Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 [2]   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Spyder vs. Eye One, any difference?  (Read 14498 times)
shewhorn
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 540


WWW
« Reply #20 on: December 26, 2009, 12:01:07 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: probep
And once again, read this post

Thanks for that... the info that Czornyj quoted was a fascinating read. Before I started my photography biz I used to be a software engineer in the pro audio industry and that experience has always had me wondering about the accuracy and consistency of colorimeters. As far as transducers go colorimeters are REALLY cheap, at least when you're considering something that's being used to maintain a certain reference for output. I found this to be an interesting statement:

"However, there is no visible difference between the Colorimeters and the EyeOne pro in real world perception tests."

I found that to be a bit curious because I do see a difference in the results that my DTP94, Spyder3, and i1v2 produce although I suppose there could be a few different definitions for "real world". Is "real world" defined as going through a workflow from photograph to print and judging the quality of the result based upon what the print looks like? Some of the differences I'm seeing are admittedly "measurbation" differences but some are noticeable color casts. I've also noticed that certain pucks favor certain screens (perhaps "favor" isn't the best term but I do get better results on one screen with a given puck and on another a different puck will be a better choice (and it's not necessarily related to gamut issues where one is capable of a higher gamut than the other).

Cheers, Joe
Logged
kevs
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 302


« Reply #21 on: December 26, 2009, 12:47:02 AM »
ReplyReply

Joe,
thanks,
what is color eyes? Never heard of it, never seen anyone bring it up?
It's basically taking one of the pucks and instead of using x-rite or Colorvisions software using a 3rd parties?

What would xrite or colorvision say to that?

What is your opinon on it?
Logged

Imac 27"
10.6.8
CS5
shewhorn
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 540


WWW
« Reply #22 on: December 26, 2009, 02:09:24 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: kevs
Joe,
thanks,
what is color eyes? Never heard of it, never seen anyone bring it up?
It's basically taking one of the pucks and instead of using x-rite or Colorvisions software using a 3rd parties?

What would xrite or colorvision say to that?

What is your opinon on it?

My experience is that assuming you have a puck which can adequately handle the gamut of your screen, the software you are using to profile it makes a MUCH bigger difference than the puck. Color Eyes Display Pro is published by Integrated Color.

http://www.integrated-color.com

I have Eye One Match, and Datacolor's software as well (came with the pucks of course) and CEDP in my experience (especially when it comes to matching density in a print) blows the other two away. The profiles that Datacolor generates in my experience are particularly with regards to shadow detail. One of CEDP's big claims to fame is that is really focuses on getting density right. They measure and balance 49 different levels of grey before they even start getting into the color and that's more samples than most packages do for the whole deal. In total CEDP samples 76 different patches to generate its profile so if nothing else, it's thorough as all heck! Anyhow, the end result is the most neutral profiles I've seen with regards to color casts, or lack there of. CEDP works with a number of different pucks (it does not however support the Color Munki and I don't believe they have any plans to).

Another really excellent package is BasICColor. I have a hunch that both are built on the exact same code base (or at least the engine that does most of the math) as Integrated Color but their interfaces are quite different and offer different options. I recently played with the demo version of BasICColor and while it doesn't sample quite as many patches as CEDP it still produces a very nice profile.

Where I usually find that the other software packages fall down are in the accurate representation of shadows, and neutrality across a gradient of black to white. If you take a look here:

http://www.drycreekphoto.com/Learn/Calibra...or_gradient.htm

When I look at profiles generated with EyeOne Match or Datacolor's package I see color casts in certain areas throughout the gradient (I actually use my own gradient that I've created in Photoshop) but CEDP produces the most neutral results.

They have a demo version that you can download. I think it's good for 10 days. A lot of folks find the interface a bit overwhelming at first. It has more options than the other tools out there (with the exception of BasICColor) and the user interface could be a bit better but here's what I recommend to start with:

Color temp - this is a discussion all to itself, depends on your application but from a technical standpoint if you go with "native", that option will require the least amount of correction and will result in less banding. That may however (again depending upon your application) be the best option.

Gamma - L*

Black Point - Minimum relative

As for what XRite or Datacolor would say... (shrug) doesn't really matter. It's just a software package, you can use whatever software package you'd like.

Cheers, Joe
Logged
kevs
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 302


« Reply #23 on: December 26, 2009, 01:25:58 PM »
ReplyReply

Joe,
Are you saying that with IC, I can do little, leave room and come back and have better calibration than with xrite/ DC? (as with Artisan)

Don't have to time to test all this stuff, and I think it's better to just decided beforehand.

No reason then to have the software provided by xrite/DC correct?

What about this article that says eye one pucks are more inspected at factory than DC pucks?:
http://www.curtpalme.com/forum/viewtopic.p...d0f590a9819880a

this will all work good with new imacs?

You don't think the factory provided software with eye one will do the job well, and (this is new to me -- I've only had artisan) -- I'd have to fiddle a lot more with factory supplied software than with IC software.




Logged

Imac 27"
10.6.8
CS5
shewhorn
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 540


WWW
« Reply #24 on: December 26, 2009, 02:34:30 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: kevs
Joe,
Are you saying that with IC, I can do little, leave room and come back and have better calibration than with xrite/ DC? (as with Artisan)

Too many variables to say if the result will be better... that depends a lot on the screen BUT, It's the same amount of work after you've plugged in all the settings the very first time. Subsequent times you just launch the application, press the "profile" button and when you come back your luminance will be calibrated and the screen profiled. Nothing more to do (well... quit the application and start working).

Quote
No reason then to have the software provided by xrite/DC correct?

In my opinion yes. I haven't used any other software since I switched to Color Eyes a few years ago (aside from an occasional test to see if anything has improved with a subsequent revision but as of now, CEDP is still king). The exception I'm finding is SpectraView II but that's only available to NEC monitors that support it. Spectraview does a very nice job too. I will continue to use CEDP on my non-NEC monitors though.

Quote
What about this article that says eye one pucks are more inspected at factory than DC pucks?:
http://www.curtpalme.com/forum/viewtopic.p...d0f590a9819880a

I may have been lucky and just received a good copy? I'm not sure. I can say that my Spyder 3 works quite well. Color wise it covers beyond Adobe RGB in the greens but it's not as good as the SpectraView modified i1v2 in the blues (the model that ships with the SpectraView package is in theory modified to support wide gamut displays, I haven't tested a regular i1v2 from the factory though so I'm not sure how it would compare to a factor i1v2).

There was an article in another thread which Czornyj posted which was quite interesting, basically it a was a study of 20 samples of various colorimeters to see how consistent they were. The conclusion was that visually they all produce results close enough that the human eye can't distinguish between the generated profiles but for scientific work (for the purpose of tracking consistency) they were not accurate enough (depending on how "real world" is defined that's something I would dispute because I can see differences in the profiles generated... they are subtle and might be considered small enough to not have an impact on a final print but I can see them).

I can tell you that there is quite a dramatic difference in the values that each of my pucks report... If I calibrate the NEC to D65 and then measure it with the DTP94, the DTP94 will report a color temp of 7400 and if I measure with the Spyder 3 it will report a color temp of about 5600K so the objective numbers are WILDLY inconsistent (and luminance differs as well by up to 15 cd/m^2) BUT, if I do the initial cal with the i1v2 (or any other colorimeter for that matter) and then use the measure feature to get the color temp and the luminance subsequent profiles with other pucks will be really close.

Quote
this will all work good with new imacs?

Integrated Color just released an update to support Snow Leopard. There's a few folks who are running into issues on SL but I think those are installation issues from folks who already had CEDP installed in a previous version of OS X (at least I believe that's the case as creating a completely new user profile with Administrative privs and installing it seems to solve previous installation issues they had).

When installing CEDP make sure you do install it from an account that has Administrative privileges otherwise you will run into some issues (once installed though there are no issues using it with a regular user account).

I'm using CEDP on my 17" MBP which shipped with my laptop and I've not run into any problems at all. I'm still on 10.5.8 on my workstation.

Quote
You don't think the factory provided software with eye one will do the job well, and (this is new to me -- I've only had artisan) -- I'd have to fiddle a lot more with factory supplied software than with IC software.

For clarity are you talking about the software that shipped with the Artisan or the i1 puck? I can't speak to the Artisan but with regards to the Eye One Match software vs. CEDP, if you're viewing a print under a full spectrum 4700K Solux Bulb at the proper distance and you have the same image up on screen and you're running a soft proof with the proper profile loaded, the CEDP generated result matches the print MUCH better than the Eye One Match result in my experience. I've seen this on a number of different monitors with prints sourced from a number of different labs. I've introduce a few photographers in my area to CEDP and once they see the difference they've never switched back. The difference between CEDP and Eye One Match is a MUCH bigger difference than say the difference between an i1v2 and a Spyder 3. Specifically CEDP seems to be far more accurate when it comes to representing shadow detail and having that density actually match up with what you see on a print with a proper full spectrum light source.

