Luminous Landscape Forum
Raw & Post Processing, Printing => Colour Management => Topic started by: Someguy22 on June 22, 2015, 11:59:41 am
-
I work digital-only and am on a budget. My monitor is a Dell u2415. I'm beginning to take my work more seriously and am interested in finally getting a colorimeter, however I feel my education is lacking in making a proper decision. Do some not work so well with non-PWM panels? Should I avoid the datacolor models altogether?
I've narrowed it down to the colormunki display or the spyder5, as that is in my budget. I'm considering the spyder5 because it seems I could avoid the software limitations and simply use argyll, but I have no experience with that software. Any tips would be appreciated.
-
Spyder 5 is pretty new, limited data from users. There is this set of long posts if you want to bog through:
http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/55860109
-
Color Munki Display (X-rite) works just fine with Argyll / dispcalGUI.
-
Color Munki Display (X-rite) works just fine with Argyll / dispcalGUI.
but if one thinks to buy a nicer display later down the road this one might not will able to work with software that writes into H/W lut tables... crippled intentionally.
-
but if one thinks to buy a nicer display later down the road this one might not will able to work with software that writes into H/W lut tables... crippled intentionally.
It's rather annoying. The Colormunki Display is virtually identical to the xrite i1 display pro. Same accuracy of result, but the CM Display is crippled to make it slower, and as you say it won't work with some software. Some Dells with hardware calibration require the i1 display pro, and although Eizos will work with several colorimeters, they won't work with the CM Display.
-
It's rather annoying. The Colormunki Display is virtually identical to the xrite i1 display pro. Same accuracy of result, but the CM Display is crippled to make it slower, and as you say it won't work with some software.
but if one thinks to buy a nicer display later down the road this one might not will able to work with software that writes into H/W lut tables... crippled intentionally.
There is nothing "crippled" in the colorimeter (hardware). In fact the hardware in the Colormunki is identical to the i1 display pro. The software does differ with the former being much slower than the latter.
If the OP is intending to use Argyll software, it works just as fast (or as slow) with Colormunki Display and i1 display pro. In general, taking full advantage of the Argyll software will be more time consuming than with either of the x-rite programs.
-
There is nothing "crippled" in the colorimeter (hardware). In fact the hardware in the Colormunki is identical to the i1 display pro. The software does differ with the former being much slower than the latter.
Interesting. I thought the hardware was slugged. I've got both, so I'll try with Argyll.
If the OP is intending to use Argyll software, it works just as fast (or as slow) with Colormunki Display and i1 display pro. In general, taking full advantage of the Argyll software will be more time consuming than with either of the x-rite programs.
There are other differences I gather that the software for Dell monitors with hardware LUTs works only with the i1 Display Pro, and I know from my own experience that Eizo's ColorNavigator software doesn't recognise the Colormunki Display.
-
There is nothing "crippled" in the colorimeter (hardware). In fact the hardware in the Colormunki is identical to the i1 display pro. The software does differ with the former being much slower than the latter.
Update:
I've just checked, and I don't that's correct. I tried both the ColorMunki Display and the i1 Display Pro using the latest Argyll software (v1.7.0) via the latest dispcalGUI (v3.0.2.0), using the same settings for each device, and the the i1 Display Pro is about twice as fast.
I'm afraid it would appear that the ColorMunki display is crippled in speed.
-
Interesting. I thought the hardware was slugged.
it does not matter - Colormunki colorimeter reports itself to software as Colormunki, so software (not Argyll, but as you already noticed = "I know from my own experience that Eizo's ColorNavigator software doesn't recognise the Colormunki Display" the ones that can write the data to H/W luts in upscale monitors - and Argyll can't do this) refuse to use it... that is as good as having the crippled hardware vs i1DPro colorimeter - unless you ever find a hack...
