I just got confirmation via email from NEC Display Service & Support that SpectraView II does NOT make any matrices correction for wide gamut. The sensor has to support the wide gamut.NEC specifically told me the i1d2 supports wide gamut and its listed in their manual as doing so..
There are only three (or four) sensors that supports wide gamut,
- the NEC custom mated i1d2 and
- the Spyder 3.
- Eizo's and Quato's bundle of matched screen & colorimeter using the dtp94
NEC specifically told me the i1d2 supports wide gamut and its listed in their manual as doing so..
Not only that.. it actually works and profiles the wide gamut as you can clearly see from the attachments..
After you buy your NEC puck.. it will be interesting to see you run it side by side to your current i1d2 puck and show us the difference..
Still curious about the differences of the Euro vs. America vs. Asian spec monitors..I don't know about Asia. The MultiSync from Europe and America are identical, as stated in these pages. If I remember correctly what was said (for example here http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/index....showtopic=42040 (http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=42040) and here http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/index....howtopic=44312) (http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=44312)), the difference is only in the Spectra View models. In America they are the same as the MultiSync but ship with the SpectraView software and the NEC i1d2 puck corrected for wide gamut. In Europe the SpectraView are handpicked among the best monitors, they come with a hood and a version for NEC of BasICColor display 4, and therefore they are also much more expensive.
There are only three (or four) sensors that supports wide gamut,
- the NEC custom mated i1d2 and
- the Spyder 3.
- Eizo's and Quato's bundle of matched screen & colorimeter using the dtp94
I don't know about Asia. The MultiSync from Europe and America are identical, as stated in these pages. If I remember correctly what was said (for example here http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/index....showtopic=42040 (http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=42040) and here http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/index....howtopic=44312) (http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=44312)), the difference is only in the Spectra View models. In America they are the same as the MultiSync but ship with the SpectraView software and the NEC i1d2 puck corrected for wide gamut. In Europe the SpectraView are handpicked among the best monitors, they come with a hood and a version for NEC of BasICColor display 4, and therefore they are also much more expensive.
Spyder3? I wouldn't count on it
Eizo & Quato use correction matrix for in ColorNavigator & iColor display software - it works in combination with trusty DTP94, that has decent inter instrumental agreement.
NEC uses custom mated colorimeters, and that's why they don't use correction matrix in the software.
Exactly.
And as you know, I recently found out through trial and error.
Only, I have no experience with the spyder3. I didn't even hear of it a lot. I mentioned it because the NEC display technician told me in his e-mail, that there where two instruments that are corrected for wide gamut monitors that he knew of, their own i1d2 and the spyder3 . But why is it not dependable? I was thinking of it, as it is much easier to get than the NEC puck. But if you say so, I will most certainly stay away from it. Just maybe could you give us some hints or details about whats not so good about it.
http://www.lumita.com/site_media/work/whit...xrite-wp-3a.pdf (http://www.lumita.com/site_media/work/whitepapers/files/xrite-wp-3a.pdf)
In theory, Spyder3 with 7 color filters should match CIE XYZ function better. In practice - it seems there's still something wrong.
Yes, it works, also with my monitors, all the curves and diagrams, but somehow it's different, uncorrected, unfiltered for wide gamut. Also you could run a validation, but for that you have to use a different instrument and/ or software to make sens. From experience, I can tell you, that there are variances not only between instruments, but also between different software.I'm not buying my profiles are uncorrected. They perfectly match the physical color checker on every shade.. and I mean perfectly.
All NEC panels are physically the same - the only difference is, that hand picked european Spectraview panels have firmware modification, and NEC EU blessing - so they can be hardware calibrated with Spectraview display a.k.a. basICColor. In the past there was a method to turn x90 series panel into "Spectraview mode", using simple key combination - now it's more complicated.Thanks. This helps clear things up.
US Spectraview II represents more democratic approach, and calibrates all x90, PA and P series NEC displays.
And when I wrote NEC they told me (and listed in their instruction manuals and on-line text) the i1d2 was compatible with their wide gamut monitors.
I test against a physical color checker.
What do Europeans use for calibration if they don't have a reference standard?
Steve,I'm not sure what qualified as a "Specialist.." I'm just a guy who has been using color profiled monitors for well over a decade and have helped others set up dozens of systems. I have 'some' experience, but nothing that qualifies me as a "specialist" and I'm naturally skeptical of anyone making that claim.
I don't know what they told you, but it is not what Karl Lang writes (see the document above), it is not what I got as information from NEC (see email above), it is also not what Czornyj and others have wrote here in this forum (see quotes above), and it is not what you can read on the Argyll/dispcalGUI information (see quote http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/index....t&p=372083) (http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?s=&showtopic=44078&view=findpost&p=372083)), and it does also not meet what I have read from other specialists across the Web.
I'm not a specialist, and you know that, but I try to understand. So what can NEC mean, when they nonetheless state in their instruction manual that the i1d2 and other unfiltered colorimeters are compatible? (BTW is there any instrument that is not in that list?) I think that's what I wrote. They mean to say that it works, just not so well.
Also, as I said, I can visually tell the difference between a calibration and profile made with a corrected colorimeter or an uncorrected one. You have to try it, to see it. Alternatively, you could try a software that corrects for wide gamut, like Quato's iColor Display 3, though the latter would not be able to do hardware calibration. As mentioned earlier, the correction can be made either in the hardware or the software.
