Hello,
I have been evaluating two monitor profiling packages, BasICColor Display, and ColorEyes. Since I have spent a few days looking them over, I thought I would post some of my observations. This was not undertaken as a rigorous test, nor do I have the credentials to speak authoritatively: I am simply offering my experience to the extent that it might be of value to others.
ColorEyes was easier to download and get started with, and BasICColor required a few more steps to get the trial license together. Both worked well once the licenses were in place, finding and connecting to my EyeOne Pro spectrophotometer. The ColorEyes trial is slightly more limited than the BasICColor, with a 10-day license, and a limited number of profiles. The BasICColor trial offers a 14-day unlimited license.
Both packages offer basic gamma tone response curve (TRC) options, along with D65, D50, etc. white point options. ColorEyes also offers an L* option for the tone response curve, and does not offer CIECAM options, with BasICColor just the inverse.
I am using a 20" LCD on an Intel iMac. This monitor has a "brightness only" control. With ColorEyes, one sets the brightness using the F14 and F15 keys until the software reports that the target brightness is achieved. With BasICColor, the software accepts the entered setting and adjusts the hardware brightness itself.
The settings I used for both were D65, 100 cd/m^2, and contrast ratio of 400:1. With ColorEyes, I set the TRC to L*, and with BasICColor, I used CIECAM - Avg. I used the "ICC v.4" and "16-bit LUT" for both packages, and CAT02 chromatic adaptation for the BasICColor package.
After making a profile with each package, I evaluated each of the profiles using the validation portions of each package. Thus, I tested the ColorEyes profile with both the ColorEyes and BasICColor validation components, and tested the BasICColor profile with both validation components.
The BasICColor package gives a more comprehensive report than the ColorEyes validator, so the results can't be directly compared. Here are the results:
Test of BC & CE profile with BC validator:
Item....................BC Profile..............CE Profile
White Point*.................0.0 / -0.1..................0.2 / -0.9
Luminance...................100...........................100
Contrast......................181:1........................162:1
DeltaE94 - Avg.............0.2............................0.77
DeltaE94 - Max.............0.78..........................3.69
DeltaE - Avg.................0.38..........................1.99
DeltaE - Max.................0.89..........................7.76
* The BC validator reports white point as difference from target in LAB a and b values.
Test of BC & CE profile with CE validator:
Item...........BC Profile............CE Profile
dE - Avg...............5.85................0.79
dE - Max...............11.21..............2.17
The BC validator uses more colors in its standard routine than the CE validators, but the CE validator has options to run a very large color set in its validator, which I did not run.
I looked a few photos on screen, as well as the Bill Atkinson, "strawberries" test image (LAB version), evaluating them visually on screen and comparing them to print outs.
My impression is that both profiles are excellent. I used Solux 4700K lights for print comparisons, with a range of luminance levels on the prints. If anything, I felt the screen was a bit bluer than the prints with both profiles, though this was slight. Tones seemed well distributed, and gray ramps were without color bands. The (very) slight blue-ness of the monitor images could easily be attributed to my lighting (my lamps are a bit old, and read at 4300K). Did one profile provide a better match than another? Just when I thought I had one identified as the better one, I would realize that I had the profiles mixed up, and it was the other I preferred, so I can't say that one proved visually superior than the other.
Both compared favorably on screen and in print comparisons to an EyeOne Match profile (I did not run the EOM profile through the validators). Settings for the EOM profile were: D65, 100 cd/m^2, TRC = gamma 2.2. My primary observation about the EOM profile was a too-strong contrast. Still, this was slight. All three provided very good matches and on-screen images.
It is interesting that the test results favored the profile made by the same package as the validator: that the BC validator gave better results for the BC profile, and that the CE validator did the same. Whether this is due to expected settings mismatches, or biases in the tests that favor its own profiles, or for some other reason, I can't say.
I haven't made up my mind which package to purchase just yet. The BasICColor website indicates that the cost is €100 for one license, and €50 for each additional license. ColorEyes is listed at $175 for three licenses. For me, with two computers, the ColorEyes comes out a little ahead on price.
I hope this post provides some value.
Best Regards,
Michael Morrison
NOTE: Apr 6, 2007, I realize that the numbers in the tables had the spaces stripped out when they were posted to the forum, so I have added periods to space them. . . Michael
