PDA

View Full Version : Paper Profile Falls Apart After First Calibration



adause
01-29-2018, 11:55 AM
So this has me highly concerned right now. I say that because I have been creating profiles for a few months and this is the first time I have noticed this.

So in short, I created a profile through FCPS for Classic Crest Cover Solar White, everything went well, printed a test sheet looked great! Ran the first two pages of my job (key here: without re-calibration through CWS) and it looked brilliant!

So just because I wanted to make sure since I would be doing this job again and because I wanted to be extra thorough, I went ahead and through CWS remeasureed this profile. That is were I have no idea what is going on.

Instead of the job being a cool neutral tone as it is, it turned yellow, or warm. Noticeably so I mean this isn't someone being overly picky at all.

So there is consistaency though. I created the profile twice and everything went the same as described above. Same results, looked great until I calibrated the profile in CWS.

I really need help here because this bug or whatever it is is not allowing me to have confidence in the profiles I am generating through FCPS.

Side note profile created for D50, No Max GCR, Optimized

Ricoh 7110x
CWS 5.8.0.39
Windows & 64-bit
FCPS 4.9.4.28

oxident
01-29-2018, 01:08 PM
Why are using CWS for re-linearization? FCPS can do this also. I suspect you're mixing some instrument setting (maybe UV-cut and UV-included?).

Lou_P
01-29-2018, 01:51 PM
I think Oxident has this right.

Please tell us what spectro you are using to make a new calibration and Profile in CPS (and on what settings). Are you using this same instrument to re-calibrate in CWS?

Thanks,

~Lou

adause
01-29-2018, 02:01 PM
So Lou I am using the settings we discussed a while back on another thread about profiling.

I am using the ES-2000
With CPS I do the initial calibration at the beginning with M0.
Then I switch to M1 for the G7 measuring and also when measuring the color patches that follow.

So as with this profile I usually if I haven't used a profile in a while will use CWS Calibration (using the drop down and choosing my profile) to get it balanced again or, linearize it I suppose.

BTW I always use the same Spectro when performing both tasks.

oxident
01-29-2018, 02:24 PM
Correct me if I'm wrong but doesn't drive CWS' calibrator the ES-2000 in ES-1000 compatibility mode while CPS uses it natively? Anyway, the default mode should be M0, anyway. Strange...

But again, have you tried re-calibration using CPS? Just to sort this out...

adause
01-29-2018, 02:34 PM
Yeah in total I made two profiles both return same results.
Calibrated both profile 2-3 times through CWS to check to see if I saw a difference and other than shifting the color every attempt printed the same.
So there is consistency as I mentioned but a break down when I use CWS to relinerize the profile when weighed against the output after the initial profile setup/calibration through CPS (again before the profile ever gets relinerized through CWS).

Sorry for rambling trying to clarify best I can.

Lou_P
01-29-2018, 02:53 PM
If you are using ES-2000 to make an M0 calibration and then re-calibrating from CWS using the ES-2000 that is in M0 mode by default.

So I need you to try to make a calibration plus the G7 plus the profile all in M0 mode. Export the profile and save it, this will include the calibration set so we can look at it later. Make a print to confirm everything looks good. Now recalibrate on the same paper. Make a test print. Does it look bad? If so export the output profile again with a new name so we can look at the updated calibration set. Post both exported profiles and we will look.

If you can't reproduce the problem with you calibrate+ G7 + profile + recalibrate all in M0 mode let me know and we'll modify the experiment to get back to the failure you are seeing.

Also let us know what version of CWS you are using, and what patch pattern you are using both from CPS and CWS; also your Fiery and press model. Thanks.

~Lou

Doyle
01-29-2018, 02:54 PM
I am confused as I don't see why you are using CWP instead of CPS for re-calibration? Are the results different if you use CPS for re-calibration?

adause
01-29-2018, 03:16 PM
@Lou I will most certainly do this asap.

So I take it from Doyle's and Oxident's questions I am not supposed to use CWS to relinearize my profile. I mean why is it there then? I guess I thought it is the same when I go to calibrate my factory plain profile on my machine the same is being done for the user created profiles as well. If this isn't good practice I don't think they should show up there. Isn't this the purpose of managing you calibration sets?

I am really confused now if that is not the way to do it. I understand you can do it both ways but why is CWS not one of the options?

oxident
01-29-2018, 03:36 PM
Don't get me wrong. There shouldn't be a problem when using CWS but it could be related to your spectro model. It would be a great way to actually test if there's a difference. I always used CPS for re-calibrating profiles I've also created using CPS.

Lou_P
01-29-2018, 03:48 PM
People often use CPS to calibrate when they have an instrument that is not supported in CWS.

