Im curios to know if my assumption of the following gamut size / volume is correct. The following print devices are listed from Largest capable gamut to the smallest. All devices are assumed to have their best default media and inkset. Glossy surface is also assumed.
EP 9800 K3 inks (best or largest gamut?)
ep 100600 hexachrome inks
Durst Lambda ?
LightJet ?
Pictgraphy fuji ?
Canon 9000
Ep 2200 (smallest gamut?)
If this has been posted elswhere please point me in the direction.
Thanks in advance for your answer and sorry I may have gotten the names or numbers wrong.
David b moore
I can’t comment on all the devices mentioned, but I’d be suprised if the Ep 2200 (Ultrachrome model) was at the bottom of the list. And I guess I’d be suprised to see the Ultrachrome K3 inks have a larger volume than specialty Hexachrome inks, but we’ll see. I’d guess at the following:
ep 100600 hexachrome inks
EP 9800 K3 inks
Ep 2200
Canon 9000
Pictgraphy fuji
LightJet
Durst Lambda
It’s only a guess though…higly dependant on media, profiling target used, ect…
As Michael says, the comparison is totally dependent of the media. LightJet and Lambda must have a similar gamut when using the same RA4 paper and chemical developing. In my experience, the gamut difference between papers (e.g. Kodak Endura and Fuji Crystal Archive) in the same printer is larger than the difference of the same paper in LightJet and Lambda.
Xavier
As Michael says, the comparison is totally dependent of the media. LightJet and Lambda must have a similar gamut when using the same RA4 paper and chemical developing. In my experience, the gamut difference between papers (e.g. Kodak Endura and Fuji Crystal Archive) in the same printer is larger than the difference of the same paper in LightJet and Lambda.
yes, I would also say that gamuts vary in shape as well as volume. It may be an oversimplification to call one larger or smaller than the other…
hard to say…
Pro includes (will include) the ability to calculate gamut volume… I suspect this will generate some controversy… This is one of the many features that we need to ensure is as accurate as possible before we ship…
Regards,
Steve
o Steve Upton CHROMiX www.chromix.com
o (hueman) 866.CHROMiX
You are right, your appreciation is more correct that saying “one is larger that the other”, but in this case I think Endura gamut is actually larger because it almost totally contains the Crystal Archive gamut, and because both are RA4 photographic papers, thet shape of both gamuts is very similar.
Regarding ColorThink Pro gamut measurement feature, why do you think it will generate controversy? If you count the cubic delta e units you have the total volume and if one volume is larger than the other, then, the gamut is larger, am I correct?
I think that, what can be controversial is the real world usability of the gamut, because that can depend a lot in the shape and not that much in the total volume. In other words, you can have a very large gamut with a shape that’s useless for reproducing real world images.
yes, I would also say that gamuts vary in shape as well as volume. It may be an oversimplification to call one larger or smaller than the other…
hard to say…
Pro includes (will include) the ability to calculate gamut volume… I suspect this will generate some controversy… This is one of the many features that we need to ensure is as accurate as possible before we ship…
[/quote:16ccada5bf]
You are right, your appreciation is more correct that saying “one is larger that the other”, but in this case I think Endura gamut is actually larger because it almost totally contains the Crystal Archive gamut, and because both are RA4 photographic papers, thet shape of both gamuts is very similar.
Regarding ColorThink Pro gamut measurement feature, why do you think it will generate controversy? If you count the cubic delta e units you have the total volume and if one volume is larger than the other, then, the gamut is larger, am I correct?
yes but…
I think that, what can be controversial is the real world usability of the gamut, because that can depend a lot in the shape and not that much in the total volume. In other words, you can have a very large gamut with a shape that’s useless for reproducing real world images.
exactly. I have some concern that the gamut volume number will be used by people to say one device “is better” than another when it really depends on where in the gamut it is larger. It is a useful tool but a blunt instrument that should be wielded carefully
Regards,
Steve
o Steve Upton CHROMiX www.chromix.com
o (hueman) 866.CHROMiX
