Luminous Landscape Forum
Raw & Post Processing, Printing => Colour Management => Topic started by: jrp on April 10, 2015, 07:23:32 am
-
I'd be interested to see whether it is an improvement over earlier Spyders, which I feel fell short of the xrite offerings in producing natural colour from my monitors.
http://spyder.datacolor.com/introducing-spyder5/?utm_source=other&utm_campaign=NSA-US-IMS-Public-Relations-Spyder5-Product-Launch-Press-Release&utm_medium=Public+Relations
-
Spyder4 was a bad joke, so I guess it's not a difficult task to improve it.
Anyway I'd stay away from that arthropod. i1Display Pro is proven, reliable solution, it works fast and flawlessly - especially with NEC PA series and SpectraView II, which has custom NEC backlight spectral calibration made by X-Rite for that sensor.
-
Have you watched the video ? IMHO it's even worse than the much maligned promotion for the Lens Baby Velvet 56 (http://Lens Baby 56http://www.canonrumors.com/2015/04/lensbaby-announces-velvet-56-the-most-versatile-portrait-lens-ever-made/). Clearly a Spyder 5 will make you into a happy colour managed family. Enjoy.
-
The Spyders aren't all that bad, at least not from 3 on. I started out with Spyders 2 and 3 and moved on to the i1 D3 when it came out (yes, it is better).
The main problem with the Spyders, IME, isn't overall color balance, which has generally been good, but hitting the precise position of the primaries. This affects how certain saturated colors are displayed.
It should also be said that I still have an Eizo-branded Spyder3, which I have tested against the i1 D3 in both Eizo ColorNavigator and NEC Spectraview II, and they are completely indistinguishable. This suggests that if they could get their manufacturing tolerances tightened up, they might have a product that could compete (and improve their reputation).
What I see as the main advantages of the i1, are the dichroic glass filters that won't fade, and also the long light path/lens system, which should minimize the risk of "IPS white glow" affecting the black measurement.
-
I still have an Eizo-branded Spyder3, which I have tested against the i1 D3 in both Eizo ColorNavigator and NEC Spectraview II, and they are completely indistinguishable. ...
What I see as the main advantages of the i1, are the dichroic glass filters that won't fade
so the filters in Spyder3 did not fade then ?
-
Apparently not. But it's been kept in a dark drawer, always facing down - as I always do with any sensor - and haven't been used much since I got the i1.
The point wasn't that the filters will fade. Dichroic glass filters just takes that possibility out of the equation, so you don't have to worry about it.
-
Have you watched the video ?
Just did, slick and a waste of time. But at least I know their marketing supersedes X-rite’s because unlike their products that produce accurate color, this produces true colors and accurate colors. Oh boy.
-
Just did, slick and a waste of time. But at least I know their marketing supersedes X-rite’s because unlike their products that produce accurate color, this produces true colors and accurate colors. Oh boy.
Does it take my colour accuracy to 11 now? ;)
-
We got both kinds, we got country and western!
-
The 55% improvement in tonal response made me very curious...
-
The Spyders aren't all that bad, at least not from 3 on.
The copy of Spyder 4 that I had tested was ~10dE (~CCT900K) off on NEC PA242W wtpt measurement.
-
The copy of Spyder 4 that I had tested was ~10dE (~CCT900K) off on NEC PA242W wtpt measurement
Well, yes, that sounds really bad...but as both you and Andrew have explained, you can easily get that kind of difference using the very same sensor on different displays. Matching two displays is never easy. So it follows the reverse also has to be true.
None of us who take this seriously expect to be able to set white point numbers and then get a perfect result. I don't even get that with the integrated sensor in the Eizo CG246, which according to Eizo is individually calibrated to each panel. Yes, I know what "individually calibrated" usually means, but this is after all a $2000 unit.
The question is - once you hit the desired white point, is the Spyder consistent within that? And does it pin the primaries correctly? Those are the practically important considerations.
Don't get me wrong, I have no plans to ditch the i1D3 for any Spyder incarnation. I just suspect that a bad reputation - which the Spyders justifiably got with the Spyder 2 - is something that tends to linger for a long time.
-
And does it pin the primaries correctly?
The wtpt error is the sum of R, G, B primaries errors.
I can get way better results with NEC MultiProfiler calibrations and profiles created without sensor than with Spyder4, in fact it rather decalibrates than calibrates the display.