-
If the OP is intending to use Argyll software, it works just as fast (or as slow) with Colormunki Display and i1 display pro.
http://www.argyllcms.com/doc/instruments.html
"The i1Display Pro ... is generally faster than the ColorMunki Display"
-
There is nothing "crippled" in the colorimeter (hardware). In fact the hardware in the Colormunki is identical to the i1 display pro.
There is something in the Munki that slows it down. Otherwise, the same in terms of the net results.
-
There is something in the Munki that slows it down.
Yes - it never takes less than about a second to do a measurement. In contrast, the i1DisplayPro takes just a little longer than the set integration time.
-
Yes - it never takes less than about a second to do a measurement. In contrast, the i1DisplayPro takes just a little longer than the set integration time.
do(es) 3rd party software from manufacturers like Eizo, etc using USB drivers to talk with colorimeters ? so what if the driver is altered to present the device as i1DPro ? so that the software in question will be tricked into using it ...
-
Why not wait and buy something that can do both monitor and printer? ???
I went that route with a couple of Spyders (They use to be really tie down their hardware/software serial number too as one I bought found it needed to upgrade the software on new installation, I allowed that, and then the provided serial number in the box no longer worked with the device until they sent me a new serial number a week later for the installation update! So a brand new device, and it took a week to even work it?). Then decided I wanted something to do prints as well as the display so I bought a ColorMunki Photo ($450), and the moved up to the i1 PhotoPro 2 ($1,500) as it had a bit better gamut profiles (Not by much.) than the ColorMunki Photo with it's dual light source for optical paper brighteners.
Buy the best, and cry only once.
SG
-
Spyder 5 is pretty new, limited data from users. There is this set of long posts if you want to bog through:
http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/55860109
Recently I did a quick check of popular colorimeters on NEC PA242W with GBr LED backlit AH-IPS panel. My friend who owns reference grade spectroradiometer (Jeti Specbos 1211) took reference measurements.
To make long story short, X-Rite i1Display (vel. NEC SpectraSensor, ColorMunki Display and so on) is the way to go (at least in case of recent wide gamut LCD monitors). I didn't notice any significant quality improvement in case of new Spyder 5 sensor, and the inter-instrument agreement was not very impressive.
(https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/19059944/Screen-Shot-2015-05-31-at-22.40.40.png)
(https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/19059944/Screen-Shot-2015-05-31-at-21.36.141.png)
-
Update:
I've just checked, and I don't that's correct. I tried both the ColorMunki Display and the i1 Display Pro using the latest Argyll software (v1.7.0) via the latest dispcalGUI (v3.0.2.0), using the same settings for each device, and the the i1 Display Pro is about twice as fast.
I'm afraid it would appear that the ColorMunki display is crippled in speed.
I am curious about what "twice as fast" means. How long to produce the monitor profile with each instrument.
In any case, the OP mentions his concern for instrument cost. I think he is less concerned about speed.
While I'm about it, let me express my thanks to Graeme Gill and Florian Hoech for their excellent software. :) :)
My experience, using the ColorMunki Display and Argyll/dispcalGUI is that it requires nearly 60 min. to produce a profile. No problem; I can have dinner and watch the news while it works. The results are damn good, both in terms of numbers and matching prints to screen.
-
My experience, using the ColorMunki Display and Argyll/dispcalGUI is that it requires nearly 60 min. to produce a profile.
certainly nobody is saying that ColorMunki Display colorimeter with Argyll is producing worse results that i1DPro - what some people are asking the OP to pay attention, if the budget allows (if not the so be it), to is:
1) speed, specifically when initially you (not you personally) do experimenting and repeat the process many times
and
2) potential upgrade to a better ("hardware calibration" or use the better wording) display, when CM will be locked out by the software that can do this.
that's it
-
2) potential upgrade to a better ("hardware calibration" or use the better wording) display, when CM will be locked out by the software that can do this.
Which displays (monitors) do not allow creating a profile using CM + Argyll? Or, do you mean that there is some proprietary software that will not work with CM?
-
All displays can be calibrated and profiled by ArgyllCMS+dispcalGUI+CMD, but some displays for color critical applications can be hardware calibrated by specialized software like NEC SpectraView II or EIZO ColorNavigator. In all such cases only i1Display Pro is supported, so you can't use ColorMunki Display, which only works with its own software (with the exeption of ArgyllCMS, in which case Graeme developed his own drivers)
-
I am curious about what "twice as fast" means. How long to produce the monitor profile with each instrument.
I did a quick check, timing how long it took to run the first 9-patch part of the calibration. I've redone this, and it took just over 10 seconds with the i1 Display Pro, and 36 seconds with the Colormunki Display.
-
but some displays for color critical applications
even some me-too displays like from Samsung or LG or even from Dell itself, even they are not as good as top NEC/Eizo
-
so what if the driver is altered to present the device as i1DPro ? so that the software in question will be tricked into using it ...
It's theoretically possible, but may well be an either/or (i.e. if you substitute the ColorMunki Display unlock key, then it won't
recognize the i1pro Display), and some software has anti-tamper or signing that would make it difficult to patch.
-
Which displays (monitors) do not allow creating a profile using CM + Argyll?
Some displays have internal per channel LUTs that may be of higher resolution than those in the graphic card. Without having access to examples of those displays, I can't add support for installing the calibration to the internal LUTs.
-
I did a quick check, timing how long it took to run the first 9-patch part of the calibration. I've redone this, and it took just over 10 seconds with the i1 Display Pro, and 36 seconds with the Colormunki Display.
Simon, thanks for the info.
For my purposes speed is a non-issue, profile quality is! I suspect the same is true of the OP.
Have you looked at the measurement report I posted (reply #15). I could hardly expect much better numbers, but more important, the prints match the monitor.
-
I work digital-only and am on a budget. My monitor is a Dell u2415. I'm beginning to take my work more seriously and am interested in finally getting a colorimeter, however I feel my education is lacking in making a proper decision. Do some not work so well with non-PWM panels? Should I avoid the datacolor models altogether?
I've narrowed it down to the colormunki display or the spyder5, as that is in my budget. I'm considering the spyder5 because it seems I could avoid the software limitations and simply use argyll, but I have no experience with that software. Any tips would be appreciated.
Don't you mean the Dell U2413?
The i1Display Pro, i1Pro, and i1Pro 2 can be used to calibrate that monitor's internal LUTs. Nothing else can.
-
i.e. if you substitute the ColorMunki Display unlock key, then it won't
recognize the i1pro Display
but if I am using this that means that I have only CM otherwise why 'd I do this
and some software has anti-tamper or signing that would make it difficult to patch.
but it is your driver, what I meant is that the driver detects CM (which is in fact connected to USB port) and then passes the data back to OEM calibration/profiling software saying that i1DPro connected to USB port, not CM...
-
Simon, thanks for the info.
For my purposes speed is a non-issue, profile quality is! I suspect the same is true of the OP.
Have you looked at the measurement report I posted (reply #15). I could hardly expect much better numbers, but more important, the prints match the monitor.
Agreed, the CM Display is just as accurate as the i1 Display Pro, and speed isn't a drop-dead issue for me either. But when I bought an Eizo CS240, only Eizo's ColorNavigator s/w will calibrate and program the internal hardware LUT, and that software works with the i1 Display Pro but not the CM Display.
-
but if I am using this that means that I have only CM otherwise why 'd I do this
but it is your driver, what I meant is that the driver detects CM (which is in fact connected to USB port) and then passes the data back to OEM calibration/profiling software saying that i1DPro connected to USB port, not CM...
But that is exactly the point. Since most/all drivers operate in 'kernel space' (and that's a dangerous place for software to operate) the OEM software may well not work w/o it's 'official' (digitally signed by XRite) driver.
-
but it is your driver,
If you are using X-Rite software or NEC or the display manufacturers calibration software, then you are not using my driver.
what I meant is that the driver detects CM (which is in fact connected to USB port) and then passes the data back to OEM calibration/profiling software saying that i1DPro connected to USB port, not CM...
Not something I have time or motivation to create.
-
But that is exactly the point. Since most/all drivers operate in 'kernel space' (and that's a dangerous place for software to operate) the OEM software may well not work w/o it's 'official' (digitally signed by XRite) driver.
The i1d3 unlock key is supplied by the user mode software. But some of that has it's own tamper/corruption checking.
-
not something I have time or motivation to create.
that is understandable of course, but we just discuss technical possibilities - this is not a feature request for you to implement, not at all... when one can remove OEM drivers if installed and replace with USB driver that misrepresent CM as i1DPro... granted if somebody buys Eizo - no sense not to have i1DPro in the first place - but buyers of 2nd tier displays (Samsung/LG or Dells) might still have budget in mind.
-
...granted if somebody buys Eizo - no sense not to have i1DPro in the first place - but buyers of 2nd tier displays (Samsung/LG or Dells) might still have budget in mind.
Granted, if someone springs for a high end monitor it makes no sense to skimp on the calibration hardware. However this thread was started by someone on a tight budget. So I have been trying to make the point that he can save a few bucks by getting the ColorMunki Display and using it with Argyll/dispcalGUI to produce as good (or better) profile as could be obtained with more expensive hardware.
-
Granted, if someone springs for a high end monitor it makes no sense to skimp on the calibration hardware. However this thread was started by someone on a tight budget. So I have been trying to make the point that he can save a few bucks by getting the ColorMunki Display and using it with Argyll/dispcalGUI to produce as good (or better) profile as could be obtained with more expensive hardware.
sure, did anybody say that CM will not do the job with Argyll ? again people were explaining the strings attached (to CM).
however if the said OP get CM and then some time later happen to upgrade to h/w calibrate-able display like from Dell/LG/Samsung (and they might be still considered as a budget category vs Eizos of the world) then he might find himself in less then optimal situation - hence the question "what if" (about using some driver to misrepresent CM as i1DPro) is quite reasonable to ask...
-
...however if the said OP get CM and then some time later happen to upgrade to h/w calibrate-able display like from Dell/LG/Samsung (and they might be still considered as a budget category vs Eizos of the world) then he might find himself in less then optimal situation - hence the question "what if" (about using some driver to misrepresent CM as i1DPro) is quite reasonable to ask...
This brings us to the question: How much improvement can one expect in the profile of h/w calibrate-able displays when using a compatible (or a misrepresented) colorimeter as opposed to straightforward use of the CM + Argyll software?
-
however if the said OP get CM and then some time later happen to upgrade to h/w calibrate-able display like from Dell/LG/Samsung (and they might be still considered as a budget category vs Eizos of the world) then he might find himself in less then optimal situation - hence the question "what if" (about using some driver to misrepresent CM as i1DPro) is quite reasonable to ask...
You can also calibrate budget NEC models internally using SpectraView II - I suppose that EA224WMi is the world's cheapest monitor with hardware calibration support. Cheap EA displays like EA224EMi, EA234WMi, EA244WMi, EA274WMi and EA294WMi only feature 10bit 1DLUT, so hardware calibration gains only small (but noticable) quality improvements. EA244UHD and EA304WMi have 14bit LUT, so you get perfect tonal quality without banding and color casts. There's also a new 3840x2160px EA275UHD with 10bit AH-IPS panel and internal 14bit LUT that only costs 800$, so there's a trend to put high bit LUTs to low/mid-end NEC models.
-
There's also a new 3840x2160px EA275UHD with 10bit AH-IPS panel and internal 14bit LUT that only costs 800$, so there's a trend to put high bit LUTs to low/mid-end NEC models.
I think it shall be a reasonable for X-Rite to at least allow companies like NEC to unlock CM in their OEM software for that kind of price range of monitors... and try to replace Spyders in OEM bundles