Luminous Landscape Forum
Raw & Post Processing, Printing => Colour Management => Topic started by: Jeremy Roussak on February 16, 2013, 03:28:44 pm
-
Apple tells me that my shiny new 27" iMac has shipped, so it should arrive in a few days' time. Which of these two would you recommend?
I asked a similar question recently and the consensus was that the i1 was preferable to the ColorMunki Display. The Spyder wasn't discussed in that thread, though.
Any pointers gratefully received.
Jeremy
-
I am in the same shoes, about to purchase one. Would like to hear feedback on the one your using both pros & cons.
-
Generally the opinion is that the i1 Display Pro is faster and better than the Spyder 4 Elite. See here (http://www.gamutprints.com/2012/04/i1display-pro-vs-spyder-4-and-spyder-4-quick-review/\) as most people handling theatre calibration prefer the i1 Display Pro for faster and more accurate profiles. Computer users I haven't read much on this yet.
-
According to what I've read, the Spyder4 sensor would have been the industry standard a year or two ago. But since then the i1 Display Pro arrived, and it's generally considered to be a bit better.
Can't comment on the software as I haven't used any of them, but the sensors are both considered very good.
-
Thanks, all. My iMac arrived today – very exciting! I've ordered an i1: it should be delivered tomorrow.
Jeremy
-
Generally the opinion is that the i1 Display Pro is faster and better than the Spyder 4 Elite. See here (http://www.gamutprints.com/2012/04/i1display-pro-vs-spyder-4-and-spyder-4-quick-review/\) as most people handling theatre calibration prefer the i1 Display Pro for faster and more accurate profiles. Computer users I haven't read much on this yet.
Thanks Philip, the link you provided, helped me decide, I too am about to buy the i1 Display Pro
-
I just purchased i1Display Pro and calibrated my monitor last night. I was previously using Spyder 3 pro.
It is faster and very easy to use and after initial test prints of some images, much more accurate.
Im' a windows user and it was incredibly easy to install.
I would highly recommend.
-
The i1 was very easy to install and produces what seems to be a good profile very quickly, certainly a great deal more quickly than my old Huey Pro. I'm happy.
Jeremy
-
I have used and been happy with my i1 display 2 for some years now. I have recently encountered some difficulties and need some help in sorting them out. Contacting x-rite I was told that they no longer support this model and it will cost $29 for a half hour consultation. Given that there is no additional information on their somewhat disjointed website I am left feeling unhappy with their service. I believe I might need a new device and after this experience I will be strongly considering the Datacolor product.
-
If I'm reading the thread below correctly, the I1DisplayPro and the ColorMunki Display use effectively the same sensor. At least the OP appears to have combined them together for the purposes of his comparison.
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?PHPSESSID=f7f2daac60c3b56d5cffdf63d8c8ac03&topic=53825.0
For me, since I use Argyll/dispcalGUI, the CMD is a far better deal. Then again, I could be misreading the thread and something may have changed in the intervening two years since it was started.
Scott
-
If I'm reading the thread below correctly, the I1DisplayPro and the ColorMunki Display use effectively the same sensor.
Identical sensor, different speed to measure (penalize the lesser expensive product) but more importantly, the ColorMunki Display software is pretty crippled (penalize again the lesser expensive product and those who buy them).
Considering the cost to code two such products, just to have two price points, I don't understand X-rite's thinking much of the time. But their hardware is excellent!
-
I believe I might need a new device and after this experience I will be strongly considering the Datacolor product.
I advise checking carefully any new products to see if it will match your purposes. The grass isn't always greener at another company.
-
Identical sensor, different speed to measure (penalize the lesser expensive product) but more importantly, the ColorMunki Display software is pretty crippled (penalize again the lesser expensive product and those who buy them).
Considering the cost to code two such products, just to have two price points, I don't understand X-rite's thinking much of the time. But their hardware is excellent!
I'm not worried about the software as I use Argyll/dispcalGUI. Also, speed isn't as important as accuracy since I'll only use it about once a month or so.
I wonder how they slowed down the speed of the sensor? Hmmm.
Scott
-
I advise checking carefully any new products to see if it will match your purposes. The grass isn't always greener at another company.
I haven't found anything definitive to help decide between the two products. Similar pricing and fans on each side. The deciding factor in this case for me is the lack of support by X-rite for my Eye one display 2 that is perhaps five years old. I tend not to forget a lack of commitment from a company I have given my money to. My Datacolor Spyder print device has worked well and is still supported. I am interested in hearing if there is any reason to reconsider.
-
The deciding factor in this case for me is the lack of support by X-rite for my Eye one display 2 that is perhaps five years old.
Why should they support a sensor that has physically not the right means to support the current crop of displays?
And historically, DataColor had a much higher frequency of bringing out new devices to support newer technology vs X-rite whose sensors lasted for more monitor generations.
You might also want to consider this: http://www.drycreekphoto.com/Learn/Calibration/MonitorCalibrationHardware.html
My Datacolor Spyder print device has worked well and is still supported.
Lucky Guy.
I spent way too much time with a DataColor spectro to calibrate a toy printer and never succeeded. X-Rite did it at the first try.
cheers
afx
-
Why should they support a sensor that has physically not the right means to support the current crop of displays?
Please explain.
-
LED backlit wide gamut displays which are what everyone is moving to.
Already for wide gamut support you need a modified i1 Display 2 (what NEC and others have been shipping previously).
Everything I find so far on colorimeters suggests that the i1 Display 2 can not do a proper job on the latest LED backlit screens.
cheers
afx
-
will never buy an eye-one or X-rite product again, the gels fade over time and give incorrect calibration (in my case a strong magenta cast) was a week outside of warranty but X-rite tech support didn't want to know even though the chap on the end of the phone in switzerland admitted they regularly failed.
now happily using a spyder on my eizo and MacBook Pro
-
will never buy an eye-one or X-rite product again, the gels fade over time and give incorrect calibration
The same applies for the older Spyders.
Only the new devices like Spyder 4 and the i1Display Pro have anorganic filters. All the older colorimeters have fading filters.
cheers
afx
-
I just got a package from Chromix that included a Spyder 4 and the Color Eyes Display Pro s/w. Works very well. Really nice matches in multi-monitor rigs.
Interestingly, out of 6 different monitors I tried, the worst delta Es reported by Color Eyes came from a 3 year old Apple Cinema 2 monitor. The best were on a cheap HP monitor. But after calibration and profiling, they are all very usable.
-
Interestingly, out of 6 different monitors I tried, the worst delta Es reported by Color Eyes came from a 3 year old Apple Cinema 2 monitor. The best were on a cheap HP monitor. But after calibration and profiling, they are all very usable.
Don't put a lot of faith into such dE reports, there are a number of reasons it's just a feel good option. IF the dE values were really large, you'd see this on-screen anyway.
-
Don't put a lot of faith into such dE reports, there are a number of reasons it's just a feel good option. IF the dE values were really large, you'd see this on-screen anyway.
I'm sure you're right. I will say though that just eyeballing that Cinema, I could tell it was pretty wonky. Anything with subtle middle grey tones looked awful. After calibration, it looks pretty good.
I have one of those Dell Ultrasharps on another system, and prints match that thing terrifically well now, which is really all that matters to me.
Of course, I want an Eizo, but that will have to wait until I've sold quite a few more prints.