Cheers, Joe
Logged
kevs
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 302


« Reply #25 on: December 26, 2009, 05:55:19 PM »
ReplyReply

JOe,
thanks. Sorry for being so inexperiend, but with the default softwares from eye one and DV, you can't just return to your set profile? You have to jump tedious hoops each and every time? If so I might just get Color Eyes for that convenicen if that is the case.
-------
I was not asking about the mac OS, but more about their screens. ( I just got the 27" imac -- my first mac display)
Many color gurus disparage the Mac Displays as being virtually non calibratible. (just invented that word sorry)
------
How is color eyes tech support? UK company?
Logged

Imac 27"
10.6.8
CS5
shewhorn
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 540


WWW
« Reply #26 on: December 26, 2009, 08:28:05 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: kevs
JOe,
thanks. Sorry for being so inexperiend, but with the default softwares from eye one and DV, you can't just return to your set profile? You have to jump tedious hoops each and every time? If so I might just get Color Eyes for that convenicen if that is the case.
-------
I was not asking about the mac OS, but more about their screens. ( I just got the 27" imac -- my first mac display)
Many color gurus disparage the Mac Displays as being virtually non calibratible. (just invented that word sorry)

Historically the iMac displays have been really really bad (at the lowest backlight levels the luminance was too bright on all of them and some models used TN panels so you'd get a lot of color shift with just very minor changes in viewing angle). I've yet to sit down with one (one being one of the new 27" models) myself so this is all second hand info but a few colleagues have 'em and say that they don't have the egregiously outrageous luminance issues (the lowest you could get 'em was about 180 cd/m^2) that they had in the past. It's still a glossy screen though and that present a whole host of other challenges but I hear that they're a lot better than they were. The 27" is using an S-IPS panel as well so off axis viewing should be acceptable. The real challenge is going to be dealing with reflections.

Whether or not it's good or bad.. or good for your applications or not... that depends upon quite a bit. If you make a living off of photography I'd say that it's worth it to invest in a LaCie, or an NEC screen. If you're not then it becomes a question of budget, priority, and how much time you spend a week making critical judgements with your screen. If it's only a few hours a week I'd say it's hard to justify the added expense of something like an NEC 2690, LaCie 324, etc. If you're printing yourself you can always crop out a section of the image your working on and run a small sample if you have a question about how it's going to reproduce. A little more time consuming but perhaps a good tradeoff vs cost? You'll still get fantastic results if you have a decent printer but it may take you a few more iterations to get there but if you have the time (and if you enjoy the process) then it's really not such a big deal. During the busy season I just don't have the time. I often need to nail things sight unseen as clients place orders and I have my lab drop ship the prints directly to the client.

I think the first thing though will be to get that bugger profiled and then run some test prints (be it with your lab or with whatever printer you use) and see how close the soft proof is to the final result and then go from there.

Quote
How is color eyes tech support? UK company?

They have an online forum where most of the support goes. I might be mistaken but I don't believe that they actually have phone support. They usually get back relatively quickly though. Integrated Color is based out of Massachusetts. I'm not far from them and I've been down there a few times to geek out with Derrick. Derrick and Jack provide the bulk of the support but the online community can be quite helpful as well in trouble shooting. I'm sure there's a ton of folks here using CEDP as well.

Cheers, Joe
Logged
kevs
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 302


« Reply #27 on: December 26, 2009, 08:57:38 PM »
ReplyReply

Joe, thanks I am pro photographer, but only print once in a blue moon for my portfolio, so getting an imac pro and another expensive monitor seemed silly as that would cost triple than the imac 27".

only question forgot to answer was my first one here:

"..........but with the default softwares from eye one and DV, you can't just return to your set profile? You have to jump tedious hoops each and every time?"

I"ve never owned anything but an Artisan, so with eyeone/ DV, each time you calibrate you have to sit there tediously doing settings etc?


thanks!


Logged

Imac 27"
10.6.8
CS5
shewhorn
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 540


WWW
« Reply #28 on: December 26, 2009, 11:29:31 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: kevs
only question forgot to answer was my first one here:

"..........but with the default softwares from eye one and DV, you can't just return to your set profile? You have to jump tedious hoops each and every time?"

