Luminous Landscape Forum
Raw & Post Processing, Printing => Colour Management => Topic started by: HCHeyerdahl on March 01, 2011, 01:58:03 am
-
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
-
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
-
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
-
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.
-
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...
-
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 (http://lists.apple.com/archives/colorsync-users/2009/Nov/msg00175.html)
Maybe this (http://www.curtpalme.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=11436)also helps.
And the SX2462 doesn't have an internal LUT - but the panel seems to be the same as the CG243.
Toni
-
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
-
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.
-
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.
-
EasyPIX2 is not bending curves in the graphics card LUT,
Did I say that?
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.
-
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.
-
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
-
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?
-
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:
(http://members.chello.pl/m.kaluza/ezpx2.png)
-
Will the i1 pro spectro be better than the ColorMunki in the very dark colors?
Christopher
There's no difference.
-
Ok, thanks. I guess there is propably no point in going for the i1Pro, and that I can settle for the ColorMonki.
Christopher
-
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.
-
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
-
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:
(http://members.chello.pl/m.kaluza/dscs3.jpg)
(http://members.chello.pl/m.kaluza/dscs2.jpg)
-
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
-
Hi,
In general I'd suggest that you either need a colorimeter matched to the characteristics of your screen or a spectrometer. The spectro measures all colors, while the colorimeter measures only three. The colorimeter does measure those three colors well.
Now your screen can really emit three colors (called primaries), which is a combination of backlight and the color filter grid array in front of the screen. So if the colorimeter is well matched to the light your screen can actually emit it can work very well.
A spectrometer is a more generic device.
Best regards
Erik
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
-
Which means that you should get the Eizo colorimeter that is adapted for the display you have.
The Z3200-PS APS colorimeter (E1DII HP branded but standard) isn't meant for wide gamut displays as I understand it and the one used in the HP Dreamcolor package is adapted for the 2480 etc monitor, so different species.
A spectrometer will be more universal including measuring a wider variety of monitors with some disadvantages compared to colorimeters used for monitors. Which can be compensated to a degree with the measuring method.
A long thread that goes somewhat deeper, I found it before I bought a wide gamut monitor some years ago:
http://lists.apple.com/archives/Colorsync-users/2008/Sep/msg00658.html
Edit: Reading the Prad review of the LG W2420R with a similar Spyder colorimeter solution I get more doubts that that colorimeter is consistent enough. With the LG there is however a solution that the Eye 1 Pro can be used with the software bundled. That might be possible too with ColorNavigator, the Eye 1 Basic would then be the cheapest Eye 1.
Edit: On your fear? that the Eye 1 Pro will outperform the Z3200 spectro profiles, I don't think so, Color Center or APS are both good. But the Eye 1 Basic could be a good addition to the Z's capabilities if you get the normal Non-UV-cut Eye 1 Basic. The Z's spectro doesn't measure into UV. Varnished canvas isn't easy to profile on the Z. B&W profiling tools like QTR profile creator can be used with a separate spectrometer.
met vriendelijke groeten, Ernst Dinkla
New: Spectral plots of +250 inkjet papers:
http://www.pigment-print.com/spectralplots/spectrumviz_1.htm
-
Thanks everybody for your thoughts on this. Much appreciated
Upgrading is always somewhat of a hazzel. I often find it difficult to decide how much of an upgrade I really need. Nice to have equipment rarely gets used and is money wasted, but so is equipment that some months down the line actually turn out to be lacking in features I want to use!
I talked to an Eizo representative, and his opinion was that profiling with the ColorMunki would be pretty much on par with the built in device. I also ended up getting a very good discount on the ColorMunki Photo spectro from my dealer. Too good to say no really, so I decided to try it out and see if it works well enough for me and my equipment. If it doesn´t I can sell it without loosing much and upgrade to the i1, Discus or :) Definitely convenient that it can profile both my displays (the CM Design will not).
Christopher
-
From ICC profiles. Three sample profiles created after three various calibrations with gamma 2,2 chosen as a target:
(http://members.chello.pl/m.kaluza/ezpx2.png)
OK, I don’t fully understand what that means, so I’m grateful if you explain to me.
I hope Christopher has got the answers he wanted, so I can try to understand what you mean with that EasyPIX2 doesn’t do a true hardware calibration.
Here’s what I did. I removed all the monitor profiles from the computer and restarted everything. Prior to doing so, I calibrated the monitor to some far edge values that was easy to recognize; brightness 60 cd/m2, contrast 74%, colortemp 5000K, gamma 2.4, gamut sRGB and RGB values 100%, 85%, 65%. This is about what EasyPIX allows you to enter.
I restarted the computer again and it’s obvious that there’s no monitor calibration change. Using Eizo Screen Manager Pro, this can easily be confirmed. Checking via Photoshop CS5, there’s no monitor profile in use, Photoshop reports sRGB as monitor profile, but the screen hasn’t changed.
Obviously, Eizo is saving the calibration status in the monitor LUT and the only way to get rid of it is to reset the monitor to its factory settings. I can restore any monitor calibration again by copying the monitor ICC-profiles back to its original folder and load it with EasyPIX.
Now, please explain to me in what way the rTRC-gTRC-bTRC tags in the ICC profile has anything to do with the calibration status saved in the monitor LUT and why you don't consider EasyPIX a true hardware calibration solution. Thanks!
-
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.
Turns out that EasyPIX2 does not find the ColorMunki Photo on my computer (PC win7). I have read a few threads that it will work like you suggest.
Do you happen to know how to make the software communicate with the CM, or prehaps there is a beta version floating around with support for the CM?
Christopher
-
Do you happen to know how to make the software communicate with the CM, or prehaps there is a beta version floating around with support for the CM?
You need a special, top-secret library that adds CM support in EasyPIX2. It's unavailable for common morals, but you may torture your EIZO dealer until you get it.
-
LOL!
Actually, same time I posted my question to you here, I posted a similar request on a norwegian foto forum. At 11:36 Sunday morning I recieved an email from the Norwegian EIZO distributor with a patch!! NICE ;D
Christopher
-
OK, I don’t fully understand what that means, so I’m grateful if you explain to me.
The idea of full hardware calibration is that it's suppose to measure the native TRC of the display, and correct it in an internal LUT to get perfect linearity without any tonal loss. Problem is that EasyPIX2 doesn't seem to provide it.
It's basing on ColorNavigator engine, but it works in a different way - for example there's no grayscale iteration while calibration process. It automatically calibrates the luminance of backlight and the whitepoint using RGB gain, you can see it changes the Luminance & RGB gain % values in an OSD menu. But there's simply no trace of full internal LUT access - there should be some grayscale iteration calibration process, and after the internal LUT modification the resulting profile's r-g-bTRC tags should have the same gamma value as the gamma value that was chosen as a calibration target.
The lack of grayscale iteration, and the various r-g-bTRC tag values seem to suggest, that EasyPIX2 only calibrates luminance and white point internally, measures few grayscale patches and calculates the averaged gamma value of resulting TRC of the display, that is saved as r-g-bTRC tags in an ICC profile of the display.
Of course, in a matter of sense, the automatic luminance and RGB gain calibration is something that we may call "hardware calibration" process. But it's not the same as hardware calibration with full internal high-bit LUT access, that e.g. is performed in case of ColorNavigator + ColorEdge series display solution.