Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 [2]   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Spyder3 Studio  (Read 6882 times)
digitaldog
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 9241



WWW
« Reply #20 on: April 16, 2010, 11:11:32 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: probep
No, I didn't use the Lstar mode in Spyder3Print software.

That's not what I'm suggesting. I'm suggesting that the deltaE error is mostly Lstar (light to dark) instead of color shifts. We need to know where the deltaE errors are happening, I'm thinking, based on what I'm seeing in the screen captures that its a luminance error.
Logged

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

Posts: 691


WWW
« Reply #21 on: April 17, 2010, 12:18:40 AM »
ReplyReply

Hi,

I have had limited experience with the Spyder Studio, but I find it to be a struggle to use compared to using the iOne iMatch with iOnePro. Here in Australia the iOne profiling solutions is more the 3 times more expensive. but I can see myself with more headaches using the Spyder Studio then the iOne solution. The spyder was slow and cumbersome, the results were no where near the canned profiles and miles away from the iOne. Which gave me great results.

From my limited experiences with it, I would not choose the spyder solution. I was very tempted by its price, but I had to return it. I am wondering if the ColorMunki is any better?

Henrik

PS: I am not saying I know everything about the Spyder and therefore dismiss it, but the experience I had was not encouraging to continue to use it.
Logged
probep
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 149


« Reply #22 on: April 17, 2010, 12:53:44 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: digitaldog
We need to know where the deltaE errors are happening, I'm thinking, based on what I'm seeing in the screen captures that its a luminance error.
OK, look at the tables below.
« Last Edit: April 17, 2010, 01:54:24 AM by probep » Logged
digitaldog
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 9241



WWW
« Reply #23 on: April 17, 2010, 09:51:40 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: tived
I am wondering if the ColorMunki is any better?

The quality of the print profiles are easily on par and some could suggest superior (with the new core technology and iteration options) than EyeOne Match.
Logged

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

Posts: 9241



WWW
« Reply #24 on: April 17, 2010, 09:53:54 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: probep
OK, look at the tables below.

It be useful if the software would sort by deltaE (how hard can that be), but yes, the big errors I see just glancing here appear to be the Lstar values which is odd and interesting at the same time.
Logged

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

Posts: 9241



WWW
« Reply #25 on: April 17, 2010, 10:00:58 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: digitaldog
It be useful if the software would sort by deltaE (how hard can that be), but yes, the big errors I see just glancing here appear to be the Lstar values which is odd and interesting at the same time.

Wait, I looked too quickly. What I really hopped to see, sorted by deltaE is the reference compared to the measured data if possible. I see you have the measured data from both products although, if you say the X-Rite package is closer, then it still points to a luminance error or issue with the Spyder. Or is the EyeOne values the measured data from the target itself (which is kind of like our reference)?

How many patches did you measure to build the Spyder profile? Could the instrument be iffy?
Logged

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

Posts: 149


« Reply #26 on: April 17, 2010, 10:29:16 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: digitaldog
Wait, I looked too quickly. What I really hopped to see, sorted by deltaE is the reference compared to the measured data if possible. I see you have the measured data from both products although, if you say the X-Rite package is closer, then it still points to a luminance error or issue with the Spyder. Or is the EyeOne values the measured data from the target itself (which is kind of like our reference)?

How many patches did you measure to build the Spyder profile? Could the instrument be iffy?
I've got original X-Rite ColorChecker (X-Rite don't supply a ColorChecker with individually measured reference data) and measured it with i1Pro (using MeasureTool from ProfileMaker) and with Spyder3Print SR. And then compared results.
Logged
MHMG
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 639


« Reply #27 on: April 18, 2010, 11:18:22 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: probep
OK, look at the tables below.

