Datacolor Spyderx - Pro and Elite

[digitaldog]

David,
If I understand correctly I would have to save an image out of whatever editor I'm using and bring it into your application for soft proofing.  This makes it difficult to iteratively adjust my image within an editor while preparing for print, such as one can do in Photoshop or Lightroom.
Richard Southworth

It isn't an image editor (and a raw editor either) so if you have LR or PS, the product features is utterly non useful for you. LR is even better at soft proofing than PS due to the UI options, the ability to produce Proof Copies that contain the edits of the original plus the output specific edits and the Proof Copy carries over into the Print Module to update the RI you selected in Develop. Bottom line, as a Lightroom user, the soft proofing 'feature' in DC's product is of absolutely no use to you. Further, LR has a very cool feature that at least provides something Photoshop doesn't and starts to make the OOG overlay interesting and useful. You can compare the gamut of the display with what you are currently editing. So you can see in essence, what colors you can't see due to the gamut limitations of a display, compared to the gamut of the image itself. Click on the little display icon:

[rasworth]

Andrew,
My question had to do with its use with editors other than those with soft proofing capability.  I understand it is not useful if I'm using PS or LR.
Richard Southworth

[digitaldog]

Andrew,
 I understand it is not useful if I'm using PS or LR.
Richard Southworth

But you did state in the same post:

This makes it difficult to iteratively adjust my image within an editor while preparing for print, such as one can do in Photoshop or Lightroom.

Hence my comments. 

[rasworth]

Would you prefer "as compared to" instead of "such as one can do in"?

Richard Southworth

[digitaldog]

Would you prefer "as compared to" instead of "such as one can do in"?

Richard Southworth

I prefer clarity. 
The product under discussion cannot edit anything. It doesn't prepare anything to print either.

[dmiller62]

David,
If I understand correctly I would have to save an image out of whatever editor I'm using and bring it into your application for soft proofing.  This makes it difficult to iteratively adjust my image within an editor while preparing for print, such as one can do in Photoshop or Lightroom.
Richard Southworth

Richard, yes, you're correct. It's not intended to be used as an image editor, nor as an extension to other image editing applications which themselves don't have soft proofing.

It's a viewing window, with the user interface I described, that lets you soft proof already-saved image files through it. It's a standalone soft proofing feature.

Best regards,

David Miller
Manager/Lead Developer, Consumer Graphics
Datacolor

[dmiller62]

PhotoLab Print? That's where two questions were addressed.
 And any product that converts to output profiles should be able to do the same as I asked about PhotoLab Print. Lots or other products that provide conversions to an output color space provide a soft proof.
Now since you can answer questions specifically about this new product:
Out of gamut warnings are rather useless.
Does the OOG overlay update as you change rendering intent? Does it treat 1% OOG and 85% OOG the same with the same overlay? If so, like Photoshop, kind of useless.
Does it provide paper white and ink black simulation and handle Black Point Compensation?
Does it actually convert the source data into the output data and if not, BPC and the CMM may elsewhere may produce differing results than predicted I would imagine.
Is there an upgrade path for the lesser expensive product to the more expensive software product if indeed, the hardware is identical (is it?).
Does either product allow calibration of display and alter contrast ratio? That be true if those were the only two products that provided soft proofing. That isn't the case. I provided TWO free Mac OS products that provide soft proofing. AND actually convert that data using profiles!

Sorry, Andrew, I thought you were referring to SpyderXElite with those earlier questions.

Out of gamut warnings are what they are: a technical feature. We know what the limitations are. Yes, the OOG warning preview changes as soon as you switch rendering intents. It's a "flat" preview that doesn't show differences in how far out of gamut things are. You'd need to write some complex code and possibly your own home-rolled CMS to do that.

Photoshop, as you've noted, behaves the same way - OOG colors in Photoshop's View:Proof Setup:Custom display, with Gamut Warning enabled, are mapped to flat gray. But I don't think Adobe thinks this feature is "useless", as it's been in Photoshop forever and they haven't shown any inclination to drop it. When I was able to put a gamut warning into Elite's soft proofing, I was happy to do it.

As I mentioned in a previous response, you get paper white/black ink simulation and also a black point compensation enable/disable.

It's a classic ICC profile chain. It does exactly what one would expect it to do.

In Spyder5 software, there's an upgrade path to go from either Spyder5Express to Spyder5Elite+; or to go from Spyder5Pro to Spyder5Elite+; and those users would get soft proofing (as well as many other features, it's not the only one) as part of upgrading to the Spyder5Elite+ software.

In SpyderX software, you get either SpyderXPro or SpyderXElite. There's no upgrade path from the first to the second. The hardware is the same, the difference between Pro and Elite is the software.

The display calibration parameters, as they've always been, are color temperature and luminance. You can use "no adjustment" of screen luminance during calibration and then you'll end up with the specified color temperature at whatever brightness the screen was set to; or you can pick a value and then, either use hardware controls to reduce the screen brightness first (with interactive measurement to help guide you to your self-selected luminance target), and/or let the software do it by pulling down the endpoints of the calibration LUTs during the process.

