LaCie calibration

[chrisn]

I'm thinking of buying a LaCie 300-series monitor (probably the 319), but I'm wondering about the bundled calibrator.

Does anyone have experience with this equipment, or know anything about it?

Specifically, am I better off buying a LaCie with their Blue Eye Pro, or would it be better to buy the monitor sans-Blue Eye and use a third-party calibrator?

Thank you for any advice.

Chris

[Mark D Segal]

I'm thinking of buying a LaCie 300-series monitor (probably the 319), but I'm wondering about the bundled calibrator.

Does anyone have experience with this equipment, or know anything about it?

Specifically, am I better off buying a LaCie with their Blue Eye Pro, or would it be better to buy the monitor sans-Blue Eye and use a third-party calibrator?

Thank you for any advice.

Chris
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=108373\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Chris, I'm using a LaCie 321 with a Monaco Optix XR colorimeter and ColorEyes Display calibration/profiling software. All of it is working together very satisfactorily on my Windows XP computer, and therefore would work fine on a Mac; so because I use this all successfully I can recommend it. You didn't say what O/S you are using. Michael has reviewed ColorEyes Display on this website and highly recommended it. You may wish to read his review. Check the specs on the 321 versus the 319 to determine for yourself whether you may find the 321 more suitable for fine photographic rendition.

There is a slight glitch in the foregoing, insofar as LaCie has up-graded the 321 from having a 10-bit converter to a 12-bit converter, but they did not change the model number. (The display receives 8-bit data from the video card but then processes it into 10 or 12 bit as the case may be.) If you want to go the 321 + ColorEyes Display route it would be good to check with Integrated Color Corp (www.integrated-color.com) whether the version of their software available for this version of the 321 and your O/S works together properly.

As I have no experience with LaCie's Blue-Eye Pro, I cannot offer a comparison of the quality of its results versus the combination of Monaco Optix XR (same thing as DPT94) and Color Eyes Display. I think, however, the one thing you can rest assured of with the Blue-Eye Pro is that you will at least have a coherent package of hardware and software, because it comes from the same vendor and intended to work together.

[digitaldog]

Specifically, am I better off buying a LaCie with their Blue Eye Pro, or would it be better to buy the monitor sans-Blue Eye and use a third-party calibrator?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=108373\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Unless there's a big cost differential between the Blue-Eye and the 3rd party stuff, I'd stick with the Blue-Eye. The hardware is good and you'll have a integrated package which handles all the heavy lifting for you.

[Mark D Segal]

Andrew, good that you supplied the missing information on the quality of the Blue Eye hardware. The price difference between the LaCie monitors with versus without the Blue Eye is not large enough to pay for a good third-party combination of colorimeter and calibration/profiling software; hence your suggestion makes the most sense. The alternative makes sense - if it works - when one has already owned the third party stuff (my case, for example).

[chrisn]

Mark, Andrew,

Thank you for your input.

I'd done about four hours of research on that monitor before I posted here, and then first thing this morning finally found some solid test information:

According to tests reported on shootsmarter.com, the Blue Eye setup is excellent. It was rated the highest of all the calibrators they tested, but only when used with the LaCie 300-series monitors. FYI.

The theory behind the integrated package is a good one, but I hesitate trusting bundles, as they're not always great solutions. If you're a Nikon user, then you know what I mean -- great equipment, inconsistent software; the Coolscan 4000 is designed to work with NikonScan, but some features of the scanner (e.g., neg scanning) work much better with 3rd-party software.

But in LaCie's case, it looks like they got the combo right. I'm planning to simmer on this decision for a couple more days, but I will probably go ahead ahead and buy this setup. If I discover anything interesting, I'll report back.

Thanks again.