Hi ProbeP,

Looking over the table, I see a tendency of your Spyder3 to be reading the L* channel too high. Note, for example, that on the A4 white patch of the Colorchecker you were reading 99.8 with the Spyder3. That patch is not that bright and should be coming in around 96-97 like the i1 reads it. This suggests you may be having a little trouble calibrating the Spyder unit on it's white tile. It tends to be a little snug, at least on the two units I've used, so you want to make sure that when you stick the unit's snout into the trough of the calibration tile, that you are applying enough downward pressure to get it correctly into contact. If you don't, the unit will  "see" the tile as darker, and then treat that lower reading as the reference value. The net effect is that your subsequent measurements will read high, which would explain your results.

I have two Spyder3printSR units (one I bought, and the other kindly sent to me by Datacolor because I teach some courses here at AaI&A). They match my Spectrolinos pretty close, only a little further off on the green colors than I'd like to see, but not as much as you are experiencing, and definitely not enough to cause a serious error with profiling. Measurements of the neutrals are very close indeed, which is why I suspect you may just have a minor problem seating your unit into it's tile when making the initial calibration.

One other comment for new SpyderPRintSR users. I was definitely "user-challenged" initially when using the scan mode on the SpyderPrintSR unit. I had to train myself to do it right, and the way I ended up teaching myself how to get the correct hand-eye coordination was to build an Excel Spreadsheet, take two sets of measurements, and then compare delta E's in my spreadsheet. At first, I had some real fliers in the two data sets, but as I got into the groove, I found instrument repeatability was very good, with an average delta E between the two sets of measurements less than 0.5.  Not bad for an inexpensive colorimeter (i.e., spectrocolorimeter, or whatever one calls it).

cheers,

Mark
http://www.aardenburg-imaging.com
Logged
probep
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 149


« Reply #28 on: April 18, 2010, 11:55:28 AM »
ReplyReply

MHMG
Yes, you are right about high L*.
But I calibrated the Spyder3 each time before each measurement. BTW I measured the ColorChecker 3 times and then averaged results.
OK, maybe my measurements were incorrect. I'll re-measure the ColorChecker. In the dark room.
BTW profiles created with the Spyder3Print SR are good enought. And the difference between the i1Pro and the Spyder3Print SR for non-original ColorChecker (printed copy of the ColorChecker) is much better than for original CC. Maybe my Spyder3Print SR doesn't "like" original CC?
« Last Edit: April 18, 2010, 08:41:31 PM by probep » Logged
MHMG
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 639


« Reply #29 on: April 18, 2010, 12:40:13 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: probep
MHMG
Yes, you are right about high L*.
But I calibrated the Spyder3 each time before each measurement. BTW I measured the ColorChecker 3 times and then averaged results.
OK, maybe my measurements were incorrect. I'll re-measure the ColorChecker once more. In dark room.
BTW profiles created with Spyder3Print SR are good enought. And the difference between i1Pro and Spyder3Print SR for non-original ColorChecker (printed copy of the ColorChecker) is much better than for original CC. Maybe Spyder3Print SR don't "like" original CC?

Yes, but I'm just saying if you don't press down firmly on the unit when calibrating, it may not seat correctly, and therefore not calibrate correctly. Just letting it rest on its own weight is definitely not good enough to get proper contact with the calibration tile. Press firmly!   I suspect this is the key source of your measurement error, at least as far as the hand readings you are making on the CC.

