Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: [1] 2 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Which new profiling/calibrating device for wide gamut display etc.  (Read 9796 times)
HCHeyerdahl
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 47


WWW
« on: March 01, 2011, 12:58:03 AM »
ReplyReply

I have just replaced my trusty old CRTs with a couple of wide gamut Eizos (Flexscan sx 2462 and CG243). My old calibrator does not work on these, and is probably dated anyway. But what should I buy?

I do fine art prints and some stock. I do this for my own pleasure, and sales are small and really just for adding a touch of "play pro" to the fun.

I have a HP Z3200ps which has a spectro and patch reader built in. I am quite happy with what it does.

My dealer suggests the ColorMunki.

But, prehaps this is an opportunity to get more "serious" (or is it just more "geeky")? On the X-rite site I see that an upgrade of the Eye-1 is due, and BH has it ready for preorder. However, I would like som pointers to what the Eye-1 would add to my setup compared to just adding the ColorMunki?

I understand that the Eye-1 is more accurate, but exactly how will this help me get better prints? I imagine it is more consistent, so that the profile for my screens will be more consisten, but "how much"? Will I really notice the difference or will say, differing ambient light be of greater concern?

Will the Eye-1 outperform my printer´s on board spectro and patch reader to the extent that I will start using the Eye-1?

Christopher
« Last Edit: March 01, 2011, 01:14:33 AM by ChristopherHeyerdahl » Logged
ToniF
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 9


« Reply #1 on: March 01, 2011, 01:39:47 AM »
ReplyReply

Hi,

I own a CG243W and a SX2462 plus I1Pro. The profiles created with either Eizo Colornavigator or I1Match are very good.
For the printer i use an iSis together with Profilemaker (and i'm waiting for the I1Profiler and hope it comes out soon :-))

If i could go back i would buy the Munki and invest the rest of the $ into a lightbox or better environment. The accuracy diff. seems to be 0.04 for the I1pro or 0.06 dE for the Munki (this is for inter-instrument-agreement). A good comparison can be found here: http://www.xrite.com/documents/literature/en/L11-254_Product_Line_Comparison_en.pdf

However, if $$ is not the problem or if you want to use the Spectro for printer profiles then i would go with the I1. The built-in spectro in the printer is probably an I1.

Hope this helps,
Toni

Logged
HCHeyerdahl
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 47


WWW
« Reply #2 on: March 02, 2011, 12:41:48 AM »
ReplyReply

Thanks for sharing your experience!

I had actually read the document on the link, and although I could see from the facts that the Eye-1 is more accurate I was unsure about how much this really amounts to in an actual workflow.

From your experience, it seems that maybe the ColorMunki is the way to go. My dealer has let me borrow one to try it out, and it seems nice.

However, I am still a bit concerned that maybe a year or so down the line I will find that the Eye-1 has some ability I would need or that the greater accuracy should turn out important so that I will want to upgrade. Then money spent on the ColorMunki now would just be wasted.


Christopher
Logged
alfin
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 77


« Reply #3 on: March 02, 2011, 03:21:39 AM »
ReplyReply

If you get Eizo's EX1, which is a rebranded Spyder III, together with Eizo EasyPIX 2, you can hardware calibrate the SX2462W via the monitors internal LUT instead of via your computers video card. The EX1 can also be used with ColorNavigator together with your CG243W. It is a big advantage to be able to calibrate both monitors internally, unless you have a graphics card with double LUTs or two separate graphics cards.
Logged

Lars Mollerstrom
Czornyj
Sr. Member
****
Online Online

Posts: 1446



WWW
« Reply #4 on: March 02, 2011, 03:44:45 AM »
ReplyReply

you can hardware calibrate the SX2462W via the monitors internal LUT instead of via your computers video card.

Via internal LUT? Agh-hmm, cough, cough...
Logged

ToniF
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 9


« Reply #5 on: March 02, 2011, 04:02:54 AM »
ReplyReply

If you want accuracy you should go with a Spectrometer and not a Colorimeter.

With the Spyder you can be lucky or not - but the instruments differ a lot - see here

Maybe this also helps.

And the SX2462 doesn't have an internal LUT - but the panel seems to be the same as the CG243.

Toni
Logged
alfin
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 77


« Reply #6 on: March 02, 2011, 04:19:13 AM »
ReplyReply

Maybe you guys should do some investigation of your own instead of just guessing.

Of course the SX2462W has an internal 16-bit LUT and yes all SX-monitors can be hardware calibrated with Eizo EX1 and EasyPIX version 2. And yes, I have a SX2462W which I can hardware calibrate with EX1. And I would not change hardware calibration for bending curves in the graphics card even if another instrument, colorimeter or spectrophotometer, is a bit more accurate.

By the way, you might also take a look at the latest SX-model, the SX2762W. You can read about hardware calibration for yourselves;

http://www.eizo.com/global/products/flexscan/sx2762w/index.html
Logged

Lars Mollerstrom
digitaldog
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 9315



WWW
« Reply #7 on: March 02, 2011, 06:19:58 AM »
ReplyReply

If you want accuracy you should go with a Spectrometer and not a Colorimeter.

For measuring emissive devices, a Colorimeter will usually do a superior job of measuring the dark colors compared to a Spectrophotometer. The later is a better instrument for dealing wide gamut displays when a Colorimeter has filter matrixes that assume something else. IOW, a Colorimeter with tuned filters for the panel will out preform the Spectrophotometer's we mere mortals can afford, primarily due to its ability to measure very dark colors.
Logged

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

Posts: 1446



WWW
« Reply #8 on: March 02, 2011, 07:56:21 AM »
ReplyReply

And yes, I have a SX2462W which I can hardware calibrate with EX1. And I would not change hardware calibration for bending curves in the graphics card even if another instrument, colorimeter or spectrophotometer, is a bit more accurate.

EasyPIX2 is not bending curves in the graphics card LUT, but it bends curves in rTRC-gTRC-bTRC tags in the ICC profile instead. It can hardware calibrate the luminance and wtpt, but it seems it doesn't  linearize the TRC of the display via interenal LUT.
« Last Edit: March 02, 2011, 07:58:03 AM by Czornyj » Logged

alfin
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 77


« Reply #9 on: March 02, 2011, 08:26:52 AM »
ReplyReply

EasyPIX2 is not bending curves in the graphics card LUT,

Did I say that?

Quote
but it bends curves in rTRC-gTRC-bTRC tags in the ICC profile instead. It can hardware calibrate the luminance and wtpt, but it seems it doesn't  linearize the TRC of the display via interenal LUT.

The difference between to "hardware calibrate" and to "software calibrate" is usually known as whether you have to use a separate software program to load the graphics board LUT (profiling the monitor) or whether you simply calibrate the monitor itself and then generate a profile of the calibration results to use with your OS and applications like Photoshop etc.

You know this of course, but you are now trying to cover up the fact that you were wrong from the beginning. If you want to discuss tags in the ICC-profile, you better discuss that with Eizo or Andrew or someone who knows that better than I do, but the fact is, Eizo SX-monitors are hardware calibrated via Eizo EasyPIX2 and EX1, however you try to twist that fact.
Logged

Lars Mollerstrom
Czornyj
Sr. Member
****
Online Online

Posts: 1446



WWW
« Reply #10 on: March 02, 2011, 08:47:35 AM »
ReplyReply

The difference between to "hardware calibrate" and to "software calibrate" is usually known as whether you have to use a separate software program to load the graphics board LUT (profiling the monitor) or whether you simply calibrate the monitor itself and then generate a profile of the calibration results to use with your OS and applications like Photoshop etc.

You know this of course, but you are now trying to cover up the fact that you were wrong from the beginning. If you want to discuss tags in the ICC-profile, you better discuss that with Eizo or Andrew or someone who knows that better than I do, but the fact is, Eizo SX-monitors are hardware calibrated via Eizo EasyPIX2 and EX1, however you try to twist that fact.

I think you're taking it personally - but please, don't shoot the messanger. I'm not trying to twist anything, I'm just trying to share my doubts as to "hardware calibration" description. There's no particular difference between loading the correction curve to graphics card LUT or saving it as r,g,bTRC tags in an ICC profile.
« Last Edit: March 02, 2011, 08:50:29 AM by Czornyj » Logged

HCHeyerdahl
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 47


WWW
« Reply #11 on: March 02, 2011, 09:47:37 AM »
ReplyReply

For measuring emissive devices, a Colorimeter will usually do a superior job of measuring the dark colors compared to a Spectrophotometer. The later is a better instrument for dealing wide gamut displays when a Colorimeter has filter matrixes that assume something else. IOW, a Colorimeter with tuned filters for the panel will out preform the Spectrophotometer's we mere mortals can afford, primarily due to its ability to measure very dark colors.

Will the i1 pro spectro be better than the ColorMunki in the very dark colors?

Christopher
« Last Edit: March 02, 2011, 11:34:12 AM by ChristopherHeyerdahl » Logged
alfin
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 77


« Reply #12 on: March 02, 2011, 10:22:44 AM »
ReplyReply

I think you're taking it personally - but please, don't shoot the messanger. I'm not trying to twist anything, I'm just trying to share my doubts as to "hardware calibration" description. There's no particular difference between loading the correction curve to graphics card LUT or saving it as r,g,bTRC tags in an ICC profile.
There's absolutely nothing personal to it. Where have you got the information from about rgb-TRC tags in the ICC-profile instead of changes to the internal look-up table of the SX-monitors?
Logged

Lars Mollerstrom
Czornyj
Sr. Member
****
Online Online

Posts: 1446



WWW
« Reply #13 on: March 02, 2011, 11:43:21 AM »
ReplyReply

Where have you got the information from about rgb-TRC tags in the ICC-profile instead of changes to the internal look-up table of the SX-monitors?
From ICC profiles. Three sample profiles created after three various calibrations with gamma 2,2 chosen as a target:
« Last Edit: March 02, 2011, 11:45:52 AM by Czornyj » Logged

Czornyj
Sr. Member
****
Online Online

Posts: 1446



WWW
« Reply #14 on: March 02, 2011, 11:47:45 AM »
ReplyReply

Will the i1 pro spectro be better than the ColorMunki in the very dark colors?

Christopher

There's no difference.
Logged

HCHeyerdahl
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 47


WWW
« Reply #15 on: March 02, 2011, 12:42:22 PM »
ReplyReply

Ok, thanks. I guess there is propably no point in going for the i1Pro, and that I can settle for the ColorMonki.

Christopher
Logged
digitaldog
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 9315



WWW
« Reply #16 on: March 02, 2011, 04:25:00 PM »
ReplyReply

Ok, thanks. I guess there is propably no point in going for the i1Pro, and that I can settle for the ColorMonki.

The main considerations would be if you wanted to upgrade to the i0 table, or if you wanted an instrument that might be supported in a 3rd party product that Munki (as yet) isn't supported.
Logged

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

Posts: 47


WWW
« Reply #17 on: March 03, 2011, 12:12:18 AM »
ReplyReply

The main considerations would be if you wanted to upgrade to the i0 table, or if you wanted an instrument that might be supported in a 3rd party product that Munki (as yet) isn't supported.

Ok, thanks.

Now, just to make sure I understand you correctly, the ideal would be a colorimeter with color filters  specificaly adjusted to the type of display. But, how specific must it be to make a difference? Are you talking about a meter actually adjusted to each specific display before shipping, or are they adjusted to a generic model from a certain producer?

Eizo have to models CG245 and CG275 with a built in Minolta colorimeter. I do not know to what extent they are adjusted to the displays, but maybe that would have be the optimal solution.   

Christopher
Logged
Czornyj
Sr. Member
****
Online Online

Posts: 1446



WWW
« Reply #18 on: March 03, 2011, 12:46:18 AM »
ReplyReply

The built in colorimeter won't calibrate your other EIZOs.
I think ColorMunki should be ok - it's supported by ColorNavigator and unofficially suported by EasyPIX2, so there's a chance you could calibrate both CG243W and SX2462W in a most convenient way with this spectro.

The other option is high-end basICColor DISCUS colorimeter with basICColor Display profiler - it supports EIZO CG hardware calibration and it's very accurate:

Logged

HCHeyerdahl
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 47


WWW
« Reply #19 on: March 03, 2011, 01:08:29 PM »
ReplyReply

Thanks! I really appreciate your help.

OK, My default choice now seems to be the ColorMunki.

However, I am curious about the DISCUS, which I understand this will give superior profiles in the darker colors.

Now, although I do understand how to colormanage my workflow, and have successfully been doing so for several years, I am really no expert on the technicalities so it is impossible for me to evaluate the product based on figures and numbers. So, two more questions:

What am I getting:
Is it possible to describe the difference in user experience when using a display calibrated with the Discus compared to the ColorMunki? Is the separation in darker colors clearly better on the screen, or is it just if you look closely?  Is it enough to really make editing my editing digital files and printing on my HP Z3200ps easier?

Ease of use:
I am certainly both willing and able to learn complicated stuff, but my hobby is photography rather than color management. If this thing requires something like learning to master SPSS+ or Mathematica (I use both)  it will be too demanding for my use. 


Christopher
Logged
Pages: [1] 2 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad