Datacolor's Spyder3 Elite vs Integrated Color's ColorEyes Display Pro

[Paz]

Hello Everyone,

I've been enjoying reading here for a couple of weeks.  Finally, tonight, one of many attempts to register worked.

I'd like to hear thoughts on the comparison between Datacolor's 'Elite' software vs Integrated Color's 'ColorEyes Display Pro' software, if each program were using the Spyder3 puck.

Are there any particular features that make one program better than the other?

Also, (though I have just asked this in another thread, my apologies) is there any way to tell if a particular Spyder3 is a good one or not?

thanks,

Paz

Lenovo w701 wide gamut, very bright, RGB LED laptop

[DCBen]

Hi Paz,

Well in my biased opinion I would recommend Spyder3Elite:)
ColorEyes Display Pro is obviously a very capable piece of calibration software.
So strictly comparison wise with using our software, Spyder3Elite, you get what we feel is a more straight forward user interface, which is step by step based. But there is also the option of using the Expert Console in the software for advanced users.
So two features worth noting are Studio Match for calibrating dual or multi display setups to the same color and luminance level [a luminance level to which both(or more) displays can be accurately calibrated too]. And our Monitor Quality Analyzer software for measuring/checking the hardware performance of your display(how good it is). Example is the screen uniformity test for finding areas of large brightness variation.

To avoid this being a promotion more than a product comparison please let us know if you have any more specific questions by creating a support ticket:
http://support.datacolor.com/index.php?_m=tickets&_a=submit&languageid=1&group=colorvision

Best,

[Czornyj]

Lenovo w701 wide gamut, very bright, RGB LED laptop

You'd better get i1Display Pro/ColorMunki Display - each sensor is spectrally calibrated, so each one is good. It also has RGB LED spectral characterisation, so in case of your Lenovo it should perform better than anything else.

Here's more information about it:

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=53825.msg465084#msg465084

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=53825.msg475402#msg475402

[Paz]

DataColor Ben and Czornyj ,

Thank you for your replies.

FWIW, to all,

I bought the Spyder 3 + Elite software and downloaded CEDP for 10 free days.  I was staying on my boat for a while, where I have a cheapo Canon printer.  Unfortunately, CEDP would not load due to a conflict between DataColor software and CEDP, but I didn't learn what was wrong until after I got home, so while on the boat I made some Spyder3-Elite prints  Some were good, some okay and some not so hot.  I was disappointed at the lack of consistency.  Why would one image print pretty well and another be off?

Whatever the reason, every print I made with Spyder3 Elite was MUCH better than anything I'd been able to do prior, with the prints made from Lenovo's built in calibrator being the worst.  Eye profiling was better than that.

So, time to come home and I still had some trial CEDP time to go.   The guys at Color Eyes figured out I needed to move Spyder's startup utility out of the startup file.  I was then able to create a CEDP-Spyder3 profile.

At home I have Epson printers and I proceeded to make some tests...

AWFUL.  Everything was truly awful. I tried several images, printed each several times and they were all absolutely goshawful, no matter what profile I used.

So... I eventually set my computer status back to an earlier time, before CEDP was downloaded and in the meanwhile, ordered the i1Display Pro...

only to figure out later that like an absolute IDIOT,  I'd forgotten that on the Epson printer, I was supposed to put the paper in upside down.  By that time my CEDP trial was over, so I never had the chance to make prints using CEDP.

I've calibrated twice using the i1Display Pro.  I've found the i1DP(3) and the Spyder do not agree on the basic brightness of my monitor.  Spyder says I've attained 120 brightness on bright setting 9, (out of 1 - 15) while i1DisplayPro says 9 = 132.  i1Display Pro says 8 brightness = 117  so I've used 8 with i1DP3 profiles, 9 with Spyder3 + Elite.

