|
|
|
|
COMPARISON BETWEEN Xrite PULSE ELITE COLOR and Gretag Macbeth Eye-One
I have had the opportunity to have both systems (in their RGB version) side by side and was able to work with them for quite a while and therefore my comparison is not based just on published data but on my own experience with both of them - starting with unpacking, the set-up, installation, use and other related activities plus my personal observations. Of course, it is a subjective review and comparison, based also to a certain amount on what I liked and what not. For simplicity reasons I call the system from Xrite just Pulse and the one from Gretag Macbeth just EyeOne. To outline the differences, I have made four tasks, which are most likely common to all photographers - calibration of a monitor, profiling a scanner, profiling a printer and profiling a digital camera. On top come additional program features and additional options, which will be discussed at the end. Let me start with the task Calibration/Profiling of a monitor One of the most striking differences between Pulse and EyeOne is that Pulse needs two devices for all color management work - calibrating a monitor requires a separate device. This is understandable if one assumes that there is a different market and that there are different customers who do monitor calibration compared to the complete color management chain. Yes, that is true but the EyeOne system covers both - you can have just one small calibrator for the monitor work but the EyeOne spectrophotometer does it all - which is my preference. Another difference is that the Pulse has no option for calibrating a laptop monitor - Pulse offers CRT and LCD. This is certainly sufficient for most users but if you have got a presentation to make and have got your laptop with you and a beamer for presentation, well, then the EyeOne is excelling - your laptop colors and the projected colors form the beamer can be calibrated and matched - a nice additional option. Nothing which would make the Pulse really inferior, just something which is an additional plus point for the EyeOne - my preference. An third difference which I would like to point out is the evaluation of the ambient light - quality and intensity. Just yesterday, I was visiting with a professional photographer who worked in a more or less dark cellar room on his Mac and told me how eye-straining this was - well if he would have used the EyeOne device, he would have been able to make some light, just the right amount for proper working and could have verified it with the EyeOne device - even the small Display device. Again, this advantage is not at all a show stopper for the Pulse, but it is a nice feature (better a customer benefit) for users of the EyeOne system - my preference. Now to another point, which is a more practical one. Both devices have got measurement windows at their bottom - these are optical windows which need to be taken care of - the EyeOne has got a very nice and practical cover for the bottom side, which also serves as ambient light measurement device - well, this is very convenient as in every days work, a small mouse-like device will get dusty, put somewhere, stored, moved around etc - this bottom cover protects all sensitive parts of the device. No cover for the Pulse calibrator, which is always exposed to whatever happens to it. My preference is clearly for the EyeOne. A small point to mention is the program language - the EyeOne system offers many more languages to work in, actually 6 languages. The Pulse can be operated in English and German. As I am fluent in both languages, no problem for me in either one, but what would French users do or Italians? Well, I leave it up to them and call it another preference for the EyeOne. Last but not least, the measurement options - the Pulse system offers one single measurement level of detail - the EyeOne offers an Easy and an Advanced level. If is correct, that the Pulse offers various options during the measurement process but I personally prefer to choose between an "Easy" way to quickly calibrate a monitor and the more "Advanced" level which offers more adjustments and options. My preference is the EyeOne. I would like to make it clear - there is everything fine with the Pulse monitor calibration, I just think that the EyeOne solution is more thought through for my liking. The results of calibrating several monitors are comparable, I did not visually see differences between the two calibrations but the very attractive add-in program "Gamutworks" by Xrite shows some differences in the profiles - here they are:
I have calibrated the Sony SE20 monitor in the past several times with the EyeOne and most recently also with the Pulse - you see that all calibrations with the EyeOne are within a very small and close range (display on the right side) but the calibrations done with the Pulse (the green outlines) are different - not much, but different. I do not know which ones are more correct, the good news is that both devices turn out to be very consistent - all measurements are very similar, as you can see. Is one of the two systems much faster or slower - no, I would say that both systems are fast. Both are easy to handle and offer almost fool-prove operation. The obtained monitor profiles are fine, work well and seem to be pretty repeatable as well. Given a choice - I would go for the EyeOne device (for the monitor calibration, it is the EyeOne Display2 device) for the mentioned reasons if both would be sold at the same or similar price. A last word regarding the nomenclature - calibration vs. profiling vs. characterization: Calibration is the activity which brings a device into a known status (you know what your monitor status is, defined brightness, defined contrast etc), profiling is the activity which ends up with a data file, the profile, which defines how colors are reproduced by a certain device, more precisely what RGB values correspond to which LAB values (the standard) as all devices read RGB slightly differently. And finally characterization is the process which ends up in that mentioned profile. So you basically first calibrate a monitor, then when it is in a defined status, you do the profiling. But often the words calibration and profiling are used intermixed - not a problem as long as you know what you are doing and wanting to achieve.
PROFILING A SCANNER
The next task in the chain of color management is to characterize a scanner, to make a profile for it. Here we meet two general options - profiling for transparent targets and profiling for opaque, printed targets. Profiling for opaque, printed targets is very easy and straight forward with both systems. Both systems provide in the basic package IT8 targets, which are necessary for this job. It is interesting to see that both systems use devices, which look very similar and operate also in a very similar way. The device to be used for the Xrite system is the Pulse device and the one for the Gretag Macbeth system is the EyeOne Pro device (the same one which can also be used for monitor calibration and profiling). What I do like very much with the Pulse system is the option of untethered usage for all measurements. This means one cable less during active operation and this is a very nice feature, especially if your desktop is a bit smaller and full of stuff as usual. The price for this convenience is a slightly longer measurement procedure, but I have no problems with that looking at the benefits, so a clear plus for the Pulse. Next, the "Pathfinder" - this device, an auxiliary device for the measurement head is needed to measure the printed color target row by row. Both systems provide one, the one from the EyeOne system is significantly simpler and smaller but much less convenient to use. The one from the Pulse is much larger and much more convenient to use. Maybe I belong to those lazy guys who want to have the measurement device just glide over the measurement path without much effort at all, and that is what that Pathfinder provides - a very easy measurement of row after row. Of course in combination with the untethered usage, quick and easy - a clear plus for the Pulse. Now it comes again - the same as before...why does the Pulse system not provide ambient light measurement and why not a support to rest and protect the rather expensive measurement head? The EyeOne has got both again, therefore a clear plus for the EyeOne system. With the EyeOne program, if you scan a transparent target, you will soon find out that the "Help" menu and screens do not display the IT8 target for slides - they still show the printed target. This means that when you get to the alignment procedure - when you align the measurement marks to the four corners of the scanned target, you need to find it out yourself what the correct corners are, not difficult, but I would say, it should be changed that the help matches the task - no problems with the Pulse as "Help" does not display anything misleading. Something which I think one can observe as well - the EyeOne measures more accurately. The measurement steps of the photometer in terms on nm between the single measurements taken - the EyeOne measures every 3.5nm with an optical resolution of 10nm ( therefore it averages ) and the Pulse every 20nm. If you have got a rather difficult color to reproduce, the more dense measurements of the EyeOne will pay off - the profiles are more accurate and more precise. For most every days work on pretty normal targets, its fine to do 20nm steps, but I prefer to have a higher precision in the measurement, I like to be on the safe side regarding the profile's accuracy - therefore for me a clear plus for the EyeOne system Profiling a scanner includes the important task of profiling for transparent targets - I just cannot understand why the standard package of the Pulse does not include transparent IT8 targets in 35mm and 4x5inch. These are so standard and so often used, I do not like to have to order them separately. Therefore for me a clear plus for the EyeOne as the transparent target is included in the standard package. Scanner profiles - and some surprises: Now to the profiling process itself - here again, the Pulse offers one procedure whereas the EyeOne offers again the "Easy" and the "Advanced" mode. Both offer different levels of options and it is more a matter of personal preference which procedure you prefer, for me, both are fine and come to a well defined profile. I do not want to repeat the user manuals and data sheet, so I focus on my personal experiences with both systems and as already said, some were rather surprising. Do these profiles, taken with two different brands match? Well here are the results, again see by the program "Gamutworks". The first comparison is for the opaque, printed IT8 target:
As you can see, the two profiles do not match at all. The profile measured and calculated with the EyeOne system is much narrower and the color space much smaller compared to the one done with the Pulse system - especially into the blue-violet range. As I did not understand why these large differences are existing, I wanted to make sure that I did not make a scanning mistake. So I reworked the scanning and did it with the IT8 target for both systems - it means, I did not use the supplied printed target from Gretag Macbeth. So see also the influence of the scanning program itself (I suspected that the choice of scanning program would also have an influence, even if all color correction was disabled for all programs), I scanned the target first with the Epson routine and then with Silverfast. These results are not too far apart, yes there are differences as expected, but they are with limits. Here the first set of two scans with the profiles calculated by EyeOne:
For a large range of lightness, both profiles are very similar, differences occur at both ends of the lightness range. I did the same and used the Pulse program and here are those results:
Again, both profiles are similar and again the differences are at the ends of the lightness range. But if you take all four scans and compare them directly - two done with EyeOne and two with Pulse, you can see that there are differences - not too dramatic in the middle range of lightness, but still quite significant - don't forget, the aim of a profile is to get colors through a system as correctly and repeatable as possible.
When you look at the dark end of the lightness range, then the differences become huge as you can see in the following screenshot:
To round everything a bit more up, I took now the EyeOne printed target, which comes in the standard package and is different from an IT8 target and scanned it with the same two different scanning programs - the original Epson 3200 scan routine (of course all color management off) and the Silverfast 6 program (everything off). The results could only be calculated with the EyeOne program as Pulse does not allow any other opaque, printed target than the IT8 - I find this a drawback. Anyway, here the results - both profiles are pretty similar, over large lightness and color range areas almost identical.
That's how I expected to see all profiles from the same target and same scanner.
Now the results for the transmitted light IT8 target. Interestingly, a similar situation for the TL, the color slide IT8 Ektachrome target. I used the Kodak Q-60 target and did all measurements according to the program routines - similar result and similar differences as you can see here:
Again, the Pulse system suggests a much wider gamut and much wider color space than the EyeOne system. To eliminate the possibility of measurement errors, I was redoing all the measurements again - two heads, same Kodak Q60 target, same scanner and same day, same time - here the results - again the large differences between the Pulse program and the EyeOne program:
The profile in the first row is an older one, done with the EyeOne system and the second one is the new one also with the EyeOne - you can it on the screen, that they are matching quite nicely - very small deviations. The third one (blue outlined) was done with the Pulse and the forth one with the Fuji Color Profiling system. The profile determined by the Fuji system comes closed to the one done with the Pulse, but both deviate significantly from the EyeOne. I did it a third time (Epson 3200 Photo scanner, Ektachrome IT8 target from Kodak (Q60) - very carefully again, very controlled conditions, scanner warmed up for hours, double-checked all color management and color, brightness and contrast settings have been off, all internal profiles deactivated and scanned again with Silverfast and let the two program do their calculations, then uploaded again the resulting profiles into GamutWorks and here again, similar not matching results for the Kodak Q60 4x5inch target
Rotating the 3D view and taking another cross-section of the -ab- plane shows this result
Well, I will start conversation with both companies to find out what happened and why these profiles do not match at all. There must be a logical explanation for this result. Theoretically, if you take one IT8 chart and scan it in with a scan program like Silverfast you should get very similar, not to say identical profiles, independent on which program of which manufacturer you take, right? - Please read the amendment at the end of the review, it is the response from Gretag Macbeth (Xrite decided not to respond at all). To top it, I decided to do the same with a completely different scanner - I choose the professional grade Sony UY-S90. This is a 35mm/APS film scanner, not one of the newest ones but it was a couple of years ago a standard for professional 35mm/APS scanning. I got similar results - all three profiles - the one from the EyeOne program, the one from the Pulse program and the third one done with the Fuji ColorKit Profiler Suite - all look different and cover different spaces and gamut. Here they are:
Maybe you can imagine, that after all these measurement results, I was rather confused and a bit disheartened - I was of the opinion, that two measurement systems which both claim to be very accurate, would give very similar results. There are certainly differences in the measurement systems - the EyeOne covers a larger spectral range and measures with smaller increments and built-in overlapping to smooth out fluctuations. I could imagine that the larger spectral measurement range of the EyeOne (380-730nm compared to 400-700nm) probably explains part of the differences on both ends of the spectral space. The measurement aperture of the EyeOne is much larger than the one of the Pulse system - more light can be used for measurement (EyeOne=4,5mm dia, Pulse=3,2mm dia, which is about 1/2 in sqmm). And in addition, as mentioned the EyeOne measures with an about 5 times higher resolution compared to the Pulse because of its smaller scan intervals and higher optical resolution - all these facts can explain differences in the printed target profiles but not in the transparent target profiles - those are calculated from the data files (which are by definition identical for the same target) and the very same scan - so these differences must come from the algorithms used for calculating a profile. There is one good news - both systems are pretty consistent in their results...whatever this helps if the absolute values are different.
PROFILING A PRINTER
Another important task in the chain of color management if profiling a printer - same procedure as before described. Again pretty interesting results coming from the two competitive systems. I expected to see similar differences but no, the two systems delivered pretty identical profiles - just that that one obtained with the EyeOne has a bit more volume than the one from the Pulse system ( Epson 875DC printer, Ilford Smooth Gloss Photo Paper). Here the screenshot:
I measured some more papers with OEM inks and here are the results for Avery 2484 Premium Glossy Paper with a very good OEM ink made by Pelikan (less than half the price of Epson)
As you can see, both profiles match nicely and are more or less identical - the only differences are at the very low and very high lightness values. Another test is to see if the viewing color temperature has any influence on the profiles shape - it must have as the standard viewing color temperature is D50, which is 5000K and with Pulse you can create, based on the same printout, a new profile for 6500K. So, what one can expect is that both profiles are similar in shape but slightly shifted to make up for the 1500K difference.
Well done, as you can see, the shapes of both profiles are almost identical and the one for 6500K is shifted as expected. This is consistent and under the bottom line, both systems deliver consistent and predictable results for paper prints. That option, to calculate from one and the same target a profile for various color temperatures (various viewing conditions) is something which I did not find available with the EyeOne system. It makes it possible to apply different profiles to an output depending on the final viewing conditions. Please note, that due to me lacking of an CMYK printer, I only tested RGB printers. A short note on the mechanical auxiliary devices which come with the two programs - the Pulse includes the "Pathfinder", which is a fairly large and very comfortable guidance system for the Pulse device itself. The Pulse device is set on top of the guiding top and slides very smoothly over the surface, well guided and extremely easy to use. The EyeOne auxiliary device is much smaller and can therefore be easily put into a briefcase but the sliding comfort is less and you need to hold the EyeOne device much firmer because you need not only to slide it over the surface but it also got the USB cable permanently connected to it which can cause some uneasiness if your desk is as full as mine usually is. Here a photo of both auxiliary devices to see the differences in size and shape - left the larger Pulse device and right the much smaller EyeOne device
Here the comparison photos of both devices on their support auxiliary guides
On the left side the Pulse (untethered) and on the right side the EyeOne, each of them on their proprietary (printed) color target. As the EyeOne glides directly on the print, it also needs a bit more care to slide it properly over the surface of the print, especially of the paper surface is not glossy. The Pulse glides on the device, which makes its gliding characteristics paper-independent. Pulse is for my liking easier to use here. The color targets of both systems are not interchangeable and are also different. You cannot use one target for both systems - neither program accepts the other program's color target. Here a photo of the two different print color targets, the EyeOne target has got in its easy version 288 color patches and the Pulse target contains 343 color patches. Both programs offer a two-pages wide more sophisticated target with about two times the amount of color patches.
The Pulse target is on the left and the EyeOne target on the right. The Pulse target's first top row contains the ID of the target which is needed for recognition of the target file. An observation I made is concerning the size tolerances of the printed color target - I have never had problems with the EyeOne printed color targets but the Pulse printed targets need to be within a pretty narrow size tolerance as I found out the hard way. I printed the target on several printers and it was not possible to get it to measure until I pretty closely matched the size by adjusting the printer margins to the one which worked. This is not really a problem once you know it but it is a bit uncomfortable. The reason could be that the Pulse measurement system reads parallel to the patch color also from the ruler's black &white guiding strips - probably the disadvantage of the easy and comfortable patch reading procedure? Summarizing the input results, I have to conclude that printed targets are delivering profiles with very similar color space, shape and volume, slide targets are the ones which should be further investigated to explain the large differences and on the output side, RGB printer profiles behave as expected - more or less identical. Now we come to a feature, which is currently still unique for the Pulse system
PROFILING A DIGITAL CAMERA
I was told by Gretag Macbeth, that this option would be available sometime in the near future, but for now, it is available only with the Pulse system from Xrite. In these days, where digital cameras are spreading like mushrooms, it is nice to have an option to profile such a camera in a very easy way. I described it in my review and the results of it are here
As EyeOne does currently not provide this feature, I have not been able to make a comparison to this profile. It looks OK with a rather strange tail end at the bottom - at low lightness values. But the same tail appears also on the profile which I made for the Fuji S1 Pro camera as you can see below:
Well OK, that was the camera profiling subprogram. As mentioned, unique features for the Xrite Pulse system are besides that camera profiling program also the GamutWorks and the Tools which allow you to compare, control, evaluate, edit and rebuilt a profile. They have been briefly covered in my general review and as Gretag Macbeth does not currently offer a comparable program, I do not need to detail it here again. On the other hand, Gretag Macbeth has got unique programs as well. The one, which is of key importance for everyone who requires presentations in accurate colors is the It is part of the profiling suite and can profile an LCD (DLP etc) beamer so that the slides presented match the colors on your screen (laptop or whatever) perfectly. Not only for PowerPoint presentations, but more and more photographers make presentations of their work by means of soft portfolios - and for this application, a color corrected beamer is absolutely a must-to-have. Unfortunately I do not have a beamer on hand or available, so I cannot comment on it but I presume from what I read and have seen, that it works similar to the other profiling routines - the multifunction system head EyeOne does it all - you end up with a profile for your beamer which can be handled as all others for the other input and output channels. The Gretag Macbeth EyeOne program suite contains a very powerful and impressive program which can be downloaded for free as well - but it's best use of course is with the EyeOne spectrophotometer, this is EyeOne Share. Again, as Xrite does not offer anything comparable included in their Pulse Color Elite Suite, I do not cover this program here. Only a few words about it - it is an impressive and very flexible program which focuses on sharing color, measuring any color and matching it with the standard color sets like Pantone, transposing colors from painted samples to printable colors, communicating color - basically every possible workflow which involves well defined, reproducible, predictable color. If you are interested, see Gretag-Macbeth' website - and look out for EyeOne Share and the free download.
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION
First, I would like to mention that both systems do a very impressive job in what they are designed for and what customer profile they address. I tried to make comparisons wherever possible but I know that a direct comparison is only possible for those features or options, which are really comparable - like profiling a scanner, a monitor or a printer. I think from what all I have read, seen and experienced, that the EyeOne system is the more complete, more precise and more upgradeable system which, once you have bought it, can serve many more applications and tasks than just the ones described. It is more sophisticated, in parts not as easy to use, but it leaves plenty of room for other and additional tasks and is useful for all color work going beyond the usual work for photographers. Maybe a definition one could use is that the Pulse system is the right system for a photographer and the EyeOne is the right system for the whole studio and lab. What did I miss with the Pulse system - well I think it is limited in application bandwidth to more photography oriented tasks and does not cover general color management and color oriented tasks as much (or at all) as the EyeOne (Xrite however provides equipment which covers all tasks). It is very easy and fool-proof to use and gives good results, no question, but if I would spend well over $1000.00 for color management, I would ask myself if this system is as future-proof regarding possibly upcoming work as the EyeOne. What did I like very much with the Pulse system - it is so easy and quick to get a profile. You need nothing more than almost blindly follow the on-screen instructions and you get a profile for your input and output devices. It is very user oriented regarding handling of its hardware and software with a GUI, which is not very attractive, a bit boring and solely task oriented. It is very task focused, no frills, not too many options - it does the job, does it well and fast. What did I miss with the EyeOne system - I have the feeling, it is almost unlimited in application and very future proof but sometimes it would benefit from being more end-user friendly regarding operational tasks. Yes you can do the scanning of the printed targets well, quick and reliable, but Pulse does it easier and more comfortable - just to give an example. However, I have the guts feeling that the profiles obtained with the EyeOne program are more accurate and more detailed, I also have the feeling that despite the higher price of the EyeOne system with its user interface which is a bit more complicated and less fool-proof in certain aspects, that if I look at the entire chain of color related work including lighting, photography, scanning, printing, sharing, displaying etc, I feel more at home and more comfortable with the EyeOne system. What did I like very much with the EyeOne - it gives you from the first second of use the feeling that you are using a precision instrument which will provide you with very accurate data and profiles. It is fast as well, very reliable and offers many choices and options, covers a very wide range of applications and its results are very repeatable. It is more sophisticated, more "technical" and it's GUI has got more appeal to me. Overall, I like the GUI better, it is modern, attractive and technical. You see, that this system can do much more and is ready for future applications as well. It presents itself to me as more complete, more technical oriented and more sophisticated than the Pulse Elite Color. So, to sum it up in a couple of sentences - in my impression, the Pulse Elite Color is a very attractive solution for professional photographers, who let most other color related work be done by other specialists and the EyeOne system is the right solution not only for professional photographers, but also for all those who cover the entire color work and color management chain from A to Z, from studio lighting to printing and viewing, from matching customer colors to choosing the right illumination environment for printing and displaying photographs, brochures and other colored items, making sure that all colors are according to expectations and match each other. A final word - I would like to thank both companies to let me have these systems for this review, evaluation and comparison. All comments and conclusions are solely my own personal expert opinion and have not been reviewed, influenced or altered by any company or person. I have conducted all measurements myself, I have not used any other person's data or measurements.
Amendment per June 17,2005: I got a response to the above question regarding the differing profiles from Gretag Macbeth and it sounds logical, but I keep talking to them to maybe initiate some improvement. There response stated, that, as one knows, if you send a certain color max. to a printer (say 100 cyan), then the printer prints that what it interprets as 100 cyan and more is not possible for it. By analyzing the color, one can determine its position within the gamut. But for digital cameras and scanners, it does not work the same way - the companies manufacturing the color management devices do apparently not know the exact capabilities (exact quantitative data) of the scanning sensor or the image forming chip, so they can only guess the position of a certain color (obtained from a scan of a target) within the gamut of the scanner/camera. And different companies guess differently....that's their explanation for the differences of the profiles. But and this is the good news, if you use consistently one system of one manufacturer throughout the entire color management process, you can be sure that most system inherent errors are eliminated because they cancel themselves out.
|
|
Send mail to
Webmaster with
questions or comments about this web site.
|
