Changing my monitor calibration system

[JessicaLuchesi]

Hey everyone,

I have a pretty simple question here, I am reading several comments that the Spyder 3 package is not calibrated from factory ( which sounds so stupid, I would doubt they would actually do this ), and also, fails to properly calibrate the Apple LED displays (iMac / MacBook Pro).

So, you start to second guess the color accuracy of your monitor for even working with it. So, here goes the 1 Million Dollar Question:

Would you think swapping from the Spyder 3 Pro to the i1Display 2 is something you would do? You consider the Spyder 3 to be so unreliable, the profiles it generates are just unusable? Or is it just with the Apple displays?

Since I don't have any other system to compare here, I really have no way of knowing how accurate my own Spyder is.

Will be waiting for replies, and thank you so much for any help, tips, experience and suggestions.

Jessica

[Scott Martin]

Do you have a Spyder3 Pro or Spyder 3 Elite? And how is your gray balance?

[JessicaLuchesi]

Do you have a Spyder3 Pro or Spyder 3 Elite? And how is your gray balance?

Pro. How do I measure the gray balance using the Spyder?

[probep]

Would you think swapping from the Spyder 3 Pro to the i1Display 2 is something you would do?

First of all, read about the accuracy of low-cost colorimeters: http://lists.apple.com/archives/colorsync-...v/msg00175.html

I have some colorimeters (and spectrometers). But only NEC branded X-Rite i1Dsiplay 2 (optimized by NEC for NEC monitors) is perfect for calibrating NEC SpectraView monitors. Other monitors are calibrated with spectrometers, because my "generic" Spyder3 and i1Display 2 are inaccurate, especially Spyder3.

[JessicaLuchesi]

First of all, read about the accuracy of low-cost colorimeters: http://lists.apple.com/archives/colorsync-...v/msg00175.html

I have some colorimeters (and spectrometers). But only NEC branded X-Rite i1Dsiplay 2 (optimized by NEC for NEC monitors) is perfect for calibrating NEC SpectraView monitors. Other monitors are calibrated with spectrometers, because my "generic" Spyder3 and i1Display 2 are inaccurate, especially Spyder3.

Thank you, I'll be reading in a while. Actually, I did some testings on my Color Checker Passport, and have some questions to post in a while ( will create a new thread for that, want to do some proper lighting and further testing before I do so ).

[JessicaLuchesi]

From what I take, the basic differences between Spyder 3 Pro and Elite, is within the software package, not really regarding the sensor itself. And, the software can be upgraded ( or I can buy a third party solution that works with the Spyder hardware ).

So, how could I evaluate if I have a trustworthy sensor in my hands?

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi,

The problem with colorimeters is that they don't measure spectrum but just three colors. So they measure Red, Green and Blue. Problem is that they don't know which what Red, Green and Blue they measure. With cathodic ray tubes it was easy, because they used to have well defined "phosphors" emitting well know wavelengths. With LCDs the situation is a bit different. They have an electroluminescent background light which has some spectral characteristics and than a set of filters (for red, green and blue pixels) that also have spectral properties. A spectrometer measures a spectrum so it can take all those variations into account.

A colorimeter can be matched to a certain screen by choosing suitable filters and having a correct calibration matrix for the screen in question. You may check this article:

http://www.lumita.com/site_media/work/whit...xrite-wp-3a.pdf

The article may be a bit old. Modern display technology may have changed the playing field a bit.

Best regards
Erik

Hey everyone,

I have a pretty simple question here, I am reading several comments that the Spyder 3 package is not calibrated from factory ( which sounds so stupid, I would doubt they would actually do this ), and also, fails to properly calibrate the Apple LED displays (iMac / MacBook Pro).

So, you start to second guess the color accuracy of your monitor for even working with it. So, here goes the 1 Million Dollar Question:

Would you think swapping from the Spyder 3 Pro to the i1Display 2 is something you would do? You consider the Spyder 3 to be so unreliable, the profiles it generates are just unusable? Or is it just with the Apple displays?

Since I don't have any other system to compare here, I really have no way of knowing how accurate my own Spyder is.

Will be waiting for replies, and thank you so much for any help, tips, experience and suggestions.

Jessica

[Scott Martin]

From what I take, the basic differences between Spyder 3 Pro and Elite

Datacolor had a manufacturing problem witha  batch of S3Pros that can lead to visual discoloration in the graybalance that anyone with a good eye can see. If you have one of these problematic Pros they'll replace them without question. All of the Elite devices have been excellent. Between my own colorimeters and my clients, I get my hands on a lot of these. The EyeOneDisplay has a long history of quality control issues - I'd stay away from it. For demanding environments I think it's impossible to beat Color Eyes Display Pro with a Spyder 3 Elite. FWIW, I wrote a brief article a year ago talking about some of the differences between colorimeters and spectrophotometers for display calibration: http://www.on-sight.com/2008/12/08/updated...ation-packages/

[MBehrens]

This debate between the Spyder 3 and the i1 is getting a bit old. Everyone seems to have an opinion and states it as a truth. I'm coming to the conclusion both are perfectly good devices.

I'd really like to hear a response from the experts here on the OP's direct question... "So, how could I evaluate if I have a trustworthy sensor in my hands?"

I was recently in the same situation of not trusting my device and could not get an answer to this question either. I'm guessing that in an isolated environment with no other results to compare to there is no way to come to a conclusion. I use the Color Eyes Display Pro software and erratic validation results were my only clue.

BTW I got the i1 based on the reports of Spyders not being mfr checked... FWIW

[JessicaLuchesi]

Datacolor had a manufacturing problem witha  batch of S3Pros that can lead to visual discoloration in the graybalance that anyone with a good eye can see. If you have one of these problematic Pros they'll replace them without question. All of the Elite devices have been excellent. Between my own colorimeters and my clients, I get my hands on a lot of these. The EyeOneDisplay has a long history of quality control issues - I'd stay away from it. For demanding environments I think it's impossible to beat Color Eyes Display Pro with a Spyder 3 Elite. FWIW, I wrote a brief article a year ago talking about some of the differences between colorimeters and spectrophotometers for display calibration: http://www.on-sight.com/2008/12/08/updated...ation-packages/

Scott,

I am new to Color Management, and don't know what you meant by Gray Balance. But, I have a fairly good eye, and a Color Checker Passport, which I may use to compare the patches with the desired RGB counterpart of the 24-patch on screen ( using the data supplied on the Real World Color Management - Second Edition book - Page 250 ), you think it's a silly endeavor or worth a shot?

I just installed Color Eyes Display Pro, and yes, there is a HUGE difference in the results. The "glare" effect of my screen is gone, which was pretty annoying, I always felt the display was too bright. If the devices on the Spyder3 package are the same, as Color Vision claims, maybe that's the route for me, at least, before I can afford a good spectrophotometer (i1Pro I guess).

So, any tips on how someone new to Color Management can check their device for some precision?

Jessica

[JessicaLuchesi]

Btw, I have the "validation results" from Color Eyes Display Pro. Could that be helpful to spot problems?


ColorEyes Display Validation Log
2010-01-14 11:47:02

Display:   Color LCD 1
System Profile:   ColorEyesDemo
Calibrated By:   ColorEyes Display
Calibration Date:   110-00-14 11:46:01

Validation Results:
   #       C       M       Y       K     Target     L       a       b    Measured   X       Y       Z       L       a       b    DeltaE  
       1       0       0       0       0         100.000   0.000   0.000          164.48  173.03  189.13 100.000   0.017  -0.242    0.26
       2       0       0       0       0          94.910   0.000   0.000          143.07  150.84  164.56  94.813  -0.330  -0.111    0.50
       3       0       0       0       0          89.822   0.000   0.000          124.33  131.07  142.62  89.742  -0.290   0.050    0.44
       4       0       0       0       0          84.745   0.000   0.000          107.64  113.43  123.42  84.769  -0.225   0.054    0.34
       5       0       0       0       0          79.660   0.000   0.000           91.48   96.45  105.18  79.467  -0.285  -0.070    0.45
       6       0       0       0       0          74.577   0.000   0.000           77.99   82.13   89.01  74.485  -0.105   0.250    0.30
       7       0       0       0       0          67.155   0.000   0.000           59.84   62.95   68.74  66.808   0.033  -0.131    0.31
       8       0       0       0       0          58.956   0.000   0.000           43.92   46.29   50.20  58.742  -0.178   0.178    0.37
       9       0       0       0       0          50.393   0.000   0.000           30.84   32.46   35.42  50.403  -0.040  -0.079    0.10
      10       0       0       0       0          37.975   0.000   0.000           16.47   17.39   18.82  37.933  -0.283   0.195    0.46
      11       0       0       0       0          25.684   0.000   0.000            7.46    7.87    8.60  25.400  -0.154  -0.090    0.32
      12       0       0       0       0          17.782   0.000   0.000            4.01    4.23    4.66  17.677  -0.147  -0.217    0.32
      13       0       0       0       0          56.206  82.374  80.182           75.84   39.97    2.82  56.321  82.101  80.676    0.27
      14       0       0       0       0          86.791 -78.936  91.187           58.56  119.43   18.24  86.715 -79.061  91.237    0.06
      15       0       0       0       0          30.162  60.827 -94.913           29.80   13.02  167.54  30.254  60.802 -94.816    0.08

Maximum DeltaE:   0.50
Average DeltaE:   0.31

[probep]

So, any tips on how someone new to Color Management can check their device for some precision?

It is hard to do without a reference sensor. Even for professionals.  

[JessicaLuchesi]

It is hard to do without a reference sensor. Even for professionals.

All I know, is this MacBook Pro screen is kicking my a$$, LOL

Opening the reference 24-patch ProPhoto file ( http://www.colorremedies.com/realworldcolor/downloads.html ) and comparing to the X-Rite color checker passport 24-patch target, and looking one by one, it seems, on visual inspection, the color are spot on, but, very very "bright". I mean, considering the target is validated and accurate ( which X-Rite certifies for two years ), what I felt is, there was no visual shift in the colors, but, they were washed off on the screen, compared to the target. Even configured the Color Eyes Display Pro to a White Luminance Target of 110cd/m2, and it still looks washed off ( not sure if the software could come down to 110cd/m2 ).

Being on a budget sucks, otherwise I could just order an Eizo Monitor and i1Pro and be over with this :|

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi!

Did you measure your brightness? Can you reduce brightness in your display settings?  Ideally, brightness should be a like a white sheet of paper in your reference illumination. So if your screen is brighter than a sheet of paper in the illumination you use to evaluate your prints it would be too bright.

Best regards
Erik

All I know, is this MacBook Pro screen is kicking my a$$, LOL

Opening the reference 24-patch ProPhoto file ( http://www.colorremedies.com/realworldcolor/downloads.html ) and comparing to the X-Rite color checker passport 24-patch target, and looking one by one, it seems, on visual inspection, the color are spot on, but, very very "bright". I mean, considering the target is validated and accurate ( which X-Rite certifies for two years ), what I felt is, there was no visual shift in the colors, but, they were washed off on the screen, compared to the target. Even configured the Color Eyes Display Pro to a White Luminance Target of 110cd/m2, and it still looks washed off ( not sure if the software could come down to 110cd/m2 ).

Being on a budget sucks, otherwise I could just order an Eizo Monitor and i1Pro and be over with this :|

[digitaldog]

Btw, I have the "validation results" from Color Eyes Display Pro. Could that be helpful to spot problems?

Maybe, but probably not since if the fault or inaccuracy is in the instrument, how can it report this inaccuracy when you use the same device as a double check? Its like having a 12” ruler that’s off by ⅓ of an inch. You can measure the same thing a dozen times and its still ⅓ inch off and worse, not aware of this inaccuracy. That and the fact that the colors used for such reports are not necessarily the most demanding colors to hit in color space (the manufacturer gets to pick what colors give us the report).

[ChasP505]

...Its like having a 12” ruler that’s off by ⅓ of an inch. You can measure the same thing a dozen times and its still ⅓ inch off and worse, not aware of this inaccuracy....

Yeah, but it can demonstrate consistency.  I used to have a Spyder3 Pro puck and it could validate a ColorEyes created profile 3 times with 3 widely and wildly varying results.  I replaced it with a Spyder3 Express puck and now 3 consecutive validations will give consistent results.  I can't attest to accuracy, but at least it shows it's consistent.

[digitaldog]

Yeah, but it can demonstrate consistency.

Yes, and trending is very useful. That’s what makes Maxwell so cool (http://www2.chromix.com/maxwell/index3.cxsa). As long as its understood there can be consistent incorrect measurements.

[JessicaLuchesi]

Yeah, but it can demonstrate consistency.  I used to have a Spyder3 Pro puck and it could validate a ColorEyes created profile 3 times with 3 widely and wildly varying results.  I replaced it with a Spyder3 Express puck and now 3 consecutive validations will give consistent results.  I can't attest to accuracy, but at least it shows it's consistent.

Good idea. Am gonna give it a try, if I see much deviation, well, I'm adding an i1 Display 2 to my shopping cart. And then save to an i1Pro ( and maybe an Eizo monitor if this is a pretty good year  ).

[JessicaLuchesi]

Quick note, opening the ProPhoto and LAB versions of the 24-patch target from the book's support site had some minute differences when comparing my own screen to the physical X-rite target. The LAB file was almost spot on. The only issue still to be looked upon, is the brightness, not really color matching. The bottom gray patches still seem to be really bright, compared to the card. It's also noticeable on the color patches, but it's impossible to ignore on the gray ones.

Anyone has any idea how to solve this? Maybe changing the target white or black luminance while calibrating?

The ColorEyes Display Pro suggests 120cd/m2, but I'm setting to 100cd/m2 and it still seems too bright. Is there some sort of "standard" value to be used?

[JessicaLuchesi]

Hi!

Did you measure your brightness? Can you reduce brightness in your display settings?  Ideally, brightness should be a like a white sheet of paper in your reference illumination. So if your screen is brighter than a sheet of paper in the illumination you use to evaluate your prints it would be too bright.

Best regards
Erik

Hey Erik,

No, I didn't. How can I measure it using either the Spyder3 Pro software, or the ColorEyes package? I did however set, and try to vary, the target luminance while calibrating. I can manually set it from the system preferences, yes. I tried dimming, but I didn't feel I was getting any closer to solving the problem. I think, since the ColorEyes software adjusts everything on the LUT ( from what I inferred ), I should try to set it there. Not sure if I am correct. Maybe I am indeed running after my own tail, and getting just slightly closer, but without any definite solutions

Thank you for the tip on the printing evaluation, but I really don't print. My files go directly to editors, and even they don't have perfect proofing of the prints. They rely on experience to sort out problems. I think my best chance, is to maybe match a patch image to the GretagMacbeth 24-patch target, which is a known, tested reference. Still, I guess it's only as good and accurate as my eyes. And even then, not really an official image, but one provided as support material to the Real World Color Management book.