Paper Profile Falls Apart After First Calibration

[oxident]

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]

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]

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]

I understand what you doing but I don't understand why.

[adause]

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]

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]

I theory maybe, up have every looked at the calibration curve generated by CPS in comparison to CWS?

[Justin_dB]

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]

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]

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