Unfortunately, I've had other major projects going on and have not had time to focus on this.  Of the test prints I've made so far, it appears the i1 Display Pro profiles are a closer match to my screen, although they are ever so slightly more green than the image on my monitor and the prints are a little darker, with less detail in lights, than the image on my screen.  So, today I've been trying to make my images a little too red and a little too light, in hopes they'll print correctly.  Sheesh!

I need to recalibrate again using the Spyder3+Elite and then make prints from each that I can compare, side by side.

I DO like the Spyder3 Elite software itself.  It is very easy to follow and gives a great deal of information in a format I can understand.

I do not like the i1 Display Pro - XRite software so far as ease of use or information presented afterwards. 

Paz

[digitaldog]

I was staying on my boat for a while, where I have a cheapo Canon printer.  Unfortunately, CEDP would not load due to a conflict between DataColor software and CEDP, but I didn't learn what was wrong until after I got home, so while on the boat I made some Spyder3-Elite prints  Some were good, some okay and some not so hot.  I was disappointed at the lack of consistency.  Why would one image print pretty well and another be off?

I don’t understand how these product, (certainly CEDP) which are supposed to calibrate and profile your display would affect the output to a print. Now maybe you edited the data based on a poor preview, is that the case?

I've found the i1DP(3) and the Spyder do not agree on the basic brightness of my monitor.  Spyder says I've attained 120 brightness on bright setting 9, (out of 1 - 15) while i1DisplayPro says 9 = 132.

Not surprising at all. In the end, the values are kind of meaningless anyway, the value that produces a match to your print is the correct number.

[DCBen]

Sounds like you have had an interesting time so far with your journey into color management

So just an initial note, All of our sensors are individually calibrated as the last step in the production process.

As Andrew has mentioned(although I would of course include Spyder3Elite as well),

I don’t understand how these product, (certainly CEDP) which are supposed to calibrate and profile your display would affect the output to a print. Now maybe you edited the data based on a poor preview, is that the case? 

-did you softproof the image/s?

When it comes to printing(and color management in general), having a calibrated display is just the first step in the process as you may know. There are many variables involved and so you will need to get everything correct in order to produce consistant/repeatable, predictable results.

-printer driver settings, media type, turning off color management, ect
-Run nozzle checks and perform head cleanings when needed/indicated
-print settings in the software used to print with, paper profiles, rendering intent used, image is properly tagged with a color space profile(unless printing directly from a RAW file in a RAW processing software ie Lightroom, Aperture, Capture One, ect)
-Softproofing the image prior to printing (not possible when printing from Lightroom) If you have Photoshop as well then finalizing the image in PS prior to printing out of Lightroom is a workflow some people use.
-taking into account the paper type, so its brightness, contrast range, is the paper white noticeably on the warm or cool side, as well as the lighting conditions the print is being viewed under.
-having your display's brightness at a level appropriate for your workspace's lighting conditions. A good first step, the paper type and the end lighting conditions the print will be viewed under of course still need to be taken into consideration.

When you try Spyder3Elite again be sure to uninstall the i1 software or at the very least disable its utility from your msconfig list to avoid any confilcts with the two calibration softwares accessing your graphics card's LUT (look up table).
-try a new FullCAL and use the "Iterative Gray Balance" option which can be selected in the "Advanced Settings"(accessed from the Calibration Settings screen), or from the Expert Console.
-also try a calibration using the Ambient Light option which is again accesible via the Advanced Settings or Expert Console

If any specific questions should come up then create a support ticket and we can help you in detail:
http://support.datacolor.com/index.php?_m=tickets&_a=submit&languageid=1&group=colorvision


Cheers,

Ben

[digitaldog]

As Andrew has mentioned(although I would of course include Spyder3Elite as well)...

I didn’t want to lump CEDP and Spyder3Elite assuming the later might also produce printer profiles (I know one of your products does both). Not knowing your products, I didn’t want to introduce a product that might also create a printer profile in my post which implies just a display calibration process which would not affect the print (unless the OP edited the image which I asked).

[DCBen]

No worries Andrew!

Spyder3Elite is only for display and projector profiling/calibration, but you are correct in that we do have a combined kit(Spyder3StudioSR), which includes Spyder3Elite as well as our printer profiling product, Spyder3PrintSR(which has its own spectro device for measuring the printed targets).

Best,

Ben

[digitaldog]

I’m going to be a good dog and say nothing about the “spectro device” <g>

[Paz]

Andrew and Ben, once again, thank you for your replies.

I don’t understand how these product, (certainly CEDP) which are supposed to calibrate and profile your display would affect the output to a print. Now maybe you edited the data based on a poor preview, is that the case?

Andrew , I'm not sure I understand your question.  What I did:

Return monitor to original default profile.  Select 'Native' and '6500' under one of the Windows  Display Properties windows.  (Win 7 Ultimate)

Run software to create profile, setting brightness adjustment manually as part of the process.  Name, save newly created color management profile. Each name specifies individual profiling software, puck and date.

Each time I open an image in Adobe Camera RAW and begin anew so far as editing the images goes, so it 'looks right' with whatever monitor profile is set as default.  (Canon 7D, images shot in Adobe RGB color space.)  After making some edits in ACR, I open the image in Photoshop CS5 for final editing, then print, labeling each print with monitor color profile, printer, paper settings, date, etc.

I use the manufacturers' paper profiles.

Perhaps I have some setting wrong and I'm not seeing it.

Here are my CS5 color settings:



Adobe printer dialog with Epson printer and Epson Premium Presentation Matte Heavyweight paper profile selected:



and the Epson printer dialog box:



I've been using color management since PS 5.5.  Way back then Adobe forum hostess, Carol Steele, and I swapped images files and printed one another's  photos on our Epson printers -  and then mailed the results to one another across the Atlantic.  Except for a degree of metamerism in her Epson 2000 prints compared to my 1270s, the print results were nearly identical, even though we had also used different papers.  We were thrilled!  Finally, it was possible to know what to expect from your printer and get accurate results, every time!!!

Since then I've had great prints, both from my own ink jet printers and a professional printer I use from time to time where I've had both Epson 9800 inkjet, usually on Epson's 'watercolor paper,' as well as photo paper prints made.  My pro printer's system is calibrated too.  It's been great.

Until this wide gamut monitor.

-did you softproof the image/s?

No.  Do I need to learn how?  I've never needed to before, but if that's what it takes...


thanks,

Paz

[Paz]

I've found the i1DP(3) and the Spyder do not agree on the basic brightness of my monitor.  Spyder says I've attained 120 brightness on bright setting 9, (out of 1 - 15) while i1DisplayPro says 9 = 132.


Not surprising at all. In the end, the values are kind of meaningless anyway, the value that produces a match to your print is the correct number.

Good to know.

So just an initial note, All of our sensors are individually calibrated as the last step in the production process.

Also good to know!

When you try Spyder3Elite again be sure to uninstall the i1 software or at the very least disable its utility from your msconfig list to avoid any confilcts with the two calibration softwares accessing your graphics card's LUT (look up table).

Yes.  I suppose it's possible I have a conflict since both programs are installed.  At the moment I'm using the i1DisplayPro (3) monitor default and when I reboot my computer I get a message from Spyder telling me that the (current default) profile did not load. 

When I check under Windows display properties, it's there, so I have assumed X-Rite loaded the currently in use profile, so Spyder did not. 

Do I need to de-activate  monitor profiling software before removing it?

thanks,

Paz

[digitaldog]

Andrew , I'm not sure I understand your question.  What I did:
Run software to create profile, setting brightness adjustment manually as part of the process.  Name, save newly created color management profile. Each name specifies individual profiling software, puck and date.
I use the manufacturers' paper profiles.

My confusion is the bit about the output to the printer. The two processes used for the display have no bearing on the output. You wrote:

AWFUL.  Everything was truly awful. I tried several images, printed each several times and they were all absolutely goshawful, no matter what profile I used.

That’s an output profile issue and it seems you are also talking about different display profiles with two different packages.

You settings seem fine.

[Tim Lookingbill]

If Andrew doesn't get his question answered about why a display profile from either calibration package would change the look of the print, I'll be forced to assume this thread was started as a marketing promotion by web trolls.

What's even more troubling is DCBen's continuous mentioning of starting a support ticket as a way to fend off this suspicion.

This is pretty much the same wording or request by Bruce Wright of X-rite support but through email exchanges with he and myself concerning issues with the original i1Display/i1Match software I brought up in my "Color Errors or Gamut Clipping" thread. I did due diligence in troubleshooting and reporting back with REAL issues.

If you don't stick with the logical progression of problem solving and then use the excuse of being clueless concerning color management, I don't care if either of you sell one damn calibration package. CUT THE CRAP! and answer the question or go somewhere else with your lousy comparison demo. No one is learning anything here except how to be a marketing A-hole on the web or at least stir the waters enough to confuse so no one can make an informed buy.

Stick to problem solving by answering the questions.

I know I wish I was on a boat like Paz.

[Paz]

You settings seem fine.

Good.  Thanks.

Andrew said:

You wrote:

Quote
AWFUL.  Everything was truly awful. I tried several images, printed each several times and they were all absolutely goshawful, no matter what profile I used.

Yes.  And I followed that by saying that when I got home where I was finally able to get CEDP working, I stupidly made my prints in a new Epson printer with the paper right side up instead of upside down, as this particular printer needs.  It's the only inkjet printer I've ever used that has to have the paper loaded upside down.

By the time I realized I was printing on the wrong side of the paper, I'd already used System Restore to return my computer settings to prior to the installation of CEDP, and by that time, my trial demo time had run out.

it seems you are also talking about different display profiles with two different packages.

Yes. I think so, but I'm not sure what about that is, as Tim puts it, 'suspicious.'

Take a monitor that has no color calibration.  Edit images based on what you see onscreen and print.  What are you going to get?  Who knows.

Calibrate a monitor with a particular puck and software.  Edit images based on what you see onscreen and print.  What are you going to get?  Hopefully a print that looks pretty darn much like what you saw onscreen.

Calibrate a monitor with a different puck and/or software.  Edit images based on what you see onscreen and print.  What are you going to get?  Will it be exactly like what you saw onscreen?  Will it be closer to onscreen or less like onscreen with the other puck and software?

That's what I've been trying to figure out.  Which puck and/or software will give me even reasonably close prints, because most every print I've made these past few months since I bought this wide gamut monitor have been a total waste of ink, paper and time. 

***

Tim.  You think I"m a troll?  That I've made this up for advertising?  Sorry, I'm quite real.  Ask Ian Lyons.  I've known him for years and years.

http://www.patriceart.com






 

[Tim Lookingbill]

Tim.  You think I"m a troll?  That I've made this up for advertising?  Sorry, I'm quite real.  Ask Ian Lyons.  I've known him for years and years.

Only suspicious. No confirmation. But I was only trying to put a point across about being quick and thorough to answer specific questions that are asked of you by folks like Andrew and others.

I checked out your gallery site and you have some very nicely rendered images, especially that apple? pie in the "Now You're Cookin' " section. Hope you get a good screen to print match with that one.

I'ld like to share a discovery about calibration packages based on the one i1Display package I bought about 5 years ago and am still using but had concerns about in the thread I started mentioned previously. What I learned is you never know with 100% certainty when these packages are giving you what you want or if they're working as intended or going bad by examining a limited number of images of various scenes. The majority of color managed colors using the i1Display look OK with regards to memory colors and by examining the PDI color targets. Edited images looked pretty close on a wide range of off the shelf systems including the iPad at Best Buy. Not perfect but acceptable considering these systems weren't calibrated.

Then I found some colors were off where I had to do a reality check printing to a cheap Epson NX400 which remarkably printed insanely consistent and accurate matches to screen using "Printer Manages Colors" and choosing Epson driver settings that gave the best match. I thought this wasn't going to work on a wide range of images, but I've been proven wrong, so I decided to use this printer as a third party color checker.

You'll notice in that thread the overly cyan greens and the blues turning slightly to purple was not suppose to happen by my checking against the SuperCal eyeball calibrator profile. Again I doubted this was an accurate and consistent way to check this. So I downloaded several other print test targets like the Kodak Colorflow Evaluator target and found the SuperCal display profile preview was dead on to the Epson print more so on a wider range of odd ball colors over the i1Display. For instance the display preview of the blue cap on the 'Era' detergent bottle in that Kodak target turned purple and lighter loading the i1Display profile but printed on the Epson the right blue hue only with less saturation, thus a mismatch.

Now the i1Display could be old as the cause for these mismatches in certain colors, but who's to know because the X-rite support tech examined my profile and the screenshots I submitted in that thread and decided there was nothing wrong with the device and the profile produced.

I'm using the SuperCal profile from now on until I come across one particular color that doesn't exactly match on my Epson print because I have no other way to know which calibration package is rendering the widest range of colors as intended.

[digitaldog]

Calibrate a monitor with a particular puck and software.  Edit images based on what you see onscreen and print.  What are you going to get?  Hopefully a print that looks pretty darn much like what you saw onscreen.

Yes, that is the idea.

Calibrate a monitor with a different puck and/or software.  Edit images based on what you see onscreen and print.  What are you going to get? 

With the same settings, not likely. With different settings, you should be able to get the same match. In a perfect world (no bugs, same math for profile, etc).

If you had two identical displayed hooked up, you could in theory match them and examine the settings to see what each package provides (within some level or error).

Same display, same instrument, two different packages, I’ve yet to see two produce the same results unless we’re talking about a high level smart monitor (Eizo, NEC Spectraview).

[Paz]

I came to this forum because I thought it would be the best place on the web to research color management products.  I read Ethan Hansen's monitor profiling comparison reports here - and at that time it appeared the Spyder3 would be the best low cost choice for a wide gamut monitor, although the Spyder's accuracy appeared to vary widely from puck to puck.

From what I read it also appeared that some software might extract better results from a specific puck than other software.  Or be easier to use.  Or have features that would be important.  I thought there might be people here who would have opinions I would weigh before making a selection.

I could have  bought the Spyder3 unit alone and bought CEDP software to use with it, or I could have bought the Spyder3 with their Elite or some other version of Spyder software.  There was no response to my query.  I found a good deal and bought the Spyder3 with Elite and decided to try out CEDP with the Spyder3 to see if I got better results with one software program or the other.

I wasn't thrilled with the Spyder3+Elite results since I had good, not so good, and pretty bad prints based on Spyder3+Elite editing using the $25 Canon printer I keep on my boat.

I downloaded CEDP and had an awful time trying to run it.  There is a thread relating to my problems over at the ColorEyes forum. 

http://www.integrated-color.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1718


Back home again, by the time I finally got CEDP to run, using a different printer, I really screwed things up by printing on the wrong side of the paper and under the impression that somehow CEDP was causing the problem, I restored my computer to an earlier date, thereby removing everything CEDP program related.  Prints were still awful.  That's when I figured out my stupid paper mistake.

I still had time to return the Spyder3 to Amazon when Ethan wrote outstanding reports on the accuracy of XRite's new i1Display Pro (3), so I bought one of those too and I've been trying it out with XRite's software, which I do NOT like and my prints are still not right.  Something must be wrong.

Six weeks after I asked my initial question, Ben replied.  It's obvious to anyone who looks to see that he did not try to hide that he is employed by Datacolor.  I do not know Ben.  Didn't know he existed before he replied here.  I have no association whatsoever with Ben or Datacolor except that I have purchased their products, which I still have.  Too late to return.  Frankly, I appreciate Ben's helpful suggestions.  I might have a wrong choice in my settings?  Absolutely.  After all, I'm the idiot who printed right side up instead of right side down.  Ben also suggested soft profiling.  I've heard the term but I don't know anything about it.  He suggested something else to do with grey?  I don't know what that is, but I think I'll take him up on his offer of help in a place other than this one. 

 I am angry that both he and I, and the guy who recommended XRite products have been yelled at in this forum.  (I don't know if that guy sells XRite or not.

I'm not thrilled about being told I've asked questions that are so stupid no one would ask them, either, or maybe just so stupid that Tim isn't learning anything.

I've had great success using color management ever since it was first offered in Photoshop.  Not because I'm any kind of color management genius.  Only because I've tried to carefully read instructions that say 'check this box but not that one.'

Perhaps both XRite and Datacolor have been warned previously to stay out of this forum.  I don't know.  I don't understand the resentment toward having them offer help here, but if that's the case, I'm sorry I have been involved in any way.

***

Andrew,

Thank you for your help.  I'm sorry if when I said I really didn't understand your question if you also thought I was being purposefully dense.  I checked out your website to see if you are a representative for XRite.  I did not find that but I did see a reference to your book on color management.  Does it cover soft profiling or soft proofing, or whatever it is?

thanks,

Paz

[digitaldog]

I checked out your website to see if you are a representative for XRite. 

Not a representative of X-Rite but I’ve done a lot of alpha and beta testing and some consulting for them over the years.

[PierreVandevenne]

Thank you for your help.  I'm sorry if when I said I really didn't understand your question if you also thought I was being purposefully dense.  I checked out your website to see if you are a representative for XRite.  I did not find that but I did see a reference to your book on color management.  Does it cover soft profiling or soft proofing, or whatever it is?

FWIW, I don't know Andrew in any other way than through his posts here, own a Spyder 3 (I am neither happy, nor terribly unhappy with it), have no link to any other calibrating device vendor. And I've got two things to say

1) I learned a lot from Andrew's posts here and never felt he was dishonestly pushing anything.
2) ad-hominem arguments seem more and more frequent here (see for example the reaction to Michael's review of the DXo filmpack). Ad hominen arguments never bring value to a discussion.

[DCBen]

I’m going to be a good dog and say nothing about the “spectro device” <g>

Hah, actually I intentionally left out the full name of the sensor, LOL

@Paz, I was on set Fri, Sat, so sorry for the delay.  OK, so I would recommend using the softproof feature in Photoshop(in PS goto; View/Proof Setup/Custom, for "Device to Simulate" select the paper profile you will be printing with, then use the same settings as in the Print Dialog), it can definitely help dial things in for print output.
As far as I know we(Datacolor), haven't been asked to stay off the forums here.

I would try a new FullCAL using selecting "Iterative" for the "Gray Balance Calibration" setting, which can be accessed via the Advanced Settings button at the bottom of the Calibration Settings screen, or by using the Expert Console.

Ok and so on that note here's the deal, I'm not a Troll, my name is not Bruce, and I work for Datacolor not X-Rite.... 
Ohh, and not a sales or marketing person either...
I'm here to "help" people who have questions related to our products and or color management when using our products. At a certain point it is FAR more helpful to the person with the question to go through our Support System. There can be a lot of specific info we need related to the client's computer setup, this results in setup specific steps from our side. We work as a team in our support system and can check with our developers if needed as well. Basically a lot of stuff which requires detailed info on our side and the customers side...  and it is not something which can in any way be efficiently accomplished on a forum.
So, this is why I mention creating a support ticket:)

I am new to this forum, in the past our developers might check in on some forums but they are far to busy working their magic and creating, refining our products. Our hope is that people will be able to find answers to general questions via forums, but if things get complicated we want people to come into our support system to save the time and frustation of trying out different suggestions which may or may not help resolve the underlying issue.

I feel Andrew is an excellent resource here, Datacolor, X-Rite, Integrated Color, ect. the main concepts and implementation of color management is brand agnostic.

So in closing, the above will be my "one and only" diatribe in the forum

Ben