Chris

[Mark D Segal]

Chris, glad to have been helpful. Before you buy, you may wish to ponder which model. The 321 is costlier than the 319, but has considerably higher resolution - reading the specs that seems to be the main difference between them. Within the 321 group, I notice the LaCie website no longer shows the 10-bit model, but only the 12-bit. However, over on the B&H site, they show both the 10-bit and the 12-bit for the 321, the latter being somewhat costlier (of course!). I don't know whether you are buying within the USA or not, but if yes, it would seem you have three choices in the proximate variety - all with Blue Eye - the 12-bit 319 at lower resolution, the 321 at higher resolution with either 10-bit or 12-bit correction. If it were me, within that price range - and expecting that I would keep it for a good three years, using it intensively, I would buy the best of the three - as I did when I bought mine at the time; but we each have our own views and priorities on *affordability*; and, I can't advise which of three would be "sufficient" for two reasons: (a) II'm not in your shoes regarding needs and preferences, and even if I were, ( I'd want to see a direct comparison between these products, and that is not available to me. That said and done - and I would hope Andrew can come in here with his view - if the choice between 10 and 12 bit is still available as it seems, that's nice, but I'd be surprised if it made a huge difference to image quality for data coming from an 8-bit video card - but I stand to be corrected. I do think, however, that the resolution difference is a worthwhile consideration.

[digitaldog]

According to tests reported on shootsmarter.com, the Blue Eye setup is excellent. It was rated the highest of all the calibrators they tested, but only when used with the LaCie 300-series monitors. FYI.

Its a good product but I'd put NO credence on anything posted to that site with respect to color management. They have just provided too many totally incorrect articles about the subject over the years to be reliable.

[Mark D Segal]

Andrew - do you have any views - in principle - about the logic of a choice between (1) 10-bit and 12-bit correction and (2) 1600x1200 resolution versus 1024x1200 resolution? Such discussion could be helpful to Chris.

[digitaldog]

Andrew - do you have any views - in principle - about the logic of a choice between (1) 10-bit and 12-bit correction and (2) 1600x1200 resolution versus 1024x1200 resolution? Such discussion could be helpful to Chris.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=108591\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

The bit thing is more about marketing than anything else. If 10-bit is good, 12-bit must be better. Fact is, it's 8-bit in and out. Yes, more bits inside an LCD can be somewhat useful in countering banding if you're trying to do adjustments (which you really shouldn't). There's nothing to physically adjust on a CCFL LCD but the intensity of the backlight. If you fiddle with the controls on the display, you're affecting internal LUTs so the idea is, get the 8-bit data in, convert to higher bit, then out again (8-bit since today, that's all the OS and applications can work with). So I wouldn’t pick one display over another just because it has higher bits. I'd just set the display as close to its native behavior (native gamma and white point) and profile that condition.

As for resolution, that's totally subjective and up to the user. Do you like tiny little icons at higher rez? Some do. Some don't.

[chrisn]

I hear you on the resolution. However, a new monitor was not in my equipment budget at all this year, so I am trying to keep the cost down a little. Business concerns.

The monitor I'm ditching is a 19-inch trinitron that's lost its black. I was using that monitor at 1280x1024, which is what LaCie lists as the 319's native. So, resolution-wise, I'd still be using what I'm accustomed to. The luxury of more pixels will have to wait.

I suppose I should also ask: Am I right to think that this is the least I'd have to spend to get a decent monitor for photo work? A friend recommended the NEC models in the $500-range, but my hunch is that those weren't built for pro imaging and might be harder to accurately calibrate. Am I correct?

Chris

[Mark D Segal]

As for resolution, that's totally subjective and up to the user. Do you like tiny little icons at higher rez? Some do. Some don't.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=108592\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Andrew - yes - as far as it goes that's correct - but I was wondering whether resolution has any influence on the appearance of smoothness of tonal gradation in the image. Do the images look more "photographic" at higher rather than lower resolutions - within the range we're discussing here? Or is that concern strictly a matter of the b-bit business?

[Mark D Segal]

I hear you on the resolution. However, a new monitor was not in my equipment budget at all this year, so I am trying to keep the cost down a little. Business concerns.

The monitor I'm ditching is a 19-inch trinitron that's lost its black. I was using that monitor at 1280x1024, which is what LaCie lists as the 319's native. So, resolution-wise, I'd still be using what I'm accustomed to. The luxury of more pixels will have to wait.

I suppose I should also ask: Am I right to think that this is the least I'd have to spend to get a decent monitor for photo work? A friend recommended the NEC models in the $500-range, but my hunch is that those weren't built for pro imaging and might be harder to accurately calibrate. Am I correct?

Chris
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=108600\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Chris, I went through the same agony when my 19" Trinitron from 2002 starting going feint. Given Andrew's view of the resolution issue, looking at the specs logic seems to indicate you would probably be pretty much as well served by a 319 or a 321.

I haven't even considered lower-end monitors for fine photographic work, because I wanted to be sure I could calibrate/profile through DDC and I wanted an LCD that would replicate the "feel" of a good CRT image as much as possible, so I steered into the LaCie - it still isn't the costliest - you can blow 6000 on a high end Eizo, but I was disuaded from the utility of doing that. It's hard to provide more definitive advice about spending spending 500 versus 1200 - so much depends on personal needs and preferences.

[dcp]

1600x1200 is the bare minimum for photographic work.. for one.. its nicer to view a crisp image..
Budget or not.. the Lacie 321 is something you will not regret.. BUT.. beware of stuck pixels.. mine has 4 of them... none dead but all stuck.. it can be irritating but I got used to it.. 6 is the ISO minimum for replacement.. and unfortunately, the more pixels you have, the higher your probability of getting them.

The Blue Eye Pro calibrator works great with the 321 AND with other monitors as well.. My previous calibration was the Spyder PRO which was crap.. SOLD it.. And in addition, the software comes with a calibration 'tester' that allows you do verify your calibration is as close to perfection as you can get.. calibrating a monitor that hasnt warmed up sufficiently (even LCDs) would get you a big delta E  (deviation of optimum calibration against actual) and seeing that get smaller tells you you're getting closer to 'nirvana'.

I also have the DELL2707 which although has a higher gamut spread (esp in greens and blues) isn't quite as good as the 321. 321 is simply more precise and consistent. If I run my 2707 in standby.. the colors simply deviate too much and takes almost half hour to an hour.. whereas the 321 starts up and gets into working mode within minutes.. Colors are definitely richer on the Dell with its 92% NTSC gamut vs the 72% Lacie BUT.. i find that on commercial labs.. the closer match is still the 321. The Dell is simply too rich for commercial minilabs.. Only high-end inkjet prints can match the gamut.. and even then.. depending on the paper choice is still a bit dull compared to on-screen.

Hope that helps in your choice.

[chrisn]

Just checking back in to wrap up my original question. (A peeve of mine is forum topics wherein the original questioner never reports back on the research everyone helped him/her with.)

I ended up getting the LaCie 319. I intended to order it from B&H, but they were closed for Passover week. It was a blessing in disguise, as I ended up finding an even better deal on the monitor from a place called Digital Technology Group (dtgweb.com): $919 plus shipping, and they had it out the door the following morning.

Anyway, I'm thrilled with the monitor. Most importantly to my original question, the bundled calibration setup worked very well and was relatively painless to set up.

Thanks again for all your feedback.

Best,
Chris

[Mark D Segal]

Hi Chris, glad this had a happy ending and thanks for the feedback.

[61Dynamic]

Andrew - yes - as far as it goes that's correct - but I was wondering whether resolution has any influence on the appearance of smoothness of tonal gradation in the image. Do the images look more "photographic" at higher rather than lower resolutions - within the range we're discussing here? Or is that concern strictly a matter of the b-bit business?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=108601\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

If banding occurs it will occur regardless. The difference between 72dpi, 92dpi or 100dpi isn't going to be significant enough to change the appearance of an images tonal gradation. Further, changing zoom level will change the appearance of the image. So in short, no.

The quality of the display & profile will effect such issues far more than resolution.