Linearization and profiling

Seth Griffin

New Member
I'm running into an issue here, and I don't know quite what's going on.

I'm using Onxy Thrive (I think that's v19?), an XRite i1 Pro, I'm printing with dye sublimation inks on a Roland Pro II SJ 1045EX, and I'm transferring to tri-poly.

When I get to the second stage of the profiling process - linearization/calibration - I always hit problems, and they seem to prevent me from getting good results. When I analyze my results, I get "there are significant spikes in the density readings", "one or more model target densities is greater than the maximum density reading", and so on. Although I can create a profile, I then have a difficult time re-linearizing/recalibrating.

Any ideas on where I'm going wrong? As near as I can tell, my printer is working correctly, and the spectrophotometer appears to be working adequately.

https://imgur.com/Yclv5E2
 

Pauly

Colour Guru
Probably the material.
i forget the terminology as im not at work to check but try doing 2-3 scans of each patch and average the results. You choose this when you print your patches, you click the measuring device and adjust the settings. somewhere there you can choose how many times it scans the patch.

how are you determining if your profile results are good? what's not good about them?

onyx ICC is a royal pain in the 'rear end' to use. although if done correctly it does give great results.
 
In addition to multiple scans, as suggested by Pauly, you might also try scanning at a slower rate, as the i1 samples at a certain rate. This would give you more samples per patch and might help. The reflectivity of the material is always an issue in sublimation fabric profiling, which is why the new i1 Pro3 with polarization and a larger aperture is a big improvement for sublimation profiling. As Pauly asked, how do your final results look? I get this message at times, even though the curves don't show these "spikes" and still get a very acceptable profile.
 

Michael Colella

New Member
I'm running into an issue here, and I don't know quite what's going on.

I'm using Onxy Thrive (I think that's v19?), an XRite i1 Pro, I'm printing with dye sublimation inks on a Roland Pro II SJ 1045EX, and I'm transferring to tri-poly.

When I get to the second stage of the profiling process - linearization/calibration - I always hit problems, and they seem to prevent me from getting good results. When I analyze my results, I get "there are significant spikes in the density readings", "one or more model target densities is greater than the maximum density reading", and so on. Although I can create a profile, I then have a difficult time re-linearizing/recalibrating.

Any ideas on where I'm going wrong? As near as I can tell, my printer is working correctly, and the spectrophotometer appears to be working adequately.

https://imgur.com/Yclv5E2


https://global.gotomeeting.com/join/976113429

Colex Finishing Solutions Inc. is hosting a live webinar series every day at 3:30 PM EST. from October 26th to November 12th. Stop by to learn more about our wide format finishing equipment and how it can benefit the production of your shop. We are gifting all attendees an acrylic phone case that is great for everyday use at your desk or work area! During the webinar please send the organizer a private message including your name, company, email and address and we will ship it to you. We hope to see you there!
 
https://global.gotomeeting.com/join/976113429

Colex Finishing Solutions Inc. is hosting a live webinar series every day at 3:30 PM EST. from October 26th to November 12th. Stop by to learn more about our wide format finishing equipment and how it can benefit the production of your shop. We are gifting all attendees an acrylic phone case that is great for everyday use at your desk or work area! During the webinar please send the organizer a private message including your name, company, email and address and we will ship it to you. We hope to see you there!
Exactly what does your post have to do with the subject matter, which is a sublimation profiling question?
 

Seth Griffin

New Member
In addition to multiple scans, as suggested by Pauly, you might also try scanning at a slower rate, as the i1 samples at a certain rate. This would give you more samples per patch and might help. The reflectivity of the material is always an issue in sublimation fabric profiling, which is why the new i1 Pro3 with polarization and a larger aperture is a big improvement for sublimation profiling. As Pauly asked, how do your final results look? I get this message at times, even though the curves don't show these "spikes" and still get a very acceptable profile.
I usually scan at least twice, sometimes four times. Values on individual patches are typically ΔE<1. Scanning individual patches returns slightly different results than scanning by strip.

The results look good, for the most part. The problem is when I'm trying to do color matching. For that, I'll start by trying to re-linearize/recalibrate on a known good profile, and there's where I run into problems. Most of the time, it won't complete the process, because it's seeing values that are out of range for cyan. If I can't calibrate, then I can't color match consistently. (The one time that I got results that did linearize well, the colors are all on the dark side. So, yay.)

EDIT: Yes, I completely agree that we should be using an i1 Pro 3 Plus. The person that controls the finances does not agree, at least, not right now.
 
Last edited:
I'm running into an issue here, and I don't know quite what's going on.
You need to start over from the beginning. You've run out of headroom for the calibration to return from where it started.

As for the new start beginning with ink restrictions, view the chroma plot to learn whether or not the colors are hooking back on themselves. This has to do in part with your choice of initial media model. Moving on to calibration, print the Onyx Evaluation file while you're there to visually assess Onyx's notion of what it believes as far calibration, especially to gray. If it appears close, continue on through the process. If you're diligent and monitor your quality every day or so, you won't need to recalibrate until you see obvious trouble. The process will actually invite trouble if you cannot confidently re-calibrate. Understand fabric is not at all friendly towards your spectrophotometer.

EDIT: Yes, I completely agree that we should be using an i1 Pro 3 Plus. The person that controls the finances does not agree, at least, not right now.
Just imagine what their reaction will be when you submit the request for a new Epson F10070.
 

FrankW

Member
At first, I hope you do your measurements after transfer , not on the transfer paper.

Second, a standard i1 is not the best choice to do measurements on textiles because of the small size of the measurement aperture. I do not know the media you transfer to, but if it had structures, you should use a device like the i1 Pro 3 Plus (8mm Aperture) or Barbieri Spectro LFP (switchable to 2mm, 6mm or 8mm).

Could be too that the media has some properties which irritates the i1 (own color, very glossy and so on).

I do profiling services for subli-printers too, and despite the fact that we in the company have several measurement devices (i1 Pro 2 with i1iO Table, Barbieri SpectroPad, Spectro LFP and Spectro LFP qb), and despite the fact that the Spectro LFPs in their suitcases are very heavy to lift, when doing subli-jobs I take them with me.
 

Pauly

Colour Guru
At first, I hope you do your measurements after transfer , not on the transfer paper.

Second, a standard i1 is not the best choice to do measurements on textiles because of the small size of the measurement aperture. I do not know the media you transfer to, but if it had structures, you should use a device like the i1 Pro 3 Plus (8mm Aperture) or Barbieri Spectro LFP (switchable to 2mm, 6mm or 8mm).

Could be too that the media has some properties which irritates the i1 (own color, very glossy and so on).

I do profiling services for subli-printers too, and despite the fact that we in the company have several measurement devices (i1 Pro 2 with i1iO Table, Barbieri SpectroPad, Spectro LFP and Spectro LFP qb), and despite the fact that the Spectro LFPs in their suitcases are very heavy to lift, when doing subli-jobs I take them with me.

You mean you have ALL of the measuring devices. ;)
 

FrankW

Member
You mean you have ALL of the measuring devices. ;)

My company have.

There are still some XRites, and the Barbieri Spectro Swing, which we dont have available :(. And the qb is most of the time at an other location, so very often I have to use the old Spectro LFP :eek:
 
Last edited:

Pauly

Colour Guru
My company have.

There are still some XRites, and the Barbieri Spectro Swing, which we dont have available :(. And the qb is most of the time at an other location, so very often I have to use the old Spectro LFP :eek:

I'd love to upgrade from my LFP to a qb. (but i don't really need it) would like the d50 option and the removable head seems handy. But i have a Spectropad s2 to do portable stuff.
 

FrankW

Member
I'd love to upgrade from my LFP to a qb. (but i don't really need it) would like the d50 option and the removable head seems handy. But i have a Spectropad s2 to do portable stuff.