I'm glad that there are free Mac OS products that provide soft proofing, and also a means to convert images from one profile to another. People should use them, and also be glad. :-)

Best regards,

David Miller
Manager/Lead Developer, Consumer Graphics
Datacolor

[dmiller62]

It isn't an image editor (and a raw editor either) so if you have LR or PS, the product features is utterly non useful for you. LR is even better at soft proofing than PS due to the UI options, the ability to produce Proof Copies that contain the edits of the original plus the output specific edits and the Proof Copy carries over into the Print Module to update the RI you selected in Develop. Bottom line, as a Lightroom user, the soft proofing 'feature' in DC's product is of absolutely no use to you. Further, LR has a very cool feature that at least provides something Photoshop doesn't and starts to make the OOG overlay interesting and useful. You can compare the gamut of the display with what you are currently editing. So you can see in essence, what colors you can't see due to the gamut limitations of a display, compared to the gamut of the image itself. Click on the little display icon:

Lightroom's integrated soft proofing is awesome, and nobody's said anything different. Photoshop's is, too.

However. As great as those Adobe applications are, they're of absolutely no use to you if you want to measure and calibrate a display.

That's what SpyderX hardware and software is for. And that's a point that should be well taken.

David Miller
Manager/Lead Developer, Consumer Graphics
Datacolor

[dmiller62]

I prefer clarity. 
The product under discussion cannot edit anything. It doesn't prepare anything to print either.

The Datacolor site describes it as a soft proofing viewer, and makes no claim for it to be an editor. That seems quite clear to me. The feature has also been available in Spyder5Elite software the past couple of years and it's previously been reviewed in detail.

The highly advanced image editing products you're discussing in comparison (because they also provide soft proofing) don't measure and calibrate displays.

The only thing they have in common is the ability to soft proof images through ICC profiles, although the exact implementation and user interfaces are not the same.

My car takes me to work; and I can put food in it. But it's not a refrigerator or a microwave. I don't expect it to be, and I wouldn't think of looking on it unkindly when it doesn't preserve my food, or cook it. Likewise, I don't expect my refrigerator or microwave to take me anywhere this week; or next. :-)

I'm not sure I understand the confusion.

David Miller
Manager/Lead Developer, Consumer Graphics
Datacolor

[rasworth]

In SpyderX software, you get either SpyderXPro or SpyderXElite. There's no upgrade path from the first to the second. The hardware is the same, the difference between Pro and Elite is the software.

So if I purchase the Pro and later decide I want to add the Elite capability, I have to pay the full price and obtain a second instrument?  To put it politely, doesn't seem very customer friendly.

Richard Southworth

[digitaldog]

Out of gamut warnings are what they are: a technical feature. We know what the limitations are.


 But I don't think Adobe thinks this feature is "useless", as it's been in Photoshop forever and they haven't shown any inclination to drop it.

You might not feel that way after getting information about the history and initial reason the OOG overlay exits in Photoshop. OOG overlay greatly predates ICC color management and soft proofing in Photoshop. At the time, it only handled OOG of CMYK based on the non ICC conversions used that exist today (because Adobe doesn't remove pre-existing tools that still operate, it upsets customers). So only CMYK and only based on the "Classic CMYK" engine in Photoshop. The idea was to show users OOG colors going to CMYK and providing editing tools like the Sponge Tool set to desaturate, to remove the OOG overlay such the image was now in CMYK gamut. Crude, slow and utterly unnecessary once soft proofing and ICC profiles were introduced in 1997. The profiles as we both know provide various OOG mapping operations that are far more sophisticated than painting away an overlay (at the time, PS's idea of perceptual gamut remapping  ).


The OOG is intended to allow people to remove it manually. That's true in LR although it is utterly unnecessary too. But both products expect users who view OOG to do something about that overlay. Your product expects users to do exactly what with this OOG overlay? We all now know you can't edit in your product. What does the manual of your product explain users are supposed to understand and do with this OOG overlay?


Now as I described, there IS a useful OOG preview in LR alone. I have to wonder if it exists in your product; does it? The ability to show what colors fall outside display gamut while soft proofing. Considering your product is aimed at the creation of this display profile, seems showing users the limitations of the display and profile's gamut compared to an image's working space or output color space might be kind of useful. Does it?



For those here interested in OOG in PS and LR:

The Out Of Gamut Overlay in Photoshop and Lightroom

In this 25 minute video, I'll cover everything you need to know about the Out Of Gamut (OOG) overlay in Photoshop and Lightroom. You'll see why, with a rare exception, you can ignore this very old feature and still deal with out of gamut colors using modern color management tools.

YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=00O-GTDyL0w
High resolution: http://digitaldog.net/files/OOG_Video.mp4

[digitaldog]

So if I purchase the Pro and later decide I want to add the Elite capability, I have to pay the full price and obtain a second instrument?  To put it politely, doesn't seem very customer friendly.

Richard Southworth

It's silly. And X-rite does this as well. It makes zero sense for the customer if that's what either company really cares about in doing this. You pay for the hardware and get a 'deal' on crippled software but can't upgrade that software if your needs change. I've made my dissatisfaction about this silly marketing trick towards X-rite for years, seems DataColor needs to follow suite. So yeah, until they change this silly policy, you have to buy the hardware again to get feature rich and necessary calibration functionality.
What they could do is simply have a way to pay and unlock the advanced features. Or just make one price and product and have an advanced mode so not to scare newbie's with the advanced feature. But they don't. They price two products with the same hardware and worse, don't provide an upgrade path. This (like I believe some of the 'features' under discussion) are what happens when the marketing people play a larger role in how products should be created than after the products are specified by those who fully understand what the products should do for a customer. Like providing an OOG overlay that takes the profile the product creates, into account (and maybe, maybe it does).

[edrijver]

So if I purchase the Pro and later decide I want to add the Elite capability, I have to pay the full price and obtain a second instrument?  To put it politely, doesn't seem very customer friendly.

Richard Southworth

Actually you can buy an upgrade license for the 'elite' software on the datacolor website. It costs the same 100$/€ as the pricing difference between the pro and elite. So, you -can- get the pro and then upgrade to elite later, without paying more than you would've if you had gotten the elite right away.

That said, I'm new here (hello) and recently got a spyder x. I am currently testing it compared to a spyder 5 (I know it has a bad rep) and also want to compare it to a colormunki later this week.

I've only had a couple of days with it so far, my first impressions are that it is fast, the result at least looks better to the eye than the spyder 5 (no scientific comparison!) and the software is passable. I really hope DisplayCal will be updated to support it because I really miss the monitor calibration step using the in-monitor adjustments. I will be doing more testing with monitor settings and comparing it to the Colormunki and I will post my findings

[rasworth]

edrijver,

I wasn't able to find pricing for the SpyderX upgrade only, just the separate prices for Pro and Elite.  Hopefully you're correct, and they have seen the light.

Here's an email I received from them in February:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
With SpyderX, there are no software upgrades available.
So if you need Elite, make sure to purchase Elite in the first place.

Best regards,

xxxxxxxxxx

Customer Service Specialist
Imaging Color Solutions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Caveat Emptor!

Richard Southworth

[edrijver]

Oh I just noticed I misread! It is actually an upgrade for the Spyder5 software only. Found here (from Pro to Elite). I would assume they make this available for the SpyderX at some point but I can't find that (yet). I stand corrected!

[GWGill]

That said, I'm new here (hello) and recently got a spyder x. I am currently testing it compared to a spyder 5 (I know it has a bad rep) and also want to compare it to a colormunki later this week.

My first impressions are that it's low light resolution and black end stability aren't that great:
The Y channel seems to be in 0.013 cd/m^2 steps. When cold I get a black Y value of -0.014, but when it warms up to 25 degrees C I get 0.054 cd/m^2.
Haven't had a chance to check it's spectral performance yet though.

[digitaldog]

My first impressions are that it's low light resolution and black end stability aren't that great:
The Y channel seems to be in 0.013 cd/m^2 steps. When cold I get a black Y value of -0.014, but when it warms up to 25 degrees C I get 0.054 cd/m^2.
Haven't had a chance to check it's spectral performance yet though.

How does that compare to say an i1Display?

[GWGill]

How does that compare to say an i1Display?

Probably not very different to an i1Display 1 in that regard :-)

Rather different to the i1Display 3/Pro though, which (with a maximum 20 second integration time, something that's not possible with the SpyderX) seems to have a resolution around 0.003 cd/m^2, My i1d3 always measures 0 for black, irrespective of temperature (those L2F sensors are really good at auto zeroing. The sensor in the SpyderX, not so much).

One advantage of the Spyder over the i1d3 is that it doesn't have a rubberized coating to go sticky as it gets old :-(

[Czornyj]

My first impressions are that it's low light resolution and black end stability aren't that great:
The Y channel seems to be in 0.013 cd/m^2 steps. When cold I get a black Y value of -0.014, but when it warms up to 25 degrees C I get 0.054 cd/m^2.
Haven't had a chance to check it's spectral performance yet though.

My first impression is that it's closer to i1D3 performance, but there's only a few spectral calibrations, and none for older CCFL-type backlights. Another issue that I had noticed is that it's very prone to polarisation errors, so it always must be in the same position - not a big problem, but something you should be aware of, and something that's completely not a problem in case of i1D3.

[GWGill]

Another issue that I had noticed is that it's very prone to polarisation errors, so it always must be in the same position - not a big problem, but something you should be aware of, and something that's completely not a problem in case of i1D3.

That makes sense - the SpyderX simply has a lens to concentrate light, whereas the i1d3 has two lenses with a diffusion screen between them, to randomize any polarization.