European Spectraview display profiler has correction matrix for NEC display spectra and popular colorimeters, so it's the same approach as Eizo ColorNavigator, and Quato iColor display.Great explanation.. This explains why a 1id2 'could' be very accurate, or slightly less accurate but close, with a NEC monitor using SVII.. and not work well at all on another brand..
NEC Display America choosed to build custom mated colorimeter rather than make software matrix correction. The Spectraview II checks the sensor type, and when it's not NEC colorimeter or spectrophotometer it creates profiles using factory avaraged measurements taken during production. See Spectraview II Edit>Preferences>ICC Profile tag.
Testing the profile quality against CC24 gives only overall idea of how the profile works, and as a matter of fact it's impossible to get 100% visual connection - the spectra of the displays backlight and the spectra of our lighting is different, and so on...
NEC Display America choosed to build custom mated colorimeter rather than make software matrix correction. The Spectraview II checks the sensor type, and when it's not NEC colorimeter or spectrophotometer it creates profiles using factory avaraged measurements taken during production. See Spectraview II Edit>Preferences>ICC Profile tag.
It's interesting, so the Spectraview software should use the matrix corrections with the i1Display2 colorimeter.
Sorry for the question buy why the Spyder3 is not recommended?
I live in Europe and I can't afford the original NEC colorimeter (the cost of shipping and tax is too high, it's better to get the Spectraview reference version in this case) so I've two ways:
1) the Spectraview II software with the Spyder3 colorimeter;
2) the Spectraview II software with the i1Display2 colorimeter and correction matrix.
I already own the i1Display2 and I'm thinking to sell it for the Spyder3.
Thanks!!
Spyder3 seem to have poor inter instrumental agreement, and I simply wouldn't trust that sensor. It has been discussed in this topic, post #17, 18:
http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/index....showtopic=39210 (http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=39210)
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
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.
The off the shelf EyeOne-Display will work. As will other Colorimeters not filtered for this kind of unit. The target white point you ask for, and what you get will likely be off. In tests I did, the differences amounted to about CCT 500K. Its not really a huge big deal because the values you ask for are not as important as getting a White Point that produces a visual match to the print next to the display. Yes, the mated colorimeter is preferable! But its not a game changer either.
As far as I know, the DTP94 was not optimized for wide gamut displays.
Is it difficult, expensive to do?
As far as I know, the DTP94 was not optimized for wide gamut displays.
Please keep in mind that there is no reason to be suspicious of the Spyder3 because we are offering a 30 day money back guarantee.
So just give it a try.
no reason to be suspicious of the Spyder3
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
according to the report mentioned earlier there is maybe even reason to be a tiny little bit less suspicious about a spyder3 than about a regular i1d2, right?
I don't need decades of experience to see that a monitor has color cast or doesn't much a second monitor. I do also not need that kind of background, to see that a change of Instrument and/or software does change the outcome, and that's no anticipatory talk.This is getting silly. You don't even have a NEC monitor yet you're basing your entire argument as if you have one right in front of you just because of what you're read on the internet. Lets be very clear, the slight differences these colorimeters make when used on an NEC system will not produce a "color cast." A slightly 'off' whitepoint does not a 'color cast' make.
For the rest, as I told you, your critics are pointed at the wrong person, I am not a specialist and have no experience. You say different then the others (I gave you a whole list already), I don't mind, you still might be right, but chances are slim. That is what my professional experience is able to tell, as I spent decades in humanities. For the rest I am just not the right interlocutor.
I would be very pleased to follow your exchange with them. As my reason for writing here is to understand and learn. If you want to knock me down with years of experience, even though what you say goes against this or that view expressed here and there by others with decades of experience, than there is no reason to talk anymore.
Again, I would be pleased if these technical issues could be addressed in a civilized manner from now on.
thank you.
P.S.: Very interesting that you do not address your points with Czornyj, whom I was quoting among others.
This is getting silly. You don't even have a NEC monitor yet you're basing your entire argument as if you have one right in front of you just because of what you're read on the internet. Lets be very clear, the slight differences these colorimeters make when used on an NEC system will not produce a "color cast." A slightly 'off' whitepoint does not a 'color cast' make.
I'm not saying I am different than anyone. I'm not saying anyone is wrong. What I'm saying.. more than a few times.. is that my i1d2 colorimeter makes a perfect to my reference color checker and it does it across both monitors. And I think it's more than silly to say NEC is approving colorimeters for their monitors and then telling its customers this one works great, this one works 'not so good', etc.. Either they meet their minimum specifications or they do not.
You're making several huge mistakes on this issue.
1. You're assuming the colorimeters will behave the same with NEC monitors as they have for your Eizo. Clearly, if you've read the material you posted.. you'd know they do not.
2. You're basing the defect of a "color cast" to a slightly inaccurate whitepoint. There are more than a few degrees between the two.
And you're being especially silly to think I'm going to have exchanges with anyone who wrote anything on the internet not directly addressing me in this thread. And yes, I've posted to Czornyi on several occasions and he's answered my questions on several occasions.
And do stop being silly about this not being civilized. We call that whining. No one has been rude to you or done anything but be very generous in taking time to help you. I told you when this started that the reason people don't respond to questions in this area is because the person asking the question usually isn't ready to be helped. They do exactly what you've done, they start many threads asking basically the same questions over and over again in different ways until they get the answer they 'think' they wanted in the first place.
To be blunt you're what I call a "Nervous Nelly" who wants all the answers set in stone up front. This isn't that type of subject..
In case of PA241W I wouldn't worry - it works flawlessly even without a calibration sensor. I'd bet it's better calibrated out of the box, than after treating it with some Spyder3 or i1d2.
Thank you very much for all the information but the colirmeter choice now is even more complicated!! So we've added the DTP94 to the list
This is getting silly.
I suspect so when you consider the cost of the spectroradiometer used by NEC at the factory to set up the calibration. Its impressive that we have a display that you don’t have to calibrate although NEC allows this if you feel you want to. I would like to run trending reports over say a year and see just how well this all works. But on paper, its a giant leap forward for users.
The display is factory calibrated using a very expensive lab grade spectroradiometer. It is then capable of tracking how colors change over time and temperature etc. An internal color engine allows you to dial in a specific luminance, white point, gamut etc. and it will calibrate to the target aim point without the need for an external sensor.
Why should one still want an instrument? Is it still that little bit more precision that you get, if you need it?
My understanding is the instrument can be used to update the internal calibration process over time for the ultimate precision.
QUESTION: Is it possible to calibrate the monitor using an external color sensor?
ANSWER: Yes. The SpectraView software is available to calibrate the monitor if necessary. In addition, the OSD or MultiProfiler controls can be used together with a 3rd party application to manually adjust the monitor together with an external color sensors if necessary.
I see the software is called MultiProfiler and controls the SpectraView Engine, which does this automatic tracking ( http://www.necdisplay.com/MultiProfiler/ (http://www.necdisplay.com/MultiProfiler/) ).
It allows for internal "resetting/recalibration" of this self-calibration process?
Take it off the list. Its no longer manufactured.
A future version of SpectraView will allow you to use your sensor values to update the internal factory measurements if desired, but this will really only have an impact when used together with MultiProfiler. The reason being that SpectraView calibrates to the sensor values each time anyway. MultiProfiler uses the very accurate factory measurements for each individual display, combined with internal monitoring to achieve very good results without the need for an external sensor or calibration package.
IMHO you are being extremely rude and condescending. I followed this thread and am wondering whether your are not able to listen or read. Please stop the pollution now, both.Being rude and condescending certainly wasn't my intent, no more than it was your intent by telling someone they can't read or listen. Like you I was doing my very best to get a message across, to help someone. I failed. Of that there can be no misunderstanding.
Sorry but, as I've wrote previously, Quato (a German company that produce high end display) is actually selling the DTP94 with its calibration software. It's called iColor.
http://www.amazon.de/gp/product/B002UZ5F3K...me=&seller= (http://www.amazon.de/gp/product/B002UZ5F3K/ref=olp_product_details?ie=UTF8&me=&seller=)
Here's an interesting Whitepaper:
http://www.quato.de/german/produkte/Whitepaper_IP_E.pdf (http://www.quato.de/german/produkte/Whitepaper_IP_E.pdf)
This is just a snippet:
Colorimeter support for Wide Gamut units
A wide color gamut unit forces the user to have an expensive and limited precision Spectrophotometer, but Quato has found a way to make use of the highly precise DTP94 colorimeter by uploading a correction table into the device. Now users can benefit from the much higher precision of the colorimeter (compared to the Spectro) and save a lot of money.
Sorry but, as I've wrote previously, Quato (a German company that produce high end display) is actually selling the DTP94 with its calibration software. It's called iColor.
http://www.amazon.de/gp/product/B002UZ5F3K...me=&seller= (http://www.amazon.de/gp/product/B002UZ5F3K/ref=olp_product_details?ie=UTF8&me=&seller=)
In connection to the SpectraView software, I would still think that NEC's own updated, modified or corrected is a better match, than the maybe in general terms better DTP94b!?
Being rude and condescending certainly wasn't my intent, no more than it was your intent by telling someone they can't read or listen. Like you I was doing my very best to get a message across, to help someone. I failed. Of that there can be no misunderstanding.
Yes!
After everything that was discussed and quoted about correction filters and matrices for wide gamut monitors - and only one person disagreeing without real arguments -, I don't understand how it is possible that x-rite does not incorporate such an optional correction in their software?
After everything that was discussed and quoted about correction filters and matrices for wide gamut monitors - and only one person disagreeing without real arguments -, I don't understand how it is possible that x-rite does not incorporate such an optional correction in their software?
And with iColor with do see it's feasible...
[argyllcms] Re: Correction for wide gamut screens and/or RGB-LED?
* From: Graeme Gill <graeme@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
* To: argyllcms@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
* Date: Tue, 06 Apr 2010 09:14:43 +1000
Steffen wrote:
> How does ArgyllCMS cope with this, are there any plans (or even just
> data on the deviation) for the future? I find that not only software
Currently the instruments are assumed to provide correct XYZ values.
Generally you get what you pay for in this regard. Some colorimeters
don't work so well on some displays, and this is a good reason for
buying a spectrometer.
While it's perfectly possible to create correction matrices for particular
display/colorimeter combinations, in practice there are stumbling blocks.
A major one is that it's a combinatorial explosion. I don't even have
access to all the displays that support in-display Luts, never mind the
thousands
of other LCD displays out there, so I can't supply such correction
matrices. (I suspect it would be a full time job keeping up with them,
even if one were suppled monitors by all the manufacturers). The other
problem is that one particular instance of a colorimeter doesn't necessarily
represent the average for that type of instrument. One needs access to a
statistically significant number of instruments to overcome this problem.
[A systematized solution would involve the display manufacturers publishing
the spectral characteristics of their displays in a standard format, and
having some means of measuring the spectral sensitivities of the instruments.]
> developers have to face the problem of designing their software so that
> it uses some form of CMM, but that the profiling process itself is
> affected by the changes in display technology.
The profiling is not affected. Shortcuts taken by the colorimeter makers
do affect their accuracy though.
Graeme Gill.
When asked the same question, about why not integrate a correction into Argyll, Graeme Gill answerd the following:
You may mean hardware. That’s really where these filter matrices need to live.
Which makes you wonder about iColor no?
You mean like NEC does with the i1d2 puck?
But in this case, the filters ARE mated to the display. Its not some correction happening in software, based on some assumption of the display(s). If not, why would NEC go to the trouble if they could just pop this into SpectraView software. Not cheap having a pile of custom built EyeOne Displays OEM’ed. FWIW, if you look back at Barco, PressView and Artisan, they too used custom mated filters for old, sRGB like CRTs. They did it for a reason.
So, with wide gamut monitors, one should only use the custom mated puck (or a spectrometer, although some people don't recommend the latter for displays). According to what we came up with here, if one needs calibration with a device for a wide gamut monitor, one should use a monitor for which there is such a custom mated puck. Also it should be able to be used with the propitiatory software, that can talk to the puck and the monitor.
You don’t have to
let me seize this opportunity to try to clear something up, which was a matter of wonder for some of us:
We concluded, just now, that a custom mated puck is preferable, right?
How can we understand that NEC lists almost all existing colorimeters, which are not corrected, as compatible with SpectraViewII and wide gamut monitors?
The only explanation, which is very weak, I agree with Steve Weldon, is that, like you said you don't have to, but its better to get the custom tailored one, if you can?!
I am happy to see that you have the same explanation.
Anyone?
Like Graeme said - "The profiling is not affected. Shortcuts taken by the colorimeter makers do affect their accuracy though" - so, as a matter of fact, they're all compatible, it's only a matter that some may be more accurate than othersThank you Czornyj.
Like Graeme said - "The profiling is not affected. Shortcuts taken by the colorimeter makers do affect their accuracy though" - so, as a matter of fact, they're all compatible, it's only a matter that some may be more accurate than others
I'll add an additional side note to that conclusions:
It puzzles me that, with x-rite's eye-one Match3 software, theres is no way you'll get these more "accurate results" (I think this is only being diplomatic, because we speak in public, but OK ), as it only might be used with the i1d2 as colorimeter, if I'm not mistaken. As there are no x-rite branded filtered colorimeters for wide gamut, you'll never get it "really" right with Match3, unless, which is your only option, you buy a spectrometer for a few more bucks . Maybe should even buy two of them, as you'll also want a UV-cut.
For the rest of us, that do not need that "accuracy", meaning "no accuracy at all", they would be maybe better off eyeballing, and honestly that's what I did in the beginning, calibration/profiling to the "approximatly accurat" white point and afterwards adjusting the white point by eye. I did not find any other way of getting acceptable results out of x-rites eye-one match3 + i1d2 + wide gamut monitor.
I didn't try to use the NEC i1d2 with eye match3 (evidently I'm not speaking of using this setup with a hardware calibration NEC monitor)
So after all, if you have no NEC, Color Edge EIZO, Quato or LaCie, it seems, for the "suite of the rack" as Andrew puts it, you are a lot better of with datacolors's spyder3, which is filtered, and a software that accepts it and your monitor?!
No. Andrew mentioned about a colorimeter that is optimized for the specific spectra of some NEC displays, and Spyder is supposed to be optimized for anything.
Sorry, I don't understand your post? If I understand you, it seams to me that there is no contradiction to what I wrote?!
I think we agree, please do correct me if I am wrong! I meant to write:
If you have NO NEC, NO Color Edge, NO Quato and NO LaCie, so there is NO colorimeter that is specific to your wide gamut device, you will be better of with the spyder3, because the spyder3 is, as Andrew put it, filtered and "optimized for anything".
Maybe you meant?: that as it is "optimized for anything" there is no difference to take a software based correction, like Quato iCOlor. It's equally bad, sorry nino, "less accurate", more "suite of the track"ish.
In advance, please forgive me if got it wrong.
I only meant, that I woudn't count there will be a big difference between Eye-One display2 and Spyder3. According to J.Raimar Kuhnen-Burger: "Although, the EyeOne Dispaly 2´s and Spyder 3´s 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)"
Noiw I got it, I hope! The regular 1id2 is as off as the spyder3, that's what Kuhnen-Burger says, right?
Not exactly, he only states that both are "off", and need some correction (not to mention poor inter instrumental agreement).
The regular 1id2 is off. Spyder3 is off. Maybe to a different degree. Do you know of any data, comparisons, test regarding this particular point?!
There is a little difference between you and me, you are aggressive and I defend.There is certainly a difference between you and me, but it is hardly your place to publicly state this difference any more than it is mine to give my opinion of why you're choosing to get involved in an exchange that was not directed towards you. And yes I do have an opinion, I just don't feel an overwhelming need to let you know what it is. Perhaps that is one difference?
http://lists.apple.com/archives/colorsync-...v/msg00204.html (http://lists.apple.com/archives/colorsync-users/2009/Nov/msg00204.html)
Note that these are avareraged measurement data are for selected "best batch" of devices.
I apologize if "you're being silly" is seen as some sort of terrible insult. Believe me, it wasn't my first choice of words. I had to seriously search for the most polite term I could muster. However it was taken, it doesn't make it any less accurate.
http://lists.apple.com/archives/colorsync-...v/msg00204.html (http://lists.apple.com/archives/colorsync-users/2009/Nov/msg00204.html)
Note that these are avareraged measurement data are for selected "best batch" of devices.
Hmm. You can't help it?LOL.. fair question. I suppose like most others it depends. It's an area I can work on..
NEC specifically told me the i1d2 supports wide gamut and its listed in their manual as doing so..
Not only that.. it actually works and profiles the wide gamut as you can clearly see from the attachments..
After you buy your NEC puck.. it will be interesting to see you run it side by side to your current i1d2 puck and show us the difference..
Still curious about the differences of the Euro vs. America vs. Asian spec monitors..
[attachment=22722:i1d2.JPG] [attachment=22723:i1d2a.JPG]
European Spectraview display profiler has correction matrix for NEC display spectra and popular colorimeters, so it's the same approach as Eizo ColorNavigator, and Quato iColor display.
NEC Display America choosed to build custom mated colorimeter rather than make software matrix correction. The Spectraview II checks the sensor type, and when it's not NEC colorimeter or spectrophotometer it creates profiles using factory avaraged measurements taken during production. See Spectraview II Edit>Preferences>ICC Profile tag.
Testing the profile quality against CC24 gives only overall idea of how the profile works, and as a matter of fact it's impossible to get 100% visual connection - the spectra of the displays backlight and the spectra of our lighting is different, and so on...
Take it off the list. Its no longer manufactured.
yes, it is, they started production again.
you can only get it through one vendor now though in the US (perhaps also Quato in Europe???).
It does seem pretty tricky to figure out exactly the difference between the NEC puck and a stock ID2 is.From what we've learned here.. There IS a difference between pucks. There is also a difference in the software.. some software having built in profiles for supported pucks (NEC for instance), and others don't have these profiles. Without the profiles I'd image the variation would be quite pronounced.. as in Shaya using the 1di2 with her Eizo monitors.. while me using the same puck with my SVII software (that has built in profiles to support the 1id2 puck) has the potential to be spot on (depending on how close my individual puck comes to their 'average' sample, and the accuracy of the profile), or somewhat of.
From what we've learned here.. There IS a difference between pucks.Yes, take a look at http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/index....mp;#entry351434 (http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=42040&st=0&p=351434&#entry351434)
Yes, take a look at http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/index....mp;#entry351434 (http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=42040&st=0&p=351434&#entry351434)Sure.. but you know.. 25 Corvette ZR1's coming off the product line one after the other, 25 F200/2 IS Canon lenses, 100 rolls of 4x5 Velvia film.. no matter what it is. there will be a variation of manufacturing tolerances which may or may not affect our personal use of the item depending on how we use that item and what for..
X-Rite started up production? You sure? OR you’re saying a stock of built units is still available? Big difference.
Yes, take a look at http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/index....mp;#entry351434 (http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=42040&st=0&p=351434&#entry351434)
Does you NEC puck actually say "MDSVSENSOR2" on it or just "MDSVSENSOR". I ordered mine separately through Amazon and it only has the name without the "2" stamped on top. Is that old stock?I've bought two NEC MDSVSENSOR2 colorimeters at NEC Online Store (http://www.necdisplay.com/Products/Accessories/?product=8899a96d-28dc-484f-a4de-14309a636738): one in January and another in May 2010. Each is with "MDSVSENSOR" label and looks like that (http://www.flickr.com/photos/miahz/3989679014/).
I've bought two NEC MDSVSENSOR2 colorimeters at NEC Online Store (http://www.necdisplay.com/Products/Accessories/?product=8899a96d-28dc-484f-a4de-14309a636738): one in January and another in May 2010. Each is with "MDSVSENSOR" label and looks like that (http://www.flickr.com/photos/miahz/3989679014/).
Does you NEC puck actually say "MDSVSENSOR2" on it or just "MDSVSENSOR". I ordered mine separately through Amazon and it only has the name without the "2" stamped on top. Is that old stock? (although calman appears to be able to read internal data out of the puck and says that it was calibrated this April, which doesn't sound like old stock at all) Maybe the 2 just refers to the software version spectraview "II".Larry - If you wouldn't mind terribly.. Would you give me the link on Amazon where you ordered yours? Mine hasn't shipped yet and it would be somewhat reassuring they're sending me the right one. There were two places that claim to have them.. The Amazon Market Place (the only place that will ship to me here overseas) and a place called Proline.
Sure.. but you know.. 25 Corvette ZR1's coming off the product line one after the other, 25 F200/2 IS Canon lenses, 100 rolls of 4x5 Velvia film.. no matter what it is. there will be a variation of manufacturing tolerances which may or may not affect our personal use of the item depending on how we use that item and what for..
I personally think people are concentrating FAR too much on how the screen looks compared to a theoretical standard. In our minds we all want it to be perfect.. but include this into the rest of our color workflow, printer profiles, variations in ambient light during different times of the day, how tired our eyes our, and so on and so on.. and these small differences mean less and less.
However, like everyone else I'd love to have perfect color. But perfect color ONLY exists in my personal closed workflow system.. and perhaps extends to my print house (which I have no control over) or a publisher (even less control).. meanwhile the other 99% of the world looking at our images on the web are using 4-5 year old laptops with faded LCD's not even cable of viewing 30-40% of the sRGB gamut..
Really... I think "silly" fit.. no offense intended..
Does you NEC puck actually say "MDSVSENSOR2" on it or just "MDSVSENSOR". I ordered mine separately through Amazon and it only has the name without the "2" stamped on top. Is that old stock? (although calman appears to be able to read internal data out of the puck and says that it was calibrated this April, which doesn't sound like old stock at all) Maybe the 2 just refers to the software version spectraview "II".
Anyway I agree with you, nobody will see our perfect colors, they'll be limited to our workflow.
Maybe I'm wrong but the MDVSENSOR2 is the custom calibrated sensor especially made for wide-gamut LCD; the MDVSENSOR is the previous version.Excuse me, but... Have you (or anybody else) ever seen MDSVSENSOR2 with "MDSVSENSOR2" label? Once more again, i bought MDSVSENSOR2 at real NEC Store in May 2010. Did you read the FAQ from NEC?
. Did you read the FAQ from NEC?
please point to the source. thanks in advance.Sorry, NEC has changed the FAQ. Older NEC colorimeter (MDSVSENSOR) was not custom calibrated and looked like http://www.superwarehouse.com/NEC_GammaCom...NSOR/ps/1552166 (http://www.superwarehouse.com/NEC_GammaComp_MD_Colorimeter_Calibrator/MDSVSENSOR/ps/1552166)
Sorry, NEC has changed the FAQ. Older NEC colorimeter (MDSVSENSOR) was not custom calibrated and looked like http://www.superwarehouse.com/NEC_GammaCom...NSOR/ps/1552166 (http://www.superwarehouse.com/NEC_GammaComp_MD_Colorimeter_Calibrator/MDSVSENSOR/ps/1552166)
I had that one.
The one sold by B&H looks like that! How should the new one look like?My new MDSVSENSOR2 (bought in May 2010) looks like http://www.flickr.com/photos/miahz/3989679014/ (http://www.flickr.com/photos/miahz/3989679014/)
I completely agree with you but I usually spend a lot of time in RAW conversion, rating, adjustments, Photoshop editing etc ... and probably a perfect monitor with theoretical perfect colors will avoid strange color cast in photolab's prints and will help to get a correct file for your archive.It hasn't been my experience 'slight' tolerance differences result in color casts. For instance, NEC lists several pucks that are approved for use with their wide gamut monitors PROVIDED you use their SVII software. Assuming everything, the software, the monitors, and the pucks.. are all working withing manufacturers tolerances then there will be no significant color casts. However, if one variable is out of whack there will be color cast, and in all cases there will be small differences in the floating white point which then became unique to our closed systems and something we deal with in the rest of the color workflow such as printer profiles, paper types, the age if ink, and so on.. At least this has been my experience.
Tomorrow when you'll buy the next monitor your pictures will look almost the same, without big color shift.
Anyway I agree with you, nobody will see our perfect colors, they'll be limited to our workflow.
It hasn't been my experience 'slight' tolerance differences result in color casts.
NEC didn’t support instruments that would fail to produce good final results.
* GretagMacbeth Eye-One Display V1
* X -Rite/GretagMacbeth Eye-One Display V2
* X-Rite/GretagMacbeth Eye-One Monitor, Eye-One Pro.
* X-Rite ColorMunki.
* Monaco OptixXR (X-Rite DTP 94).
* ColorVision/Datacolor Spyder 2.
* Datacolor Spyder 3.
I’m not sure why some prevailing assumptions in this thread are that without the one colorimeter, the results are a color cast (whatever that really means). As I said here or in a similar post, my experiences testing the SpectraView with host software, using an EyeOne Display-2 versus an EyeOne Pro Spectrophotometer was a disconnect in about CCT 500K or so in target and measured white point. And considering that the values are kind of meaningless past a starting point, that you have to adjust to taste (to produce a visual match to the viewing booth), I don’t know why one would suspect that an instrument supported in the software would produce a “color cast”. Again, if you have no instrument, go for the mated colorimeter. If you have an instrument supported in the software, use it and season to taste. NEC didn’t support instruments that would fail to produce good final results.That pretty much sums up in a single paragraph what I've been trying to say from post one..
well spectracal claims that they actually started up production again
if they are telling the truth, then yes
They are telling the truth. I just check with X-Rite and sure enough, they are producing the unit for some OEM’s which is good news.
In the light of the information about recent restart of production of DTP94, which was not optimized for wide gamut displays, is it difficult, expensive, expensive to custom correct this puck? Considering its again a supported product, and again manufactured!
Larry - If you wouldn't mind terribly.. Would you give me the link on Amazon where you ordered yours? Mine hasn't shipped yet and it would be somewhat reassuring they're sending me the right one. There were two places that claim to have them.. The Amazon Market Place (the only place that will ship to me here overseas) and a place called Proline.
It would be somewhat irritating to pay the shipping over here, not to mention the heavy VAT and customs fees.. and get an old one..
Thanks!
My new MDSVSENSOR2 (bought in May 2010) looks like http://www.flickr.com/photos/miahz/3989679014/ (http://www.flickr.com/photos/miahz/3989679014/)
which device is not in the list?
from http://www.necdisplay.com/supportcenter/mo.../compatibility/ (http://www.necdisplay.com/supportcenter/monitors/spectraview2/compatibility/)
I don’t know. But what I do know is that originally the DTP94 was an expensive product to manufacturer and that was the primary reason it was canned when GMB and X-Rite became one (GMB had the EyeOne Display). That may be another reason why updating filters in an EyeOne Display-2 is the norm now. At some point, OEMs are going to balk at the costs. At what point does it not pay to do a custom upgrade when for perhaps similar money, you can get yourself a Spectrophotometer?
Sorry but it appears they have sold out.Thank you. I suspect since the wide gamuts have been out for several years these pucks will all be the right thing.
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B001P3OGZG/ref=oss_product (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B001P3OGZG/ref=oss_product)
When I first looked at it they said they had 3 left with more coming soon. When I ordered it a few days later they said they had 2 left. Now they are gone and they jacked the price ip and say 1-2 months (not exactly more coming soon hah).
I’m not sure why some prevailing assumptions in this thread are that without the one colorimeter, the results are a color cast (whatever that really means). As I said here or in a similar post, my experiences testing the SpectraView with host software, using an EyeOne Display-2 versus an EyeOne Pro Spectrophotometer was a disconnect in about CCT 500K or so in target and measured white point. And considering that the values are kind of meaningless past a starting point, that you have to adjust to taste (to produce a visual match to the viewing booth), I don’t know why one would suspect that an instrument supported in the software would produce a “color cast”. Again, if you have no instrument, go for the mated colorimeter. If you have an instrument supported in the software, use it and season to taste. NEC didn’t support instruments that would fail to produce good final results.
well 500k difference is pretty easy to spotCould be.. depends..
and it might even be more so were it to be a 500K difference plus slid up or down off-set from the standard curve
If I was one to speculate..
Could be.. depends..
An interesting note.. I've placed an order with 4 places that listed then in stock and ready to ship over the last 48 hours.. and each place canceled the order saying they were no longer in stock and they're estimated to get a new shipment in towards the 20th of July.. NEC themselves say they no longer have any in stock.
If I was one to speculate..
Could be.. depends..
An interesting note.. I've placed an order with 4 places that listed then in stock and ready to ship over the last 48 hours.. and each place canceled the order saying they were no longer in stock and they're estimated to get a new shipment in towards the 20th of July.. NEC themselves say they no longer have any in stock.
If I was one to speculate..
speaking of 500K differences, I tried SVII with my DTP94b and the results seemed off. Using iColor 3.6 I roughly estimate that they are 500-600K off and it does look noticeably different (to me at least)
BTW for me too, 500 K difference, with possibly an additional shift, is visually very off.Off-topic: Right, but the difference may be very different.
After further tweaks and experimenting, I am now getting acceptable results with the i1D2.
Would you mind to tell us what exactly did you do?
"QUESTION: Can I use the new MDSVSENSOR2 color sensor included in the new SVII-PRO-KIT with other 3rd party calibration applications?
ANSWER: Yes, however the custom calibration for NEC wide color gamut displays will not be available. Only the standard calibration is available."
It seems odd to me this is in the NEC faq and yet if I do try to use it on my other (standard gamut) displays using other software it gives pretty different results from either DTP94b probe.
Time to take a single bite of crow and see how well it goes down.. Not the whole crow mind you.. just the beak and claws.. yuk..
Weeelllll.... It came in today. (SVII Puck) And I highly suspect I received a new upgraded model because 4 places I know of (and tried to order from when they listed them in stock) pulled them off the shelf at the same time.. and then mine shipped directly from NEC (via Amazon)..
Before (old puck).. lets say my target was 6506.. I'd get 6454.. or 6580.. each monitor would be on the different end therefore requiring the visual white point difference. Never did get the 500 point differences some were talking about.
With the new puck.. I'm getting 6508 on one monitor and 6503 on the other (target 6506 (just talking about one profile, but it holds across all of them).. again, opposed.. but very close.. no visual white point adjustment needed.
I think for a single monitor in a closed system there would be absolutely no difference. In an open system sent to others.. the differences are small enough it wouldn't be an issue either.. BUT with dual monitors side by side.. I'm really glad I bought this SVII puck. I'm anal about them looking the same and this is a great comfort factor even if there is no real practical difference image quality wise.
Other small differences.. like the way if you have a thumbnail showing in explorer on monitor 2.. Win7 would show the thumbnail as too saturated or whatever it may be.. but if you opened it up in Windows Photo Gallery or some other color managed browser.. then it would be right. Open a test target and zoom in so the face takes half the screen.. and slide it between monitor 1 and monitor 2.. it would be right when 100% on either monitor.. but there was a mid-point where that oversaturated/wrong look would be a factor. Now this is no longer an issue.
So.. imo.. if you have a single monitor.. the 1di2 puck will serve you well. If you run dual monitors the SVII puck will serve you better.
are you talking about how evenon the same monitor just changing the target brightness or this or that a little and each time you calibrate it might give you say 6480 one time and 6565 another?I'm not sure I understand the question completely..
I'm not sure I understand the question completely..
If you keep running the calibration on the same monitor the numbers stay close, perhaps if the target is 6500 the variance will be between 6490 and 6410.. this is on both monitors. But I noticed something that makes sense.. I had turned on a 60 watt reading light right in front of the monitors (over my shoulder) and then the values changes 50-60 points in the negative direction.
A few things which were easier to notice with this SVII than the 1di2.. Warming it up. A good hour and it stabilizes fully. 30 minutes gets you 50% more variance at the finer end of the measurements. Ambient light made a big difference. Laying out the cable without kinks, curves, and as straight as possible and away from other power cables (especially) and signal cables (to a lesser degree) helped the variances become more consistent..
It also 'sticks' to the screen. My 1di2 didn't do that. I still have to lean my 'device' (and old back scratcher leaning on the middle with a tv remote anchoring the other end, I imagine we all do something similar) against it to be sure it stays.. but its nice that it seems to adhere on its own. Running other programs on the other monitor didn't make any difference UNLESS the light output was enough to affect the ambient light levels..
I played with it for a few hours trying to figure out what made it tick.. or tick faster/slower.
I do wish for the $200 it came with some sort of case to keep it clean. I'll have to come up with something. Caselogic makes nice inexpensive cases.. if they'd only open a Walmart here in Bangkok.. I'm a big believer in individual cases to keep things clean, coiling the cable in big loops and without kinks, etc..
I am curious if this SVII puck will work optimally with Imatch software (or better than my 1id2) on my laptops.. especially the LED backlit models with a wider gamut.. I was never happy (at all) with the 1id2/Imatch combo with laptops.. some it seemed fine, others it was obviously lacking.. hoping this will cure it.
I'm tempted to buy a Munki and some other pucks and so a more complete study of this area. The Munki would make sense, since it makes profiles for scanners, printers, etc.. and seeing the difference between a spectrometer and a colorimeter could be interesting.. but I'm afraid there's no practical reason for the others.
I do plan on adding a P271w, possibly two, to the mix once the first or second generation kinks get worked out (providing there are any).. the wife is already complaining about the arcade look though..
I'd imagine the SVII puck will work better with the Samsung Plasma (this years model) 50" since it seems to have a wider gamut.. we'll see.. I have the Spyder tv puck/software for the dvd/blue-ray inputs.. but for the computer HDMI inputs the SVII should work better..
All kinds of testing I want to fool with now. I wonder if Android has an ap to profile it's screen.. ;o)
I don't think it will help much on the other wide gamut or specialized screens since outside of SVII it does a horrific job on the NEC PA241W (even on the NEC site they say that the meter alone does nothing on wide gamuts unless used with SVII; of course they also said it will still work fine on regular monitors outside of SVII but my results in those cases were nasty so far). I thought it might do better than a stock iD2 on sRGB screens since it has been calibrated to standard unlike an off the shelf part but using CEDP it did a horrible job on the my old sRGB monitor compared to DTP94b or i1Pro.I'll probably confirm what you said. And then the next logical step is the Munki.. it should work with everything..
However, using the NEC puck with SVII on a NEC PA241W gave me numbers that were super-incredibly close to what the i1Pro gave me on that monitor which seems reassuring (both for the calibration quality they do on their re-branded pucks and the apparent ability of the i1Pro to measure at least the PA series wide gamuts pretty well despite the potential spectral spikes (the i1Pro has only 5nm resolution and sometimes there are super high and narrow spikes that it can miss and that can throw it off).
It seems to be able to calibrate the NEC screens to which it is specially matched as well as an i1Pro.
I'll probably confirm what you said. And then the next logical step is the Munki.. it should work with everything..
But yes.. I'm getting the feeling the SVII puck and SVII software and NEC SV series.. like peanut butter and chocolate..
With the dual 2690's side by side.. the way I've always set up my workstations even if they're P271w's.. the visual white point needs to match or it drives me nuts.. regardless of the colors matching (which they do).. and so far it looks like the SVII puck and software is the way to go.
I'm glad there's an easy solution. Could be worse...
Btw.. this SVII puck came directly from NEC USA via Amazon.. via a shipping agent via USPS, a total of 7 days from the time it left NEC to in my hands in Bangkok. Not so bad considering the agents and shippers involved. This credit card fraud stuff is a real issue.. most places in the USA won't ship overseas making these guys necessary..
Mine came in a box directly from amazon but it had an odd sticker sealing the box saying "Ready To Ship: Fullfilled by Amazon" but the box seemed like someone else, maybe NEC, had packed it up, it also had some sort of non-Amazon bar codes and SV kit codes attached to the box.I was recently forced (well not really, but the times forced me.. ) into buying an Android phone.. and it has this nifty bar code scanner.. and you can get any number of scanning aps.. from groceries to products to books.. I should have thought about scanning the little square box plain box it came in.. there was a bar code on it.
Anyway it was reassuring to see that they really do seem to have calibrated their pucks directly to their screens.
I have a question about the SVII software for those of you who are using it. Does it have an option to generate ICC V2 profiles that work with FireFox? That's one thing I hate about EIZO ColorNavigator is that it only generates v4 profiles.
I have a question about the SVII software for those of you who are using it. Does it have an option to generate ICC V2 profiles that work with FireFox? That's one thing I hate about EIZO ColorNavigator is that it only generates v4 profiles.The SpectraView II software generates ICC v.2, matrix-based profiles only.
The off the shelf EyeOne-Display will work. As will other Colorimeters not filtered for this kind of unit. The target white point you ask for, and what you get will likely be off. In tests I did, the differences amounted to about CCT 500K. Its not really a huge big deal because the values you ask for are not as important as getting a White Point that produces a visual match to the print next to the display. Yes, the mated colorimeter is preferable! But its not a game changer either.
No - it only works with older NEC x90 models that were rebranded by LaCie. It wasn't supporting my 3090WQXi, nor PA's.Hm. Did you test Blue eye pro with your 3090WQXi indeed? Very strange.
Hm. Did you test Blue eye pro with your 3090WQXi indeed? Very strange.
I've tested it with NEC 2690WUXi2 and NEC 2490WUXi2. It does support these NECs.
What Blue Eye Pro version are you referring to (I've tried 4.1.3)?LaCie blue eye pro v4.5.1 and LaCie blue eye pro Proof Edition v1.0.2.