Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: [1]   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: spyder3 v. everyone else  (Read 13006 times)
digitalshiver
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 18


« on: March 27, 2009, 04:09:52 PM »
ReplyReply

According to this article:

http://www.on-sight.com/2008/12/08/updated...ation-packages/

the new spyder3 is perhaps the best monitor measuring device that money can buy.  (And it's cheap.)

Historically, of course, spyder has not been a brand of choice, but this has possibly changed.

I use the i1 spectrophotometer for my monitor, but I've recently abandoned their software in favor of ColorEyes.

If the Spyder3 is actually better than my i1 spectrophotometer on monitors, it won't take much to nudge me off of x-rite forever.

(I use ImagePrint for my printer profiles, so I don't need the spectrophotometer for that.)

Any thoughts from forum readers here about the the Spyder3 and the opinions in the article I've linked to?

Thanks in advance!

Charles
Logged
JeffKohn
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1671



WWW
« Reply #1 on: March 28, 2009, 12:50:11 AM »
ReplyReply

I have the Spyder3. The software is worthless to me (no support for hardware LUT's in displays that have them), but the colorimeter really does seem to be better suited to large-gamut displays. I have an Eizo CG241W, and I use Eizo's ColorNavigotor which supports the Spyder3 (among other devices). I get a profile with a larger gamut using the Spyder3 than I do with my i1 Spectro; better grayscale tracking in the shadow tones also.
Logged

digitalshiver
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 18


« Reply #2 on: March 28, 2009, 04:15:24 PM »
ReplyReply

Thanks, Jeff.

I think I'll pick up the Spyder3 soon. I have to say, the  i1match 3.6.2 software is beginning to remind me of Quark, which went almost 4 years between updates twice, and InDesign has now flown past them. They seem to be dozing over at x-rite. And their software seems ill-suited to a number of LCD monitors. Or so it seems. I've been away from precise color control for a while.

Thanks again.

c
« Last Edit: March 28, 2009, 06:10:14 PM by digitalshiver » Logged
Professional
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 306


« Reply #3 on: March 28, 2009, 07:15:08 PM »
ReplyReply

I am not active or non member here, and no experienced, but i like to share anyhow which is not harmful i hope.

I have Sppyder3Studio, i don't know if that is working or not, as i said i am not expert or pro to see if i did a great job, maybe to my eyes it is perfect but for others it is not good enough, anyway, i use it and all my prints are amazing out of printer, no one print is off or bad, and all the shots on the monitor are great as well, i sent few of my photos to different places and i saw the prints, all came out fine and stunning, so i can finalize my judgment that Spyder3 working perfect on my MacBook Pro, and really i don't know what another calibration device will do more that that, i even didn't use that Spyder3Print coming along with [included] with Spyder3Studio, the prints are really terrific and no need to calibrate the printer [Epson 3800], so i should test this device on another monitor and another printer and see if that will work as well or not.
Logged
Hermie
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 207


« Reply #4 on: March 29, 2009, 09:10:50 AM »
ReplyReply

Check out discussion on Apple Colorsync list:
http://lists.apple.com/archives/colorsync-.../Mar/index.html

A selection of interesting replies:

http://lists.apple.com/archives/colorsync-...r/msg00120.html
http://lists.apple.com/archives/colorsync-...r/msg00121.html
http://lists.apple.com/archives/colorsync-...r/msg00123.html
http://lists.apple.com/archives/colorsync-...r/msg00152.html
http://lists.apple.com/archives/colorsync-...r/msg00155.html
Logged
digitaldog
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8782



WWW
« Reply #5 on: March 29, 2009, 09:56:10 AM »
ReplyReply

My only comment would be the price point of $169 for the Spyder plus $249 for ColorEyes ends up costing $418, you can get a ColorMunki Photo for $399 at B&H. Yes, one can easily argue that a colorimeter is somewhat better suited for display calibration. But for $399, you're added print profiling, ambient light measurement etc.
Logged

Andrew Rodney
Author “Color Management for Photographers”
http://digitaldog.net/
KeithR
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 630


« Reply #6 on: March 29, 2009, 10:30:57 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: digitaldog
My only comment would be the price point of $169 for the Spyder plus $249 for ColorEyes ends up costing $418, you can get a ColorMunki Photo for $399 at B&H. Yes, one can easily argue that a colorimeter is somewhat better suited for display calibration. But for $399, you're added print profiling, ambient light measurement etc.

Except ColorEyes Display Pro w/Spyder3 is $299
Software alone is $175
http://www.integrated-color.com/Merchant2/...lay+Calibration
« Last Edit: March 29, 2009, 10:31:33 AM by KeithR » Logged

The destination is our goal but it’s the journey that educates us.
digitaldog
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8782



WWW
« Reply #7 on: March 29, 2009, 11:29:55 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: KeithR
Except ColorEyes Display Pro w/Spyder3 is $299
Software alone is $175
http://www.integrated-color.com/Merchant2/...lay+Calibration


OK, certainly a better deal! For $100 more, do you want to build print profiles?
Logged

Andrew Rodney
Author “Color Management for Photographers”
http://digitaldog.net/
digitalshiver
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 18


« Reply #8 on: March 29, 2009, 11:49:19 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: digitaldog
OK, certainly a better deal! For $100 more, do you want to build print profiles?

Hi folks. Thanks so much! I use ImagePrint's printer profiles for my epson 2200, and if I want to make my own, I will hang on to my i1 photo. I already own ColorEyes, and I can get the spyder3 from amazon for $142.00.

But I'm just working on a new 24" iMac, so perhaps my monitor is low-end enough that it wouldn't really make use of the spyder3's high quality performance?

Also, I'm always a little confused about reading ambient light. This is helpful because it simply tells me if the room where I edit has too much or too little light to evaluate on screen colors. Is that right?

Charles
Logged
stewarthemley
Guest
« Reply #9 on: March 29, 2009, 11:57:45 AM »
ReplyReply

I had problems with i1 on my macs when apple intro'd the 10.5.6 update. The software crashed just before storing the profile. Nothing I could do would make it work. Xrite were not much help. They did reply to my pleas for help but only in very general terms, nothing that was likely to solve the problem. I finally gave up on them and bought the Spyder 3 pro. It worked out of the box and gave what I think is a slightly better profile, although I've been too busy to spend time checking carefully. But the fact that the thing worked at all on my system was more relief than I can say! I feel the software is better to use than i1: more choices/control. FWIW, Spyder3 gets my vote (and dosh).
Logged
David Mantripp
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 687


WWW
« Reply #10 on: March 29, 2009, 12:38:40 PM »
ReplyReply

I tried going from eyeOne to ColorMunki, but I found that for display calibration the CM didn't seem any better than the eyeOne.  It is also not supported by many (any?) manufacturer monitor calibration software (Eizo, NEC, quato, LaCie) or ColorEyes.

ColorEyes, with the eyeOne v1 (which is not officially supported and strongly discouraged) did a far more impressive job of calibrating several non-optimum monitors I'm using than ColorMunki. So I ended up buying a Spyder3 and ColorEyes for display profiling.  

It seems to work pretty well.
Logged

--
David Mantripp
http://www.snowhenge.net
digitalshiver
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 18


« Reply #11 on: March 29, 2009, 01:59:08 PM »
ReplyReply

I wonder if the spyder3 will be wasted on this 24" iMac, as the imac has a low quality monitor.

Also that ambient light measurement question: is that all about just telling me if my work environment is too dark or too bright for optimal judgments of the image on my screen?

c
Logged
digitaldog
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8782



WWW
« Reply #12 on: March 29, 2009, 03:25:04 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: drm
I tried going from eyeOne to ColorMunki, but I found that for display calibration the CM didn't seem any better than the eyeOne.  It is also not supported by many (any?) manufacturer monitor calibration software (Eizo, NEC, quato, LaCie) or ColorEyes.

Its supported in the NEC SpectraView II package (North America).
Logged

Andrew Rodney
Author “Color Management for Photographers”
http://digitaldog.net/
NikoJorj
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1063


WWW
« Reply #13 on: March 30, 2009, 07:46:59 AM »
ReplyReply

Speaking of the Spyder3 hardware...

Does anybody know if all devices are equal regarding the manufacturing date, or if there are different versions (perhaps enhanced filters, or sensors?) and as a corollary an upgrade path?
Are there also different firmware versions (not speaking of the Spyder3 software, but of the internal firmware of the device itself)?
Didn't find much help on datacolor's site...

To put it shorter : my Spyder3 is of 2007 vintage and I wondered if that was a good year for Spyder3's.  
Logged

Nicolas from Grenoble
A small gallery
Scott Martin
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1311


WWW
« Reply #14 on: March 30, 2009, 10:57:32 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: NikoJorj
Does anybody know if all devices are equal regarding the manufacturing date, or if there are different versions (perhaps enhanced filters, or sensors?)
My source at Datacolor tells me that all Spyder3s to-date utilitze the same firmware and all have been manufactured to the same production QC standards, with no changes in optical patch components. Your 2007 should be as good as new.
Logged

Czornyj
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1374



WWW
« Reply #15 on: March 31, 2009, 01:14:51 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: digitaldog
Its supported in the NEC SpectraView II package (North America).

It's also supported in Eizo Color Navigator.
« Last Edit: March 31, 2009, 01:15:54 AM by Czornyj » Logged

bavanor
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 20


WWW
« Reply #16 on: April 09, 2009, 01:51:00 PM »
ReplyReply

Does anyone know is the old DTP94 can calibrate the wide gamut monitors with the software Color Eyes?  Or will I need to upgrade my puck to something like the Spyder 3?

Aaron
Logged

ddk
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 274


WWW
« Reply #17 on: April 09, 2009, 01:56:27 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: bavanor
Does anyone know is the old DTP94 can calibrate the wide gamut monitors with the software Color Eyes?  Or will I need to upgrade my puck to something like the Spyder 3?

Aaron


The Monaco Optix DTP94 has been the hardware of choice for CE and others. I certainly no problems using with any of Eizos using either CE or CN software, no need to change imo.
Logged

david
-----------------------
www.pbase.com/ddk
Scott Martin
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1311


WWW
« Reply #18 on: April 09, 2009, 04:54:56 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: bavanor
Does anyone know is the old DTP94 can calibrate the wide gamut monitors with the software Color Eyes?  Or will I need to upgrade my puck to something like the Spyder 3?
The Spyder3's updated design gives it a slight edge over the older DTP94 on wide gamut displays.
Logged

Pages: [1]   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad