Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: [1]   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Calibration Sensor Recommendation  (Read 8780 times)
ChuckZ
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 59


WWW
« on: November 12, 2009, 09:45:58 AM »
ReplyReply

Per earlier advice I received in this forum, I tried out the ColorEyes Display Pro software instead of the Spyder2express that I was using.  I am now getting better results.  Next, I figure to replace my Spyder2express hardware with either the Spyder3 or i1display2 sensor.  Any advice?  Thank you.
(Dell 2408wfp monitor,NVIDIA GeForce 8600GT video card)
Logged
Mark D Segal
Contributor
Sr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 6905


WWW
« Reply #1 on: November 12, 2009, 01:34:34 PM »
ReplyReply

Find out whether this display has an Adobe RGB(98) color gamut. If it does not, you don't need a Spyder 3.
Logged

Mark D Segal (formerly MarkDS)
Author: "Scanning Workflows with SilverFast 8....." http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/film/scanning_workflows_with_silverfast_8.shtml
ChuckZ
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 59


WWW
« Reply #2 on: November 12, 2009, 03:58:53 PM »
ReplyReply

The spec for my current monitor says 110% CIE1976(Lab color space) which might be less than Adobe1998.  However, some day I would like to get a higher end monitor.
Logged
Mark D Segal
Contributor
Sr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 6905


WWW
« Reply #3 on: November 12, 2009, 04:01:31 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: ChuckZ
The spec for my current monitor says 110% CIE1976(Lab color space) which might be less than Adobe1998.  However, some day I would like to get a higher end monitor.
Doesn't sound right.
Logged

Mark D Segal (formerly MarkDS)
Author: "Scanning Workflows with SilverFast 8....." http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/film/scanning_workflows_with_silverfast_8.shtml
ChuckZ
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 59


WWW
« Reply #4 on: November 12, 2009, 04:51:35 PM »
ReplyReply

Here is how the monitor specs read:

Color Gamut
 110%* typical
 * 2408WFP Color Gamut (Typical) is based on CIE1976 (110%) and CIE1931 (102%).
 
So maybe these specs don't make sense? Oh well.

Assuming that someday I get a wide gamut monitor, which sensor would you recommend?

Logged
Mark D Segal
Contributor
Sr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 6905


WWW
« Reply #5 on: November 12, 2009, 08:38:02 PM »
ReplyReply

I haven't used it myself so I can't make a first-hand recommendation, but people I trust who know these products recommend the Spyder 3. You should check it out from other sources on the web. Also have a look at what Integrated-Color says about it.
Logged

Mark D Segal (formerly MarkDS)
Author: "Scanning Workflows with SilverFast 8....." http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/film/scanning_workflows_with_silverfast_8.shtml
ChuckZ
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 59


WWW
« Reply #6 on: November 13, 2009, 12:10:21 PM »
ReplyReply

Thanks Mark for your feedback. After considering what I have read on the Luminous Landscape site and others on the web, I ordered a ColorEyes Display Pro / Spyder3 bundle today.
Logged
Mark D Segal
Contributor
Sr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 6905


WWW
« Reply #7 on: November 13, 2009, 09:22:16 PM »
ReplyReply

Sounds like a good move. Let us know how it works for you.

Mark
Logged

Mark D Segal (formerly MarkDS)
Author: "Scanning Workflows with SilverFast 8....." http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/film/scanning_workflows_with_silverfast_8.shtml
Czornyj
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1400



WWW
« Reply #8 on: November 14, 2009, 04:13:04 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: MarkDS
Sounds like a good move. Let us know how it works for you.

Mark

I'm not so sure - I've tested Spyder on wide gamut displays with i1pro and ColorMunki as reference and wasn't impressed - and not only me:
http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/index....st&p=324772
« Last Edit: November 14, 2009, 04:36:15 PM by Czornyj » Logged

Mark D Segal
Contributor
Sr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 6905


WWW
« Reply #9 on: November 14, 2009, 04:30:03 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Czornyj
I'm not so sure - I've tested Spyder on wide gamut displays with i1pro and ColorMunki as reference and wasn't impressed - and not only me: http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/index....st&p=324772

I don't understand your post. Have you personally tested SPYDER 3 (Three; not Two or One) versus i1Pro and found that SPYDER 3 does not make a good profile but i1Pro does? SPYDER 3 has received very positive reviews; as well at least one reputable maker and vendor of colour management solutions (Integrated-Color) is offering it one of their bundles recommended for wide gamut displays, after having tested it themselves and determined that their customers should be satisfied with it.

Anyhow, each user must determine whether it meets their needs, regardless of any positive recommendations. Before buying a bundle, however, it would be good to find out whether the colorimeter is returnable for a credit. Usually software is not, but depending on what it is, it may be useful with a number of different instruments.
« Last Edit: November 14, 2009, 04:30:28 PM by MarkDS » Logged

Mark D Segal (formerly MarkDS)
Author: "Scanning Workflows with SilverFast 8....." http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/film/scanning_workflows_with_silverfast_8.shtml
Czornyj
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1400



WWW
« Reply #10 on: November 14, 2009, 04:35:50 PM »
ReplyReply

Yes, It was Spyder3

There was also an interesting thread on colorsync list - here's a very informative part of it:
Quote
To reply on the wish about frank opinions from other scientists: Weve evaluated at least 20 and up to 100 units of the following devices in the past 18 months to get an idea about the precision, repeatability and inter instrument agreement in real world usage for a scientific research project. The devices have been stock units - not especially selected ones to avoid any manufacturer selection. The Munki is missing because there is no real third party support for it.

- Eye One Display 2
- Spyder 3 Elite
- DTP94b
- EyeOne Pro Rev D

Weve used a Minolta CS200, CS1000 and CS2000 to get reference values. The test have been done on stabilized displays with the following base specs:
- 72% NTSC display with LG S-IPS and CCFL Backlight
- 72% NTSC display with LG S-IPS and pseudo white LED (blue LED + yellow phosphor) Backlight
- 92% NTSC display with LG S-IPS and CCFL Backlight (WCG)
- 102% NTSC display with LG S-IPS and CCFL Backlight (extended WCG)
- 108% NTSC display with LG S-IPS and RGB LED backlight

I will summarize the findings we had so far:

1) Inter instrument agreement between at least 20 units:

- EyeOne Display 2 - max 18E, mean 8 E
- Spyder 3 Elite - max 15 E, mean 7 E
- DTP94b - max 3 E, mean 1,5E
- EyeOne Pro Rev D - max 3 E, mean 2 E

As recommended by others, one should only make use of one (1) EyeOne D2 or Spyder 3 unit for all installed displays, because the tolerances between these devices are much too high to get consistent results. Even the 3E max tolerance of the DTP94 or EyeOne pro can be too high. However, both devices show a much better inter instrument agreement.

2) Measurement quality

We used the "best" set of the evaluated units to perform some quality tests. All selected colorimeters showed an acceptable performance on the 72% NTSC CCFL display. However, on a white LED unit, the readings differ a lot from the reference. The spectra of a white LED unit differs a lot from a standard CCFL it replaces and the colorimeters are trained on a specific panel type and spectra. As soon as the spectra differs too much, the device tends to report wrong readings. The Wide Gamut CCFL and RGB-LED readings showed - as expected- even larger deviations. When the colorimeters are trained on the specific panel/spectra, their readings again reach an acceptable quality. However, the filter set of the DTP94 proofed to be farer away from the CIE standard observer than the ones from the EyeOne Display 2 or the Spyder. It needs therefore a higher correction for wide gamut display. Although, the EyeOne Dispaly 2s and Spyder 3s filter may match better to the CIE curves, they are still far off. As a result, all colorimeters need a correction for
wide gamut (and white LED according to our test). Some display vendors use specially trained sensors for their wide gamut displays, others use standard ones and implement the training on the specific panel/spectra in the calibration software. The result should be always the same. But, keeping the large deviations from (1) in mind , its at least questionable if the single EyeOne Display 2 or Spyder 3 Elite matches the correction curve (either in Hardware or in Software). For the sensors that come bundled with a display, one can only hope that the inter instrument agreement is better than with standard retail units.


3) Differences between Colorimeter and Spectro during the tests

The only visible deviations that weve seen was a quite noticeable difference in the dark tone represenation on the selected displays. The older 72% NTSC unit had a lowest black of 0.5cd/m2. Here, the EyeOne Pro
Rev.D performed equal to the colorimeters. On the 72% white LED and 92% NTSC CCFL with only 0.3cd/m2, the EyeOne pro started to created more noise in the darks and had a lot of questionable readings. As far as I know, the Spectro is not able to set individual integration times with different luminance levels (in contrast to the colorimeters). The visible result can be described as drowning dark tones (no matter if they were real blacks or dark colors). This gets even worse with the RGB LED backlighted 108% NTSc unit. This unit had a blackpoint of only 0.1cd/m2 and here weve seen even more drowning and colorfull (noisy darks with visible colorshifts and high Kelvins) darks - to be fair, the EyeOne Pro is not specified for dark readings below 0.2cd/m2. However, even the EyeOne Display and the Spyder created more noise on this display than on the thers. The DTP94 created the best results - in terms of details and neutrality - in the darks but is also well known for being the slowest device at all. The dark readings of the DTP94b take even more time as the device adjusts the integration time (like the other colorimeters, too). The EyeOne pro uses - compared to the 1nm reporting of the CS2000 - a wider sampling interval. It has been often discussed, that the relatively small peaks of CCFL displays (discontinous spectral characteristic of CCFLs) may cause interpolations errors with the EyeOne pro, because they can be spectrally located between two 10nm measurement steps. This can be noticed on both, the 92% and 102% unit in comparison to the Minolta Spectroradiometers. However, there is no visible difference between the Colorimeters and the EyeOne pro in real world perception tests. Therefore - according to our tests - there is a limitation of the EyeOne regarding the spectral interval, but is has no or little effect on the color representation on the selected displays.

To summarize, the EyeOne Pro Rev D (the A/B Revs performed far less good) is well suited for todays displays except the extreme dark readings. All Colorimeters need an additional correction matrix on wide gamut and white LED displays. Additionally, 2 of the 3 evaluated colorimeters suffer from poor inter instrument agreement. The DTP94 (not available from Xrite any more) performed close to the EyeOne Pro in regards of inter instrument agreement and with a correction for wide gamut, it showed the best results even on the displays with lower black luminances.

I hope this makes the image a bit clearer.
« Last Edit: November 14, 2009, 04:37:01 PM by Czornyj » Logged

Mark D Segal
Contributor
Sr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 6905


WWW
« Reply #11 on: November 14, 2009, 04:53:03 PM »
ReplyReply

If the best option suggested above with qualifiers is the i1Pro, what is the cost of that relative to the Spyder 3, and how does that cost difference compare to the needs of the OP? Also do a google search on the i1Pro Rev D and you will find that it is not all roses either. The information you quote recommends a DTP-94 with "corrections", which COlorEyes also offers without the "corrections" - one would need to know what those corrections are and how to do them. Interesting, however, that the same vendor who bundles both colorimeters with their software, and has tested each, still recommends the Spyder 3 for wide-gamut displays - unless they are unaware of the "corrections" to be applied to the DTP-94, and what method and software are needed to do that.

Now Chuck tells us he has already ordered what he ordered, so he has a choice of either cancelling his order and doing more fundamental research, or letting it proceed, install it and try it, and see whether it works for him. I know the Forum you are quoting from; there are tendancies in some circles to discuss theory and perfection, with insufficient emphasis on budgets and useability relative to the requirements of different users. One needs to read all this stuff with an eye to practicality.
Logged

Mark D Segal (formerly MarkDS)
Author: "Scanning Workflows with SilverFast 8....." http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/film/scanning_workflows_with_silverfast_8.shtml
Czornyj
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1400



WWW
« Reply #12 on: November 15, 2009, 04:25:30 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: MarkDS
If the best option suggested above with qualifiers is the i1Pro, what is the cost of that relative to the Spyder 3, and how does that cost difference compare to the needs of the OP? Also do a google search on the i1Pro Rev D and you will find that it is not all roses either. The information you quote recommends a DTP-94 with "corrections", which COlorEyes also offers without the "corrections" - one would need to know what those corrections are and how to do them. Interesting, however, that the same vendor who bundles both colorimeters with their software, and has tested each, still recommends the Spyder 3 for wide-gamut displays - unless they are unaware of the "corrections" to be applied to the DTP-94, and what method and software are needed to do that.

Now Chuck tells us he has already ordered what he ordered, so he has a choice of either cancelling his order and doing more fundamental research, or letting it proceed, install it and try it, and see whether it works for him. I know the Forum you are quoting from; there are tendancies in some circles to discuss theory and perfection, with insufficient emphasis on budgets and useability relative to the requirements of different users. One needs to read all this stuff with an eye to practicality.

Mark - I'm not trying to recommend i1pro for monitor calibration, considering the cost of the device it's a pure nonsense. I'd eventually recommend ColorMunki (I belive it's as good as i1pro), but it still costs a lot of money so it's not a real alternative.

I only wanted to point out the fact, that presently available colorimeters are not perfect when it comes to wide gamut display calibration and profiling, so we can't rely 100% on them. I even belive that in some cases they might make things worse.

The corrections are only available in custom made instruments (like i1 for NEC), and in custom profiling software (like Eizo Color Navigator, or Quato iColor display), so it's not commonly available.

The disadvantages of using a spectrophotometer for display calibration are also mentioned in Raimar's excellent study.
« Last Edit: November 15, 2009, 04:38:13 PM by Czornyj » Logged

Mark D Segal
Contributor
Sr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 6905


WWW
« Reply #13 on: November 15, 2009, 06:46:55 PM »
ReplyReply

You put your finger on the dilemma - nothing is perfect. But then again, perfection *may* not be required. And there are wide differences of opionion about what is "good enough", because once you leave the world of numbers and theory and turn to operational considerations, that is a subjective judgment which depends on the user. While the limitations of the DTP-94 for wide gamurt displays have been mentioned by some (including me reporting second-hand), there is another view I received today from a colleague who does colour-management for a living, saying that he proifiled 3 Dell 2408 WFP displays (approximating Adobe RGB 98 gamut) with a DTP-94 and < the results were excellent: nice and neutral, smooth, no problems reported by the client either>. So if the Spyder 3 performs better yet with wide gamut displays, Chuck should be OK.
Logged

Mark D Segal (formerly MarkDS)
Author: "Scanning Workflows with SilverFast 8....." http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/film/scanning_workflows_with_silverfast_8.shtml
ChuckZ
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 59


WWW
« Reply #14 on: November 16, 2009, 11:09:16 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: MarkDS
You put your finger on the dilemma - nothing is perfect. But then again, perfection *may* not be required. And there are wide differences of opionion about what is "good enough", because once you leave the world of numbers and theory and turn to operational considerations, that is a subjective judgment which depends on the user. While the limitations of the DTP-94 for wide gamurt displays have been mentioned by some (including me reporting second-hand), there is another view I received today from a colleague who does colour-management for a living, saying that he proifiled 3 Dell 2408 WFP displays (approximating Adobe RGB 98 gamut) with a DTP-94 and < the results were excellent: nice and neutral, smooth, no problems reported by the client either>. So if the Spyder 3 performs better yet with wide gamut displays, Chuck should be OK.

The Spyder3/CEDP bundle is scheduled to arrive by Friday.  After the new calibration and softproofing, I'll send a new batch of pictures to WHCC and wait in anticipation to see if I get better results.
Logged
Mark D Segal
Contributor
Sr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 6905


WWW
« Reply #15 on: November 16, 2009, 11:19:54 PM »
ReplyReply

If you are sending the files to be printed elsewhere, I assume you have the printer's profile and you are softproofing and adjusting the images with the softproof active, Simulate Paper White selected, Black Point Compensation selected and the correct printer profile shown. You will only know if colour management is working for you if you have the whole chain under control. Please let us know the results from the new bundle once you have something to write about. All the best with it.
Logged

Mark D Segal (formerly MarkDS)
Author: "Scanning Workflows with SilverFast 8....." http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/film/scanning_workflows_with_silverfast_8.shtml
ChuckZ
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 59


WWW
« Reply #16 on: December 07, 2009, 11:22:46 AM »
ReplyReply

I received a set of prints for images I processed using the Spyder3/Color Eyes Display Pro and a profile made by the lab for their printer.  The prints still don't match what the soft proof looks like on my monitor, but they look a lot closer than they did when I used the old setup (Spyder2/Express)  The main difference now is that the colors look a bit more saturated on the monitor than they do on paper.  I'm guessing that this difference might be due to the difference in viewing on a monitor vs viewing on paper.
Logged
Mark D Segal
Contributor
Sr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 6905


WWW
« Reply #17 on: December 07, 2009, 12:09:52 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: ChuckZ
I received a set of prints for images I processed using the Spyder3/Color Eyes Display Pro and a profile made by the lab for their printer.  The prints still don't match what the soft proof looks like on my monitor, but they look a lot closer than they did when I used the old setup (Spyder2/Express)  The main difference now is that the colors look a bit more saturated on the monitor than they do on paper.  I'm guessing that this difference might be due to the difference in viewing on a monitor vs viewing on paper.

Glad you are getting closer. When you soft-proofed the images, did your custom proof set-up have "Simulate Paper white" checked on? This is important. Also, you should be comparing the printed results with the monitor soft-proof in this same condition.
Logged

Mark D Segal (formerly MarkDS)
Author: "Scanning Workflows with SilverFast 8....." http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/film/scanning_workflows_with_silverfast_8.shtml
ChuckZ
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 59


WWW
« Reply #18 on: December 08, 2009, 03:39:00 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: MarkDS
Glad you are getting closer. When you soft-proofed the images, did your custom proof set-up have "Simulate Paper white" checked on? This is important. Also, you should be comparing the printed results with the monitor soft-proof in this same condition.

Per WHCC's instuctions, I left the "Simulate Paper Color" box unchecked during the soft proofing.  Per your suggestion, I checked that box and now my print looks even closer to what the monitor shows.  Thanks.
Logged
Mark D Segal
Contributor
Sr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 6905


WWW
« Reply #19 on: December 08, 2009, 03:46:05 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: ChuckZ
Per WHCC's instuctions, I left the "Simulate Paper Color" box unchecked during the soft proofing.  Per your suggestion, I checked that box and now my print looks even closer to what the monitor shows.  Thanks.

Good - leave the box checked, adjust your forthcoming images under that condition, send them off and see whether what comes back is pretty-much correct. You should be good to go now.
Logged

Mark D Segal (formerly MarkDS)
Author: "Scanning Workflows with SilverFast 8....." http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/film/scanning_workflows_with_silverfast_8.shtml
Pages: [1]   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad