ColorVision Spyder

"Tony" wrote in :

I wonder how good a
profile you get with PrintFIX? I guess I'll try a little Google to
find out.

I have one. I have not got it to work properly.

1. The manual was lacking with regard to Canon printers in 1.1.
Now in 1.2 it tells how to configure for Canon. Eh? One wonders
how they could release for Canon without knowing how to do it?

2. The plastic sleave that holds the printed patches is very
easy to scratch - it was very scratched even directly when I got it
- it generates lots of newton rings and it is extremely electrostatic.
Dust - dust dust! A pain!

3. The print is very light. So - hmmmm ... how can the callibrate
without any dark tones?

4. My patch reader does not feed the patch sleeve correctly. It turns to
the right and the scan is distorted. The scan is also strongly
striped,
which hints at the scanner being of very low quality.

5. The ColorVison support is NOT helpful. They did not even understand
why I could not callibrate without knowing how to configure the
printer. They just repeated the Epson settings - wich were wrong
as Epson has a toatlly different view on the settings. And now - with
my other problems - they simply do not answer.

If I don't get help from ColorVison with my problems, I must regretfully
come to the conclusion that this product is non working.


But the spyder works


/Roland

"Roland Karlsson" wrote in message
...
"Tony" wrote in :

I wonder how good a
profile you get with PrintFIX? I guess I'll try a little Google to
find out.

I have one. I have not got it to work properly.

1. The manual was lacking with regard to Canon printers in 1.1.
Now in 1.2 it tells how to configure for Canon. Eh? One wonders
how they could release for Canon without knowing how to do it?

2. The plastic sleave that holds the printed patches is very
easy to scratch - it was very scratched even directly when I got it
- it generates lots of newton rings and it is extremely electrostatic.
Dust - dust dust! A pain!

3. The print is very light. So - hmmmm ... how can the callibrate
without any dark tones?

4. My patch reader does not feed the patch sleeve correctly. It turns to
the right and the scan is distorted. The scan is also strongly
striped,
which hints at the scanner being of very low quality.

5. The ColorVison support is NOT helpful. They did not even understand
why I could not callibrate without knowing how to configure the
printer. They just repeated the Epson settings - wich were wrong
as Epson has a toatlly different view on the settings. And now - with
my other problems - they simply do not answer.

If I don't get help from ColorVison with my problems, I must regretfully
come to the conclusion that this product is non working.


But the spyder works


/Roland

Hmm, that's bad news. I have been very happy with the Spyder aspect of their
offerings, and was hoping that PrintFIX would be as good. Your comments (and
others that I found via Google) tell me PrintFIX is not the way to go.

A number of people have positive things to say about Profile Prism. The
scanner portion is $79 (plus another $30 for a slide IT8 target). So
(apparently) with this I could develop profiles for my film scanner (for at
least the type of film the target comes on), my flatbed (one step closer to
a real printer profile), and my printer.

Hmm, it seems Googling on PP also yields mixed results. Is it impossible to
get a complete color managed hardware chain for reasonable cost?

"Roland Karlsson" wrote in message
...
"Tony" wrote in :

I wonder how good a
profile you get with PrintFIX? I guess I'll try a little Google to
find out.

I have one. I have not got it to work properly.

1. The manual was lacking with regard to Canon printers in 1.1.
Now in 1.2 it tells how to configure for Canon. Eh? One wonders
how they could release for Canon without knowing how to do it?

2. The plastic sleave that holds the printed patches is very
easy to scratch - it was very scratched even directly when I got it
- it generates lots of newton rings and it is extremely electrostatic.
Dust - dust dust! A pain!

3. The print is very light. So - hmmmm ... how can the callibrate
without any dark tones?

4. My patch reader does not feed the patch sleeve correctly. It turns to
the right and the scan is distorted. The scan is also strongly
striped,
which hints at the scanner being of very low quality.

5. The ColorVison support is NOT helpful. They did not even understand
why I could not callibrate without knowing how to configure the
printer. They just repeated the Epson settings - wich were wrong
as Epson has a toatlly different view on the settings. And now - with
my other problems - they simply do not answer.

If I don't get help from ColorVison with my problems, I must regretfully
come to the conclusion that this product is non working.


But the spyder works


/Roland

Hmm, that's bad news. I have been very happy with the Spyder aspect of their
offerings, and was hoping that PrintFIX would be as good. Your comments (and
others that I found via Google) tell me PrintFIX is not the way to go.

A number of people have positive things to say about Profile Prism. The
scanner portion is $79 (plus another $30 for a slide IT8 target). So
(apparently) with this I could develop profiles for my film scanner (for at
least the type of film the target comes on), my flatbed (one step closer to
a real printer profile), and my printer.

Hmm, it seems Googling on PP also yields mixed results. Is it impossible to
get a complete color managed hardware chain for reasonable cost?

"Tony" wrote in :

Hmm, that's bad news. I have been very happy with the Spyder aspect of
their offerings, and was hoping that PrintFIX would be as good. Your
comments (and others that I found via Google) tell me PrintFIX is not
the way to go.

