsight feels! You’re just chomping at the bit to tell all… but you can’t.
X-Rite told a roomful of us at the PIA Color Management conference in Arizona in early December when the new version was slated to come out - and that it would handle scanner profiling. But that was all I knew. We all had to continue our advent practice of waiting just a little longer…
So now we can check out this new capability and see how it works. It’s sure to spark some interest and discussion of scanner profiling again. Maybe the topic of ‘creating your own reflective scanner targets’ would be worth an article in our ColorNews newsletter?
Again thank you Rick & Patrick for your responses.
Finally it’s out! Is this update that much of a “Game Changer” for scanner profiling?
With the release of i1Profiler 1.4.2, maybe we should change the subject line of this thread?
Or start a new thread: i1Profiler 1.4.2 VS SilverFast’s v.8? We can probably start a few other topics too!
The above comments, relating to SilverFast’s v.8 Auto IT8 Calibration Feature and how it functions with the scanner
bring me to the one question that has been bothering me since I tried out scanner profiling with i1Profiler 1.4.2 last week.
[b]What is the difference between how i1Profiler performs its scanner profiling as compared to Silverfast’s auto IT8 feature?
Now that i1Profiler does not use a measurement device, but relies entirely on the scanner, doesn’t it basically work the same way as Silverfast?
Which brings us back to the expressed concerns above from Rick & Patrick?
Also does X-Rite have any plans to at least offer the option to use a measurement device in i1Profiler’s scanner profiling process?
Is a measurement device necessary anymore? Is this even a concern? Or am I just so used to profiling with my Eye-One Match and i1Pro?
I’d love to hear anyone’s thoughts on all this because I am in the middle of trying to finalize a workflow for myself here and the scanner is of course an important part of the equation.
Thank you and God Bless.
The rumor is that this new X-Rite scanner profiling module was based on the Monaco Profiler engine, which would be good since the Monaco software was very well respected, especially for scanner profiling.
I’m a little bit confused by your mention of the measurement device. Creating a scanner profile does not typically involve a measurement device (other than the scanner itself). Earlier in this thread I talked about increasing the accuracy of a reflective scanner reference file by making your own measurement using a spectrophotometer. Is that what you’re talking about? You don’t generally have to do that unless you are dealing with an old target that might have changed/drifted over time.
I have not tried Silverfast recently so I can’t speak to how their process might differ.
It is rather disappointing that X-Rite did not include support for the very well respected HCT target. From what I can see they also don’t have a way to allow you to use your own reflective target as I was describing earlier. X-Rite’s philosophy in recent years is to try to give the customer a good start, and they generally work more later to give you the rest of the features you’re asking for. (That’s why i1Profiler was released without a scanner module at first.) So maybe HCT support will come in a later release?
Does this info not apply to i1Profiler 1.4.2 as well, now that it does not include the above step in EyeOne Match for measuring the reference file with a device?
If so, how does it apply to the way i1Profiler 1.4.2 profiles the scanner?
Maybe I’m not understanding something here.
That is, indeed, a step in Eye-One match where you can do a custom measurement of a reflective scanner chart, rather than rely on the reference file that might have come with the target.
i1Profiler 1.4.2 does not appear to allow this custom measurement in its workflow. On the face of it, I would certainly want to have this option if I could. Again, maybe X-Rite will add this feature in the future if enough folks ask them for it.
But here are some pros and cons of this custom measurement idea to hopefully put all this in perspective:
You can print out your own target print of whatever size and arrangement you wish (keeping within the parameters of your measurement device.)
You can be sure that your reference file is up-to-date and is accurately reflecting the measurement of the target print.
If you print out your own target, then your scanner profile will be somewhat dependent on the gamut of your printing device, which might not be good for some situations. A good scanner profile will always extrapolate beyond the gamut of the measurements, to be able to handle more saturated colors. But the professionally made targets have a long track record and seem to do a good job of capturing the best colors that are needed.
The need for this is rather dependent on how old your target is. If your target is fairly new, in good shape, has been stored properly - then the custom measurement won’t make much of a difference.
This method was only available in EyeOne Match and ProfileMaker - both of which were not considered particularly good scanner profilers. Even without custom measurements, most industry experts used the Monaco Profiler scanner module with excellent results. In practical, everyday use - custom measurements were not necessary to get good results.
Because I couldn’t find any type of comparisons or results online to my original question posted on Dec15,2012
I thought I would take a shot at doing some comparison tests between these scanner profiling solutions myself.
Many tests were conducted over the past few months using different targets and scanning softwares.
This is the first time I have done this so please forgive any missteps and feedback would be much appreciated.
The various tests and results will be posted under a new topic because I felt it would be better to start one with a more accurate title.
For anyone that’s interested the title of the new thread will be: Scanner Profiling Comparisons: i1Profiler1.4.2 vs SilverFast8 IT8Cal vs i1Match3
I will not be providing too much feedback on the results because I cannot say which one is “better”. (I do have my preference though)
More so I will be providing the profiles themselves, screen shots of the results after creating the profiles and Photoshop files containing test scans with the applied profiles.
This post will be available soon so anyone interested can download these files, look them over and provide any comments based on their own experience and knowledge.