As soon as I have non-textile jobs, I prefer the Spectropad too. It is more handy, und won´t occupy nearly the whole trunk. And it is the only device were DOC is enabled. Mostly used to check color deviations between different printers. I like that the qb dont make so much noise as the old Spectro LFP, and it looks like that it scans a little bit faster.
 

Seth Griffin

New Member
You need to start over from the beginning. You've run out of headroom for the calibration to return from where it started.

As for the new start beginning with ink restrictions, view the chroma plot to learn whether or not the colors are hooking back on themselves. This has to do in part with your choice of initial media model. Moving on to calibration, print the Onyx Evaluation file while you're there to visually assess Onyx's notion of what it believes as far calibration, especially to gray. If it appears close, continue on through the process. If you're diligent and monitor your quality every day or so, you won't need to recalibrate until you see obvious trouble. The process will actually invite trouble if you cannot confidently re-calibrate. Understand fabric is not at all friendly towards your spectrophotometer.


Just imagine what their reaction will be when you submit the request for a new Epson F10070.

Even when I start at the very beginning, I'm getting values that are outside of the expected range during the initial linearization. If I use an uncoated media gamut, then only a few of the cyan values are outside of the values that the software expects (too dark); if I use the coated, extended, or maximum gamuts, then significantly more of the the cyan values are outside of the expected range. Magenta, yellow, and black are never running out outside of the expect range. This is true with both our Roland printers, and our Mimaki.

And yes, I'm measuring the fabric and not the paper; I'm not always the brightest bulb in the box, but I know that much at least. :)

As far as the fabric goes, there is some color variation, depending on the lot and batch. Some of it is a warm white, and has a matte finish and a soft, slightly sticky hand (the stickiness left residue on our heat press' drum, and destroyed the belt; I think it was some kind of fire retardant added during the finishing process), while some is a cool white with a firm hand and semi-reflective finish. Almost everything that we print on it nominally the same fabric, although our supplier (Fisher) gets it from different mills, and different finishers.

I think that the Epson 10070 is a bit on the small side. We mostly do 104", but the Mimaki does 126". From what I've been able to find, there aren't a lot of options in the 120" width range; the HP Stitch 3100, and HP Latex 1500 are both capable, but are also in the $180K and $140K ranges respectively. When the Mimaki was giving our tech fits (we kept losing channels, but it only started after we replaced a head), he was kinda losing his **** over the thought of needing to replace it.
 
Even when I start at the very beginning, I'm getting values that are outside of the expected range during the initial linearization.
Because this in not typical, explain your exact steps up to this point. Have you printed the evaluation file at linearization step?

(Sorry to be short, due to limited time.)
 

Seth Griffin

New Member
My typical flow is to print the ink restrictions, transfer to fabric, read the patches. Then print linearization, transfer to fabric, read patches. I don't print an evaluation image after linearization; I usually go directly to ink limits. Ink limits for transfer printing is something I'm fuzzy on; usually I'm looking for places where the ink pooled a little bit, or sharp transitions in color. From there I go to first round o f ICC patches, transfer, read them, print test images, run AccuBoost(tm), transfer, read patches, print test images, finish.

I'll see if I can get screenshots of my whole process next week (I'm furloughed two days/week due to lack of work) and post them for feedback.
 
I don't print an evaluation image after linearization; I usually go directly to ink limits. Ink limits for transfer printing is something I'm fuzzy on; usually I'm looking for places where the ink pooled a little bit, or sharp transitions in color.
Print the quality evaluation file at the linearization step. You'll learn a lot when comparing it to printing the same file using ICC profiles. EDITED TO SAY: The button and option in Onyx at this step is there for good reason.

Don't overly concern yourself with the ink limits. Someday when you find the time, perform an experiment of learning the range of ink limits by entering extreme high and low values using any media, such as poster paper, etc. Again, you'll learn a lot.
 
Top