In theory you can re-calibrate from CPS or CWS but you are reporting a problem so let's take a further look.

adause
01-29-2018, 06:29 PM
Okay so printer model and software versions are in my first post. In a rush so I wanted to leave results of Lou's instructed recal.

Okay so all M0. G7 used PSP51 Random 2-up

Used 1485 Random for color patches

Justin, the output profile in the job properties for the patches was efi test_temp (called the profile "efi test")

Results are interesting. There was a shift however not anything like when I used M0 and M1. This time it seemed to be lacking something maybe M (it's changed but hard to be certain atm) after the recal through CWS. As I said there was a change but nothing as drastic as the others. The initial output was again dead on however again a noticeable shift after recal.

Something seem to be effecting the profile.

Lou I exported the profile for you before I recal'd in CWS. So am I understanding you correctly now that I did that you want me to export that profile again but rename it?

Also am I able to upload those or email you them.

Thanks guys appreciate all the help.

Doyle
01-29-2018, 06:53 PM
I just happened to think about this bug I found a while back. Might be whats happening when you make the initial calibration in CPS or possibility the re-calibration in CWS.
http://fieryforums.efi.com/showthread.php/6500-G7-Calibration-Using-the-Default-Profile-assigned-in-CWS

Did you make any edits to your profiles in CWS and then maybe set one of those to the default profile? That is the only thing I could every determine what might have been the cause of this.

adause
01-30-2018, 08:09 AM
Hey Doyle so I didn't make any edits what so ever.

Which makes me think of another issue which is, if a customers file does not have pantones or vector objects and wants to tweek colors, I feel the only way this can be done is by editing the source file. Trying to do it through curves would not be good with a G7 est profile I would think.

That's another subject for another time though.

adause
01-30-2018, 12:08 PM
Okay so I really am not trying to make this problem worse or something it's not but here is another scenario I experienced this morning. So the reason I did this is because there is something that has bothered me for a while now. Given I'm seeing the change in the profile discussed earlier in this thread, I tried to pay attention to process.

So the thing that has bothered me is at the end of making your profile you choose what factory paper type most resembles the paper you are using to build the calibration. I have no idea what it is pulling from this factory profile but I heard something about black information that we as users most likely wouldn't be able to dial in as good as EFI when they build these factory profiles for the respective printer/engine.

The problem I always had was when you look at the screen associated with the factory profile on mine it is 200 Dot. All the profiles I have built do not use this screen. So if I calibrate the factory profile which I use also, through CWS Calibration it calibrates for 200 Dot. If I run an image it looks good. If I roll off that say to 200 Dot Fine Text and Graphics it fails and prints differently. So stay with me please because clarification on this would be really great.

So back to build the profile, wouldn't tethering the factory profile at the end change the behavior of the profile that is created using a different screen type?

Back to what I experienced today. Because of this and my RIP set to default to 200 Dot FT&G, and the factory profile set to 200 Dot and given what I mentioned above I thought, okay I will build a calibration this time through CWS NOT CPS just to do a quick test. During the profile setup it seems tords the end to possibly use CPS to "optimize" the profile. I say this because the same widow pops up that does at the end of building your profile with CPS.

Again it ask me to choose what most resembles your paper you are calibrating, I coose the Factory profile. Profiling complete.

Now I run the same image I am using earlier in the discussion and just run it through. Looks not good (but this I believe is due to the 200Dot FT&G screen which I see something going on with) but okay so this was what I was gonna get through CWS quick profile solution.

However I went and calibrated the profile or recalibrated/linerized as I did with the other profile as discussed earlier in this thread. The result, colors shifted. Something is going on and I can say this the shift is subtle but noticable and it reminds me of the test I did for Lou using M0 because this is what it is using through out the process and again the shift is subtle but apparent.

I am hoping all this info is helping because this really has me scratching my head on what I can depend on and what is going on.

Thanks guys as always

Doyle
01-30-2018, 01:22 PM
What ever screen you want to print you need to create a new calibration and profile using that screen. It is also good to check your Secondary Voltage Transfer before you start this process as different screens may very well effect this.

As for Black Generation it is probably best to start from the GCR of default profile (which is all your really getting from it) but you can always adjust that to what every you like and see how it affects output for a particular job. Just save your Profile measurements and go back and regenerate with different GCR as much as you like.

I doubt EFI will ever admit this but I would not be surprised that they are told by the printers manufactures to go heavy on the blacks to minimize toner costs for leased machines. Many times I have seen the Black Start way higher than I would ever what it to be. Not sure about every printer out there but the black lay down is always the roughest looking so minimizing that in the highlight and quarter tones is something you will probably what to do. Of course the trade off is it is harder to maintain neutral grey.

adause
01-30-2018, 05:11 PM
Appreciate that bit of information Doyle, thank you.

So let me ask this then. Are you saying that when we select the factory profile that most resembles out paper type, all that is carried from that factory profile is the black generation, nothing else is taken into account as is the screen that was used when the factory profile was created?

Just trying to get a better understanding of that part.

Doyle
01-30-2018, 05:15 PM
What ever you see in that dialog is it AFAIK.

Lou_P
01-30-2018, 11:05 PM
You can email them to me on a private message. Justin thinks you may have found a software defect so after we look we'll advise you how to proceed.

ColorMeBob
01-31-2018, 08:13 AM
This is an eye opening thread.....so now I have a question based on questions asked within this thread. If I use iSis XL to calibrate, G7 calibrate, all M0. G7 used PSP51 Random 2-up, and used 1485 Random for color patches (print 10 and read last 3 to average) to create my output profile. When we calibrate thereafter we use ES-2000. Am I entering a variable that can cause change? We calibrate every machine every 4-6 hours due to the large volumes of work and every fiery has it's own ES-2000 while I only have one iSis.

oxident
01-31-2018, 09:12 AM
I'm quite sure this a meaningful difference between the various colorimeter devices. Some RIP vendors (e.g. Colorgate) strongly advice you to not mix different types of colorimeters between initial linearization, profiling and further re-linearization, even if we are talking about ES-1000/ES-2000.
In daily usage, I often have the same workflow as ColorMeBob described: Profile was created using an iSis XL and re-linearization is done with an ES-2000 although even KM nowadays suggests using the same measurement device for every step.

Doyle
01-31-2018, 09:34 AM
Where you don't what to mix instruments is the initial calibration and recalibration. I don't think it really matters what instrument you use for profile generation. The baseline/calibration that you you build the profile on top needs to stay the same so it would make sense to re-calibrate with the same software and hardware you did the initial calibration with.

adause
01-31-2018, 10:21 AM
Just want to reiterate in my situation I am using the same ES-2000 for both building the profile and re-linearization. However, I am using CWS to relinearize the profile once built.

So even though there may be slight variance between measuring devices (and questionable if can even be seen by the eye) this seems to be a software problem is what I'm gathering.

We'll see though.

Doyle
01-31-2018, 10:50 AM
I understand what you doing but I don't understand why.

adause
01-31-2018, 10:57 AM
Well because to be frank, I thought I could and it is quick and convenient, for me at least. Apparently it should be able to work it's just not come to find out.

This is not something I do after every profile built through CPS. The use of CWS to relinearize is done only after time has passed or I notice something off, to cross check is all. Standard procedure though is not build a profile then immediately use CWS.

Lou_P
01-31-2018, 01:05 PM
Hi all.

This does work, lots of users use either different devices or CPS v CWS to re-calibrate. There are some combinations of devices that might not work so well but ES-1000 v ES-2000 v Isis / ES-6000 are all very safe, these instruments have very good correlation. The problem Oxident is facing and that we are investigating is something that we'll get figured out and let you all know.

Once we resolve the problem we will let you know and give you a procedure for checking on this when you change the calibration workflow or instrument.

Doyle
01-31-2018, 01:05 PM
I theory maybe, up have every looked at the calibration curve generated by CPS in comparison to CWS?

Justin_dB
01-31-2018, 01:21 PM
Since we are throwing out variables - don't forget the difference in patch layouts.

As much as we try to average and smooth - you will see differences in calibration measurements simply by printing your patches in different locations on the drum. Laser toner imaging systems are challenged to print uniformly. Rotating the page or relative position to the center or the edge of the drum will change your measurement results.

Since different devices require different patch layouts - and even the same device with different applications use different patch layouts, there is a variable here that cannot be eliminated - The engine uniformity.

adause
02-05-2018, 11:55 AM
Wondering if there is any update on this.

I PM'd you Justin about something related but having to do with calibrating through CWS the factory profiles. Something seems kinda messed up there.

Thanks guys

adause
04-10-2018, 09:31 AM
So this seemed to just have been forgotten or something. I thought maybe we were going somewhere with this and I was supposed to be contacted by somebody and well that just never happened.

I see CPS has a version update so I will try this and see if this returns better results but just as a follow up, this issue was never resolved.

I'll post results when I find time to play with CPS 5.x

Question though should I be using Delta 2000? I see it is rather new and wondering if I would get tighter/more accurate results considering it is including luminosity into the mix.

Pros and Cons if anybody has any. With CPS I am using Delta ab.

Thanks again