Spectrolino rev A - in need of a UV filter solution...

[Spider_Whistle]

Hello.
So I discovered today that my spectrolino is too old to simply purchase a new UV filter from Xrite, the unit would have to be shipped to Switzerland and modified to rev C. I may be willing to do that had I not JUST sent it in for recertification. Dumping that much money into it just isn't an option at this point. Thus I either need to find an old one (the 4.2mm version), or figure out some way of creating my own. My first choice would certainly be picking up a used one... maybe one of you nice folks have one? Barring that, creating my own sounds reasonable enough... take the D65 which I have never used (I know what D65 stands for, but when would one use that filter?), pop the D65 filter out and put my own UV filter in it. Though I have no way to know if it will meet the specs of the original, so when it performs a white point calibration it could be all out of whack if it's expecting one set of values and receiving another.

Any suggestions?

What about profiling a paper with optical brighteners using a polarizer instead? It's slower than molasses from what I've seen, but does it help?



Thanks!

 

[meddington]

Hello.
So I discovered today that my spectrolino is too old to simply purchase a new UV filter from Xrite, the unit would have to be shipped to Switzerland and modified to rev C. I may be willing to do that had I not JUST sent it in for recertification. Dumping that much money into it just isn't an option at this point. Thus I either need to find an old one (the 4.2mm version), or figure out some way of creating my own. My first choice would certainly be picking up a used one... maybe one of you nice folks have one? Barring that, creating my own sounds reasonable enough... take the D65 which I have never used (I know what D65 stands for, but when would one use that filter?)

The D65 filter changes the spectral output of the tungsten-halogen toward that of D65. Its supposed be helpful for papers with optical brighteners, but it would not prevent the excitation of the OBs, so I am skeptical that it would have a beneficial effect in all situations, but then again, neither would a uv filter.

pop the D65 filter out and put my own UV filter in it. Though I have no way to know if it will meet the specs of the original, so when it performs a white point calibration it could be all out of whack if it's expecting one set of values and receiving another.

I couldn't tell you if that would be effective or not. From the standpoint of the i1 Pro spectrophoometer, there is more than just a physical filter in play, and switching filters between an unfiltered i1, and a uv-cut filtered i1 results in faulty measurement data.

Any suggestions?

Send it in for retrofit, or find a used one really. That or invest in a newer device, like the ISis and the competent OBC module. I could also suggest that UV-cut filtration often isn't truly effective in and of itself at preventing issues with OBs, since the viewing light source is never taken into account. I've always preferred unfiltered measurement of paper with moderate amounts of OBs compared to the result I've gotten with UV cut filtration.

What about profiling a paper with optical brighteners using a polarizer instead? It's slower than molasses from what I've seen, but does it help?

Pol Filter is intended to "equalize" differences between wet and dry measurements, so I doubt it would be effective.

 

[Spider_Whistle]

Thanks for the info!
When using Profilemaker at least it senses there is a filter present after it performs a white point calibration. I messed around with the D65 and polarizer today and both times the software knew it was in place without me having to tell it. I assume it would do the same thing with a UV, but I would never know if the filter I used would actually match the one Xrite provides... Probably a bad idea in any case.

That's interesting you prefer the not filtered results, since I don't have one I am unable to compare myself... What was it about the filtered readings you didn't like? Do you compensating for the brighteners in photoshop? It seems like taking away some yellow would pretty much take care of it. (from what I've seen so far anyway)

 

[meddington]

That's interesting you prefer the not filtered results, since I don't have one I am unable to compare myself... What was it about the filtered readings you didn't like?

In my viewing light, uvcut filtration generally creates a profile/proof that looks too bluish. But this could vary depending on the amount of UV that the viewing light source emits, so it could vary from one viewing booth to another.

I also avoid using UVcut filtration when trying to create a proofing profile to emulate a standard characterization data set, like SWOP3 or Fogra39. These data sets were created without UVcut filtration, and though you could get a low delta E value when comparing your proof to the data set, it could be artificial because of the filtration differences. Depends on the amount of brightners in the paper though, and there really isn't a concrete way to quantify this.

Do you compensating for the brighteners in photoshop? It seems like taking away some yellow would pretty much take care of it. (from what I've seen so far anyway)

With our proofing system (GMG) we can easily edit the white point to minimize issues...essenially editing the absolute rendering. You'd proably want to do this at the profile level rather than in Photoshop, as you can't manipulate the white point in PS, just the highlights. .

 

[dimitri]

This is a very good discussion, but why not just get an i1-iO for less than $3000? Just a thought. No need to invest in a discontinued product.

I was working with that spectrolino and measuring a target took me at least 45 minutes. I could not complete a full optimization in a single day, unless that was the only thing that I had to do. Pain in the butt.... I still remember the sound!

 

[meddington]

This is a very good discussion, but why not just get an i1-iO for less than $3000? Just a thought. No need to invest in a discontinued product.

If you were wanting both UV included and uv excluded measurement, the iO is only an option if you buy two i1 Pro devices...one uvcut filtered, one not. The Isis would be your best bet here.

I love the sound of the Spectroscan myself. Its a great device, just way too slow. Still get likely the smallest chart footprint with this device...i1 iO charts can take up a lot of real estate.