It sure loks like PrintFIX is a lemon. I have some hope still.

A number of people have positive things to say about Profile Prism.
The scanner portion is $79 (plus another $30 for a slide IT8 target).
So (apparently) with this I could develop profiles for my film scanner
(for at least the type of film the target comes on), my flatbed (one
step closer to a real printer profile), and my printer.

I tested Profile Prism before PrintFIX. It does not work either.
It is guaranteed useless. You cannot profile with a general printer.
And the method to use lots of TINY patches to make the profiling
is 100% impossible. An assortment of large patches (such as those
used in PrintFIX) is the only method.

Hmm, it seems Googling on PP also yields mixed results. Is it
impossible to get a complete color managed hardware chain for
reasonable cost?

My belief is now - no. Profiling printers is complicated stuff.
It can only be made the expensive and tedious way, meassuring
with professional devices.

Fortunately, the Canon printer is already well profiled. And it
is very independent of choice of paper.


/Roland

"Tony" wrote in :

Hmm, that's bad news. I have been very happy with the Spyder aspect of
their offerings, and was hoping that PrintFIX would be as good. Your
comments (and others that I found via Google) tell me PrintFIX is not
the way to go.

It sure loks like PrintFIX is a lemon. I have some hope still.

A number of people have positive things to say about Profile Prism.
The scanner portion is $79 (plus another $30 for a slide IT8 target).
So (apparently) with this I could develop profiles for my film scanner
(for at least the type of film the target comes on), my flatbed (one
step closer to a real printer profile), and my printer.

I tested Profile Prism before PrintFIX. It does not work either.
It is guaranteed useless. You cannot profile with a general printer.
And the method to use lots of TINY patches to make the profiling
is 100% impossible. An assortment of large patches (such as those
used in PrintFIX) is the only method.

Hmm, it seems Googling on PP also yields mixed results. Is it
impossible to get a complete color managed hardware chain for
reasonable cost?

My belief is now - no. Profiling printers is complicated stuff.
It can only be made the expensive and tedious way, meassuring
with professional devices.

Fortunately, the Canon printer is already well profiled. And it
is very independent of choice of paper.


/Roland

Roland Karlsson wrote:

My belief is now - no. Profiling printers is complicated stuff.
It can only be made the expensive and tedious way, meassuring
with professional devices.

Expensive is right, but profiling isn't very tedious with the right
equipment.

The crucial distinction here is between those systems that use a real
spectrometer and those that use a colorimeter or a scanner. A real
spectrometer measures colours at intervals, resulting in over 30
separate measurements for each tile.

Andrew.

Roland Karlsson wrote:

My belief is now - no. Profiling printers is complicated stuff.
It can only be made the expensive and tedious way, meassuring
with professional devices.

Expensive is right, but profiling isn't very tedious with the right
equipment.

The crucial distinction here is between those systems that use a real
spectrometer and those that use a colorimeter or a scanner. A real
spectrometer measures colours at intervals, resulting in over 30
separate measurements for each tile.

Andrew.

lid wrote in news:10ocerf3q758937
@news.supernews.com:

Expensive is right, but profiling isn't very tedious with the right
equipment.

OK

The crucial distinction here is between those systems that use a real
spectrometer and those that use a colorimeter or a scanner. A real
spectrometer measures colours at intervals, resulting in over 30
separate measurements for each tile.

My conclusion (from my rather expensive experiments ) is that
only a spectrometer based method works.


/Roland

lid wrote in news:10ocerf3q758937
@news.supernews.com:

Expensive is right, but profiling isn't very tedious with the right
equipment.

OK

The crucial distinction here is between those systems that use a real
spectrometer and those that use a colorimeter or a scanner. A real
spectrometer measures colours at intervals, resulting in over 30
separate measurements for each tile.

My conclusion (from my rather expensive experiments ) is that
only a spectrometer based method works.


/Roland

On Fri, 29 Oct 2004 15:20:04 -0700, nospam
wrote:

In article , Roland Karlsson
wrote:

"Michael A. Covington" wrote in news:418152dd
:

It may be unreasonable to ask a CRT and LCD to match, even with careful
color calibration. They have different gamuts.

Thats not the problem. The problem is that spyder does not support
different profiles at all.

this must be a windows limitation becauae optical & spyder can profile
two monitors on a mac with seperate profiles. it can also calibrate one
monitor to match the other, which means one monitor is going to use a
smaller gamut than which it is capable. it is all outlined in the
optical documentation.

Agreed, it's very likely a windows problem. I didn't, however, realize
that mac users wanted to calibrate their monitors. It makes no sense
when they've purchased a bright orange or bright purple plastica-mac.
How can they overcome their eyes being disturbed by these psychedelic
colors right next to the image - Hardly an environment for calibration
is it?

I bet they paint their offices pink too, with those little mirrored
disco balls.

;-) [Runs and hides]

--
Owamanga!