LaserSoft Imaging

After enough "sitting on the fence" I decided to finally upgrade to Silverfast v8.
I want to take a shot at doing some comparisons between profiling with X-Rite's i1Profiler and Silverfast IT8 feature. (maybe even Eye-One Match as well)

I will not be using SilverFast's AUTO IT8 feature seeing that I did not purchase any of the LaserSoft IT8's YET! Will have to do it "manually" for now.
I will be using 2 Monaco IT8's (reflective&transparency) that came with EZcolor in my V750Pro bundle.
Also have one Wolf Fa ust R1 reflective (flatbed) scanner target coming in any day now.

Below are the settings I will be using for SFv8.

I hope these are the correct settings when scanning an IT8 to be used for profiling.
Any comments or suggestions would be appreciated.
This test won't be that "scientific" seeing that I don't have the experience of others but I will try to post some sort of results here and even the created profiles. (if anyone is interested)

The settings you made will deactivate the color management and store the image at a gamma of 1.8.

If that is correct depends on your profiling software.

kind regards,
Arne Ketelhohn.

LSI_Ketelhohn wrote:The settings you made will deactivate the color management and store the image at a gamma of 1.8.

Well actually with the "for HDR output" unchecked and Gamma Gradation set at 1.8 the scan actually comes out like the Gamma Gradation is set at 1.0.
Basically very dark. Not sure if this is a bug or normal operation?
I wanted to post a screen shot to display this but got a message "Sorry, the board attachment quota has been reached" so you'll have to take my word for it.
If I check ON the "for HDR output" with the Gamma Gradation still set at 1.8 then the scan comes out much lighter. As it should with a GG of 1.8.

What does this "for HDR output" ON/OFF mean and does it make a difference when you are trying to profile your scanner?
Also does this make a difference when actually performing your scans and trying to get a scan that is as "RAW" as possible?

LSI_Ketelhohn wrote:If that is correct depends on your profiling software.

What I am trying to attempt here is to compare the IT8 profiling feature of SilverFast against the newly released Scanner Profiling feature of X-Rite's i1Profiler.

When I use SF's IT8 feature with the "for HDR output" unchecked and GG set to 1.8 the IT8 target is dark (like it would be at GG1.0). The SF profile produces a DeltaE of 2.0.
When I use SF's IT8 feature with the "for HDR output" checked ON and GG set to 1.8 the IT8 target is lighter as expected. This SF profile produces a DeltaE of 1.0.

When I use i1Profiler's Scanner Profile feature with the "darker" scan of the same target ("for HDR output" unchecked and GG set to 1.8 OR 1.0-same result) it cannot even make a profile from this scan.
Too dark to recognize the target.
When I use i1Profiler's Scanner Profile feature with the scan of the same target ("for HDR output" checked ON and GG set to 1.8 ) it produces an Average DeltaE (CIE 1976) for all Patches of 0.51.

Haven't actually compared scans yet. Will be trying this next.

sngraphics wrote:
Well actually with the "for HDR output" unchecked and Gamma Gradation set at 1.8 the scan actually comes out like the Gamma Gradation is set at 1.0.
Basically very dark. Not sure if this is a bug or normal operation?

This is how it should work.
HDR images are normally stored at a gamma of 1.0.

sngraphics wrote:What does this "for HDR output" ON/OFF mean and does it make a difference when you are trying to profile your scanner?
Also does this make a difference when actually performing your scans and trying to get a scan that is as "RAW" as possible?

The "for HDR output" setting defines if the gamma should be adjusted or be left at the natural scanner output of 1.0.
Which one is correct depends on your calibration software.
Often it is necessary to scan at the gamma which later will be used.
But it is also possible the software requires a gamma 1.0 image.
This must be checked with the software's manufacturer.
I can not answere that.

kind regards,
Arne Ketelhohn