As for profiling, I initially generated a very poor profile with the Spyder3Print SR unit using the scan mode and reading an "extended greys" target. The profile had rather bizarre behavior in the shadows resulting in a sort of posterized appearance. When I began to investigate my measurements as the possible source of the problem, I realized that I was indeed making very poor measurements. Bad measurements build lousy profiles. It's not the fault of the software profiling engine nor the instrument accuracy itself. It's operator error caused during the "get acquanted" phase of learning how to use the product correctly. Datacolor should perhaps give more "heads up" advice on how to use the instrument, but apparently the vast majority of its customers aren't a user-challenged idiot like me     Anyway, it wasn't the instrument itself. It was my initial scanning technique that introduced the large errors. In fact, in subsequent conversations with the folks at Datacolor, it became clear there had been an encoding error in the instruction video that leads the new user into thinking the appropriate scan speed is significantly different than what it should be. I hope Datacolor has since fixed this error in its tutorial regarding correct use of the device.  When you scan way too fast or way to slow, the software will alert you, but when you scan slightly too fast or slightly too slow, you pick up leading or trailing edges of each patch in a way that the software doesn't flag, and then you have big errors in your measurements used to build the profile.  So, get that sorted, and then it works great and builds very nice profiles. But that said, if you haven't "trained" yourself correctly  then garbage in garbage out.  

BTW, I understand the Colormunki can also do a great job building profiles as Digital dog has noted, but it will have definite issues with its iterative measurement technique when used to profile dye-based printers. Short term drift of the dye/paper combo can lead to large errors if you don't slow the whole profiling process down to allow for reasonable "drying time" of the dyes. Not a big problem with pigments (they settle to final color in a matter of minute/hours), but dye-based systems can take many days to settle into their final color.  Thus, the Datacolor product, with it's single target measurment process, has an advantage over the Colormunki when profiling dye-based systems (you only have to wait for one sufficient dry-down period, not two).  I"m just saying... the low end packages can do a very nice job if you work with them patiently, but the higher end packages like the i1 pro are also money well spent if you can go the distance on the higher price.

cheers,
Mark
Logged
digitaldog
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 9241



WWW
« Reply #30 on: April 19, 2010, 07:54:17 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: MHMG
When I began to investigate my measurements as the possible source of the problem, I realized that I was indeed making very poor measurements. Bad measurements build lousy profiles. It's not the fault of the software profiling engine nor the instrument accuracy itself. It's operator error caused during the "get acquanted" phase of learning how to use the product correctly.

I wouldn't let Datacolor off the hook all together here Mark. They did design the instrument and process so if a number of users are experiencing what you and the OP report, that's bad. It should at the very least report a questionable measurement or, like the EyeOne and Munki, report errors to the user. Bad enough it requires a one patch at a time process which sounds like agony (from someone that did this back in early 1990's using a ColorTron <g>) but to end up with a lousy profile is kind of inexcusable.
Logged

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

Posts: 149


« Reply #31 on: April 19, 2010, 12:06:52 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: MHMG
Yes, but I'm just saying if you don't press down firmly on the unit when calibrating, it may not seat correctly, and therefore not calibrate correctly. Just letting it rest on its own weight is definitely not good enough to get proper contact with the calibration tile. Press firmly!   I suspect this is the key source of your measurement error, at least as far as the hand readings you are making on the CC.
Yes, you are absolutely right. I've re-measured X-Rite ColorChecker with Spyder3Print SR folowing your advice. Moreover I measured the ColorChecker 7 times, then averaged results. Yes, it was better: the difference between MY Spyder3Print and MY i1Pro for my ColorChecker was avr. dE00=1.08 (max dE00=2.89).
Logged
MHMG
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 639


« Reply #32 on: April 19, 2010, 12:40:36 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: digitaldog
I wouldn't let Datacolor off the hook all together here Mark. They did design the instrument and process so if a number of users are experiencing what you and the OP report, that's bad. It should at the very least report a questionable measurement or, like the EyeOne and Munki, report errors to the user. Bad enough it requires a one patch at a time process which sounds like agony (from someone that did this back in early 1990's using a ColorTron <g>) but to end up with a lousy profile is kind of inexcusable.

Well, there is truth in what you say. The Spyder3PrintSR does have a scan mode that, once you get the hang of it, is reasonably convenient. But, its "scan" mode is certainly more primitive than the Xrite method for the i1 and Colormunki.  As I understand it, the Xrite instruments take multiple readings as the unit moves over each patch and then Xrite uses the software and reference values to isolate the "good data" that is read somewhere within the area of each patch. Spyder3 printSR uses a very basic IR detection scheme that looks for the black/white stripes at the leading edge of each patch which tells it that the next patch is coming. Then it further relies on a simple timing mechanism (something like 0.5 seconds after the IR stripe detection) to trigger the color reading of the patch.

The obvious weakness in the Spyder3PrintSR scan mode method is that if you are moving the instrument at a steady pace forward but nevertheless going too slow or too fast, the single color reading doesn't occur in the middle of each patch. The software does detect when you clearly miss, but it doesn't easily detect a situation where, for example, the aperture has not made it fully onto the patch and a little of the stripe is still being integrated into the reading. Hence an error, but not so big that the software can detect. Ditto, if you move to fast and the reading takes place with the aperture now starting to hit the trailing edge stripe. Thus, for users who haven't taken the time to figure out this end-user scanning pace like I did, the Datacolor product does invite some user-skill problems.  With the bigger "EZ targets" there is more forgiveness, with the smaller "Expert" targets, I consider this scan mode technique to be challenging at best. Better to read the smaller-sized Expert patches with the single-patch reading mode rather than the new "scan" mode.

Also, if you follow my logic on how the Spyder3PrintSR detects patches, you will conclude as I did that a way to improve one's odds of landing in the middle of each patch at the right time is not to go at a steady scan speed forward, but rather to move quickly over each stripe then pause deliberately in the middle of each patch and wait for the "click" sound taken as it measures, then rinse and repeat as they say. This quick-slow scan technique improved my measuring success greatly, and I was even successful with this measuring technique on the smaller Expert patches.  Anyway,  I suggested to the Datacolor team that they build into their software a feature like Xrite's Measure tool that let's you compare two sets of readings. Then offer the ability right in the software to go back and remeasure the patches where the two readings don't agree). I was told that this feature would be too complicated for the typical user, but ironically, the current Spyderprint software does support advanced features like averaging of two data sets and exporting data to text files. Go figure!

So, to be fair, the Datacolor product does build decent profiles, and has many nice features in the software that photographers will like, but it also demands some skill and patience from the user that some people may find frustrating. Simply put, make sure you are are getting the instrument fully in contact with the calibration tile by putting a little additional downward pressure on the head, and also take the time to train yourself on the correct pace when using the instrument's new "scan mode" feature. Once I had these two issues figured out, then I was able to get very good and repeatable results. That said, I heartily recommend the "compare two sets of measurements" routine for optimum results, but this perfectionist's approach does mean having to take two complete sets of readings, and also having some knowledge of Excel since you can't do the delta E comparison in the software at this time.
Logged
MHMG
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 639


« Reply #33 on: April 19, 2010, 01:07:33 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: probep
Yes, you are absolutely right. I've re-measured X-Rite ColorChecker with Spyder3Print SR folowing your advice. Moreover I measured the ColorChecker 7 times, then averaged results. Yes, it was better: the difference between MY Spyder3Print and MY i1Pro for my ColorChecker was avr. dE00=1.08 (max dE00=2.89).


Good to hear. Your inter-instrument agreement may not be quite up to Laboratory grade instrumentation, but for the price, one should not expect it to be. Nonetheless, it appears that your Spyder3PrintSR unit is providing more than adequate color accuracy to build very good custom profiles. They will be much better than the hit-and-miss world of generic profiles. Step outside the OEM printer-paper-ink combinations with tuned media settings and carefully matched profiles, and I believe it's well worth owning an instrument like the Spyder3PrintSR or the Colormunki. In addition to building custom profiles, they are great little tools for periodically checking that your printers, inks, and papers aren't drifting away from their normal output.  That said, the i1 is probably the most versatile color measuring tool on the market today for serious photographers and printmakers who can afford the higher price tag.

cheers,

Mark
http://www.aardenburg-imaging.com
Logged
Pages: « 1 [2]   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad