Profiled NEC PA301w & Eizo ColorEdge CG210 don't match

[GeoffM]

 I have a brand new NEC PA301w that I've calibrated with Spectraview and the custom iOne calibrator that comes with the monitor. I also have an Eizo CG210 that I've used for for many years as my primary profiled monitor, and I calibrate that monitor with an EyeOne Pro and Eizo's ColorNavigator software. I've never had a second color-managed monitor to compare with the Eizo, but now that I do, I'm seeing a visible mismatch between the two and searching for "the truth". Not sure if my expectations are unrealistic, but I really thought I would see very little difference between the two once they were calibrated. I've set the color temp and luminance targets the same on both monitors (6500, 85cd), run the calibration several times on each, and then verified the profiles on both using the applicable software (Spectraview and ColorNaviagator both allow you to check the profile once it's been created.) On the NEC I see average max deltaE of ~2, with a max of 3; on the Eizo the max deltaE is 2 with the average just over one. Both pieces of software confirm the color temp is very close to the target color temp (within 100 degrees), yet I still see a noticeable difference between the displays. The NEC clearly looks warmer than the Eizo, despite what the software claims.

OK, so then I got this brilliant idea to put up a picture in LR of a colorchecker and then use my eyeOne and the spot measure tool in PMP5 to actually measure what's coming from each screen. I set the eyeOne to emissive mode, took a reading on the NEC (reference) and then dragged the LR window to Eizo screen and did another measurement off the same white patch (whitest patch) on the Eizo (Sample). Comparison screen shot attached. So which monitor/calibration is right, and is this even a legit test? More than anything, I'm curious as to why both calibration packages report good (matching) profiles but visually that's just not the case.

Thanks,

Geoff

[WillH]

I would recommend using the same device to calibrate both displays - in your case use the iOne Pro. This should get you a bit closer.

However keep in mind that the displays have different color gamuts so there are issues beyond just the color sensors at play here. You are never going to be able to get the displays to look identical for all colors.

If your main concern is to get the white points to match, and using the same color sensor on both displays doesn't get you all the way there, you may need to make a visual based adjustment to the Target in SpectraView to compensate for how your eye sees the displays, vs. how the color senor does. See FAQ #3 on page 43 of the latest SpectraView User's Guide for more info on how to do this.

So to answer your question about why both packages report good profiles; According to each sensor on each display, they are measuring the color levels that were intended, so as far as they are concerned, everything matches (a calibration is only as good as the numbers that the sensor measures). The key point here is that this is what the sensor measured - not what your eye actually perceives.

[GeoffM]

Thanks Will,

It's my understanding that the calibrator that comes with the PA301 is custom-tuned for this monitor. Wouldn't I get the best profile for the 301 using the custom iOne Display and Spectraview? (Pretty much the main reason I ordered the bundled package.) What do I give up by using my iOne Pro, and should I still use Spectraview, or are you suggesting I switch to a profiling package that works with both monitors?

BTW, great to know NEC has a presence here!

Geoff

[Czornyj]

Geoff - try to measure the chromatic coordinates of the calibrated PA301 with i1pro and use it as a custom wtpt calibration target in ColorNavigator

[WillH]

Geoff

Provided your i1Pro is still in good factory calibration, it is an excellent device to calibrate the PA series displays with. Using completely different measurement technologies on two different display terminologies (wide color gamut and standard gamut) and expecting them to match exactly is asking a lot (even measurements from $10,000+ lab grade equipment from different manufacturers can disagree to some extent). Your eyes can do a better job in the end which is why I recommended using the visual matching method if necessary to do tweaking. After all - it is the visual match that you are seeking, not necessarily a match of the numbers coming from the sensors.

[digitaldog]

Expecting two different software packages even using the same target calibration values and instrument to match is a stretch. It should I know. Going back many years, it was a wakeup call for me to see this wasn't the case. One software manufacturers D65 target and result is just different from another. Use a target with a pretty ambiguous value (CCT kelvin) and all bets are off. Ultimately you have to season to taste to get a match. That's true if you are trying to get a display to match a print under some illuminant or two different display manufacturers to match even if you could use the same software which in this case you can't. If you are provided decent software that allows you to provide custom target values, you probably can get very close.

[GeoffM]

Thanks everyone for the advice and guidance. I've calibrated both monitors with the iOne Pro and it made little difference in the mismatch, so I'm going to try the visual match and custom whitepoint methods and see if I can get closer.

Geoff

[hdrzphotog]

Is there a chance the ambient light sensors are seeing the light differently i.e., differing adjacent reflective surfaces, window closer to one, etc.?

[GeoffM]

I suppose that's a possibility, but I turn off the monitor not being calibrated while doing the other one, and I perform the calibration in a dark room, so the ambient light should be the same for both during the calibration process.

Geoff

[Terry Landon]

You're calibrating your monitors wrong.
 
The Eizo requires special software, you can download it directly from Eizo. It's a free download. Their software allows you to calibrate the monitor, and their software makes changes to the monitor's HARDWARE. Typically, doing monitor calibrations alter the software of your computer to have it make up for the hardware of the monitor being out of synch. But with an Eizo, the software makes changes to your hardware. By changing the hardware, you don't have to calibrate as often, maybe once a month or every 2 months, vs. ever 2 to 4 weeks with regular monitors.
 
The other monitor you have, the stock calibrator stuff that comes with it, sucks. Use your Eye One 2 display calibrator.

Good luck.

[howardm]

According to the OP, he's using exactly what he should be.  The Spectraview sw for the NEC and ColorNav. for the Eizo; both of which directly manipulate their respective hardware.  The issue was which hardware puck should be used and Will from NEC recommended the i1Pro (non-colorimeter) which makes sense.  Both pieces of software support it.

I"m still struggling a bit to get my iMac (Munki/BasICColor) to closely track my PA241 (Munki/Spectraview) but the visual match thing
certainly got me closer (although it seems to do better/worse on certain colors).  Kind of amazing to see the difference between the gamut o the 241 vs. the 2008vintage iMac 24" CCFL LCD.

You're calibrating your monitors wrong.
 
The Eizo requires special software, you can download it directly from Eizo. It's a free download. Their software allows you to calibrate the monitor, and their software makes changes to the monitor's HARDWARE. Typically, doing monitor calibrations alter the software of your computer to have it make up for the hardware of the monitor being out of synch. But with an Eizo, the software makes changes to your hardware. By changing the hardware, you don't have to calibrate as often, maybe once a month or every 2 months, vs. ever 2 to 4 weeks with regular monitors.
 
The other monitor you have, the stock calibrator stuff that comes with it, sucks. Use your Eye One 2 display calibrator.

Good luck.

[Terry Landon]

So which monitor do you like better, the PA241 or the 2008vintage iMac 24" CCFL LCD? I'm sure the PA241 is better.