I"ve never owned anything but an Artisan, so with eyeone/ DV, each time you calibrate you have to sit there tediously doing settings etc?

Ahh... sorry about that. Absolutely not. What you do have to do is manually set the backlight level each time you run a profile but that's it. The both retain the settings from your previous profile. CEDP just makes it a little easier as they can talk directly to the backlight on all Apple products so all you have to do is press the button and take a break. IMO it's not a huge inconvenience to have to adjust the backlight by hand but it's nice NOT to have to do it too. That would certainly not be a deal breaker for me. The real value I find in CEDP is the quality of the profiles it produces.

If you were to get an external monitor for your iMac then you'd have to manually adjust the backlight level (unless it was an Apple branded display which I wouldn't recommend at this point as there are much better options available for about the same price (sometimes more, sometimes less)... if you're interested in Eizo monitors then CEDP does support full hardware calibration but personally for my own applications the laws of diminishing returns kicks in with the Eizos... I'd rather go with an NEC or LaCie option).

Cheers, Joe
Logged
kevs
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 302


« Reply #29 on: December 27, 2009, 12:41:46 AM »
ReplyReply

thanks Joe.
JOe, nobody ( I would think) is going to but the huge (wonderfully huge), 27" imac, and then buy another primary monitor!

That said, great info. I'm leaning toward starting from bottom up and seeing where is goes, then spending more if have to.

AS for the eye one LT, and crucial reason to get the 2 over the LT? (if you know or can surmise)
Logged

Imac 27"
10.6.8
CS5
feethea
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 87


« Reply #30 on: December 27, 2009, 07:51:04 AM »
ReplyReply

Hi Kevs,

Here's my support for what Joe said earlier, from a thread I started on No 16 2009: -

"This is simply my personal observation of my experiences in using the i1Display2 and Spyder3 monitor calibration tools very recently.

Before upgrading the graphics card I was unable to calibrate both monitors to produce the same colours within any image. One was weaker/darker than the other. I was using the i1Display2 on 'Easy' mode (as per Scott Kelby's recommendation in his books) - having tried the same on 'Advanced' mode without success, having spent a long time trying, and blowing my mind in the effort. It seemed that the problem was getting the white balance on both monitors to produce the same output.

Last week I upgraded my printer to the Epson 3880 from my Epson R2400 and with the relative shortage of ICC profiles from other paper manufacturers (come on Ilford - hurry up) I took the plunge and bought the Spyder3Studio SR kit - primarily for the print calibrator. Using the Spyder3 Elite, part of the pack, I attempted to recalibrate the two monitors - the result was the same re the white balance.

Feeling somewhat fed up I happened to re-watch Michael Reichman's video no.4 from 'Camera to Print' and right at the very end (so close to the end that I missed it first time around), having shown how to use the i1 unit, introduced me to a piece of software that he uses rather than the i1 software - ColourEyes Display Pro (www.integrated-color.com). He rates it as 'highly recommended' as it contains masses of information and help files. "Well" I thought "if its good enough for him ...." and downloaded the 10 day trial version. It works with many of the commonly available devices including the i1Display2 and the Spyder3. It guides you through the process and after a mere 5 adjustments on the left monitor, and 4 on the right one, I had a 100% accurate white balance on both. Now I am a very happy teddybear - confident in the fact that the same image on both monitors will look the same when I use them in LR 2.5 or Photoshop CS4. Integrated-Color are presumable happy as they have a new customer and several more dollars as a result of my purchase of the licence.
"

Hope this helps a little.

Barry

Logged
kevs
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 302


« Reply #31 on: December 27, 2009, 01:13:26 PM »
ReplyReply

Barry,
interesting. Being that you have to match two monitors, in a way you have a advantage to see if things are going well or not. I'm on just one 27" new imac.
that said, how did you know you had correct white balance besides the software telling you so?

JOe, same question to you:
how doyou know you had correct white balance besides the software telling you so?
----
A few people have posted files that supposedly will look colorful if you are not calibrated and grey if you are. Do you think these work? One seemed to work for me -- my Artisan showed a graph as grey while my cheap 2nd palette monitor which was not calibrated showed the graph as grey. Do you guys use this?

------
Barry, anyway, in case I do decide to start the process with eye one only, what is difference between LT and 2 and do you really need 2, what does it do extra, mandatory to have?
Logged

Imac 27"
10.6.8
CS5
Pages: « 1 [2]   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad