Display calibration and profiling: basICColor display 5 vs. i1 Profiler?

[Ellis Vener]

Any thoughts on real world differences between the two programs? I use the X-rite i1 Display Pro colorimeter and have been using i1 Profiler.

[howardm]

I have both.  I used Display4/5 when my iMac needed it and now continue to generally use Display5 for a 2nd screen (Dell) and Spectraview.

Display5 has a lot more knobs to tweak and more useful post-cal reporting.  I can't honestly say it does a better job than if I just used i1P on the Dell screen. (I've never bothered to do a detailed analysis).  If I didn't already own it, I probably would have to find a reason to buy it.  They do have a 14d trial. 

[scyth]

Any thoughts on real world differences between the two programs? I use the X-rite i1 Display Pro colorimeter and have been using i1 Profiler.

you probably have NEC or Eizo - so either SpectaView II or whatever Eizo has are the way to go...

[Mark D Segal]

.............. are the way to go...

Well, as is often the case, there's more than one way to "skin a cat" and it so happens that BasicColor provides an excellent profiling application, so before coming to hard conclusions it's worthwhile comparing the technicalities of each, perhaps trying both and seeing which satisfies better. OEM software is usually bundled with the product and BasicColor comes with a 14-day trial period according to the Terms and Conditions on its website, so there is no risk in this.

[howardm]

Display5 is the only 3rd party software that I'm aware of that *will* hardware calibrate most NEC PA's and some Eizo's (would have to check the latest release notes to see what models).  While that is true, Spectraview is much easier to use and quickly change to calibrations.

[Mark D Segal]

Howard, I've used both and I find BasicColor VERY easy to use, both for profile creation and profile validation. I don't see any one the least bit serious about doing this job (and remember the O/P is a serious professional) having a problem with either software - i.e. to my mind not a reason to chose one over the other. When I first bought my NEC PA271W it came bundled with Spectraview, so I calibrated and profiled with that. It was OK, but I wasn't fully satisfied with it, so I tried BasicColor 4.x.I found the validation outcomes better, and using this software I more easily achieving a screen to print match, so I stuck with it. Now some years have passed and things change, so whether this comparison would remain valid today I can't say for sure, but for what it may still be worth, that's my experience. As I said above, there's nothing except a bit of time to lose trying both and seeing which satisfies most.

[howardm]

Opinions differ.  I'm not 100% sure that Display4 actually did hardware calibration of your PA271.  Also, I would question what 'validation' means since one cannot reliably validate a profile with the same instrument that created it.  If you build a house with a erroneous 35" yardstick and then use it to validate what you built, it will be correct.  It's the accuracy vs. repeatibility problem.

But Ellis asked about i1P vs. Display5 and I'd agree that a 14d trial & comparison would be a worthwhile thing to do before laying out $100+ for the software.

[Mark D Segal]

Yes Howard, it does hardware calibration of the PA271W; you may not be sure, but I am. I researched and verified all this with BasicColor before I bought it. Also note that NEC bundled this software with its high-end PA271 offering in Europe, not here.

The validation issue is an old discussion we've had on this site going back a long time, Andrew Rodney having raised the valid point you are making a good many years ago. There's validation and validation. The kind of validation we get from all this kind of software tells us about internal consistency from round-tripping the profile to reproduce its own reference file numbers; it should at least be able to do that reasonably well regardless of whether the measurements are objectively accurate. The practical kind of "external" validation that matters most to people making prints is whether used within a properly colour-managed workflow one can achieve adequate screen to print match, involving of course other variables at the output end. One needs to look at the whole chain from start to finish in order to assess the adequacy of all its components and how they work in conjunction with each other.

And yes, Ellis asked about i1P, so this is a bit of a tangent. Nonetheless we agree, "try and see" makes sense.

[scyth]

Well, as is often the case, there's more than one way to "skin a cat" and it so happens that BasicColor provides an excellent profiling application, so before coming to hard conclusions it's worthwhile comparing the technicalities of each, perhaps trying both and seeing which satisfies better. OEM software is usually bundled with the product and BasicColor comes with a 14-day trial period according to the Terms and Conditions on its website, so there is no risk in this.

surely opinions differ - but between Spectraview II and SpectraView Profiler (which is a rebranded BasiCColor) what I saw before is : people from Europe wishing to get Spectraview II and never people from NA wishing to get SpectraView Profiler 

[Ellis Vener]

Thanks for all of the feedback. I primarily work with two displays: a 27" Retina iMac and an Eizo CG.