Novice looking for budget colorimeter

[Someguy22]

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.

[digitaldog]

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

[mouse]

Color Munki Display (X-rite) works just fine with Argyll / dispcalGUI.

[AlterEgo]

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.

[Simon Garrett]

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.  

[mouse]

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.

[Simon Garrett]

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.

[Simon Garrett]

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.  

[AlterEgo]

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...

[AlterEgo]

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"

[digitaldog]

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.

[GWGill]

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.

[AlterEgo]

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 ...

[Some Guy]

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

[Czornyj]

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.

[mouse]

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.

[AlterEgo]

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

[mouse]

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?

[Czornyj]

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)

[Simon Garrett]

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.