ColorMunki versus a monitor only profiler?

[Peter Mellis]

I need to replace my old Colorvision monitor profiler and have been looking around at what appears to be the products that are available, at the price that I am willing to pay. The two choices appear to be the Datacolor Spyder3Elite and the X-rite Eye-one Display 2;both are around $200, and I am guessing that either one would be adequate for my needs (getting the job done accurately, with as little fussing around as possible). That said, the Colormunki is very appealing, in that I could get print profiling capability for about another hundred dollars. If the Colormunki is as accurate as the other two devices for monitor profiling, then I would be happy to pay the extra cost for the print profiling capability.

The discussions on the Colormunki that I found on here, took place during the months following the release of the product. Can anyone talk to their more current experience with this product and how they feel about the accuracy of the profiles, both display and printer?

Thanks.

[probep]

What (standard or wide gamut) monitors do you want to calibrate/profile?
Do you have calibration/profiling software already? Or do you intend to use software supplied with an instrument?

[Peter Mellis]

Monitor is a Sony SDM-S204 (Panel type: a-SI TFT Active Matrix).

I'll use the software that comes with the device.

[Alan Goldhammer]

I need to replace my old Colorvision monitor profiler and have been looking around at what appears to be the products that are available, at the price that I am willing to pay. The two choices appear to be the Datacolor Spyder3Elite and the X-rite Eye-one Display 2;both are around $200, and I am guessing that either one would be adequate for my needs (getting the job done accurately, with as little fussing around as possible). That said, the Colormunki is very appealing, in that I could get print profiling capability for about another hundred dollars. If the Colormunki is as accurate as the other two devices for monitor profiling, then I would be happy to pay the extra cost for the print profiling capability.

The discussions on the Colormunki that I found on here, took place during the months following the release of the product. Can anyone talk to their more current experience with this product and how they feel about the accuracy of the profiles, both display and printer?

Thanks.

I use the ColorMunki with the NEC SpectraView software to profile my P221 monitor and the Munki with the supplied software to do paper profiles.  I get outstanding results in each case.  I use Jack Flesher's test print to judge the quality of the paper profiles.  This product is priced well and works well; all one can ask for.

[probep]

Monitor is a Sony SDM-S204 (Panel type: a-SI TFT Active Matrix).

I'll use the software that comes with the device.

Sony SDM-S204  is a standard gamut monitor. i1 Display 2 (i1D2) is a good choice for it.
I own i1D2 and Spyder3Elite colorimeters, ColorMunki Photo and i1Pro spectrometers. And I don't recommend to buy a Spyder3 colorimeter - my one is very inaccurate. See the section in FAQ about Spyder accuracy.
ColorMunki Photo is a good device, but I don't like its software... It is better to use (sorry, NEC SpectraView II or EIZO ColorNavigator) or even free ArgyllCMS 1.1.0 beta software with ColorMunki spectro.

[digitaldog]

The Munki is a very nice piece of hardware, when mated with good software for the display (as we have for SpectraViews) its great. It makes great output profiles using the software although I agree with others who have said the software is the weak link, in terms of UI and some of the stuff it tries to do it shouldn’t (play with PS preferences which can be turned off).

[Czornyj]

Sony SDM-S204  is a standard gamut monitor. i1 Display 2 (i1D2) is a good choice for it.
I own i1D2 and Spyder3Elite colorimeters, ColorMunki Photo and i1Pro spectrometers. And I don't recommend to buy a Spyder3 colorimeter - my one is very inaccurate. See the section in FAQ about Spyder accuracy.
ColorMunki Photo is a good device, but I don't like its software... It is better to use basICColor dysplay or ColorEyes Display Pro or even free ArgyllCMS 1.1.0 beta software with ColorMunki spectro.

Does Argyll 1.1.0 beta support ColorMunki? Is it available for download somwhere?

BTW - I also tested Spyder3 against i1pro, ColorMunki and I agree it's at least not convincing...

[probep]

Does Argyll 1.1.0 beta support ColorMunki? Is it available for download somwhere?

Yes, it does. Argyll CMS 1.1.0 beta supports ColorMunki (and Spyder3 too). You can get binaries from here

[Peter Mellis]

What I'm getting from this, is that I would need another couple of hundred dollars worth of software to make the ColorMunki work properly for monitor profiling. That would raise the total cost to the point where the incremental cost (versus getting a i1D2) to do printer profiling isn't worth it to me.

Am I correct in assuming that the free software mentioned (Argyll) is a beta for something that one will have to ultimately pay for?

[digitaldog]

What I'm getting from this, is that I would need another couple of hundred dollars worth of software to make the ColorMunki work properly for monitor profiling.

Not so, the software will properly work for monitor profiling. There’s better software solutions, especially when the software has full control over the panel using that instrument (SpectraView with an NEC supported display). But the software that comes with the hardware will do the job.

[Peter Mellis]

Got it. Thanks all.

[Czornyj]

Yes, it does. Argyll CMS 1.1.0 beta supports ColorMunki (and Spyder3 too). You can get binaries from here

Thanks a lot!
One more question - you also mentioned basICColor display, but as far as I know it still doesn't support ColorMunki - did you refer to some new beta version of that profiler?

Am I correct in assuming that the free software mentioned (Argyll) is a beta for something that one will have to ultimately pay for?

No, Argyll is an open source application.

ColorMunki software is ok, but it only calibrates the monitor using graphic card's 8-bit LUT - so if you want to make use of high bit LUT of your display, you need something different, but of course it only has some meaning if you have such a panel.

[tongelsing]

I recently borrowed a Colormunki for some weeks to experiment with it. I calibrated/profiled my screens and printers (Epson 2100 and 7880) with it and was satisfied with the results. It is easy profiling with the Munki, its a little bit a 'point and shoot' profiler. But the possibilities are limited in my modest opinion.
You cannot remote-profile with the Munki because there are no external targets available. It is not possible to edit your profiles although you can refine your profiling by making extra targets  with specific colours.
I didn't like the manual it is far to limited but in the Q&A section of XRite you can find some additional answers. A lot of knowledge I found on the splendid website from www.northlight-images.co.uk. The Colormunki is well described there!!

On the same website I found a review about the Spider Studio SR. I downloaded the software and the manual. The manual is fabulous, extensive and very well ordered. It is allmost a complete introduction into colourmanagement.
Last week I purchased the Spider Studio and although I'm in the experimental phase; the results are very nice and in my opinon much better then than the results of the Colormunki. It is more difficult to profile with the Spyder but it has a lot of possibilities. I like the way you can edit (with a direct softproofing in the program) your profiles. I even got really B&Wprints out of my old Epson 2100. They always had a slight greenish hue and I could not correct this with the Munki.
Remote profiling is possible with the Spider.

The Spider Studio SR is a little bit more expensive than the Colormunki (50 euro's more)

Ton

[probep]

Thanks a lot!
One more question - you also mentioned basICColor display, but as far as I know it still doesn't support ColorMunki - did you refer to some new beta version of that profiler?

Sorry, I was wrong. basICColor display and ColorEyes Display Pro don't support Munki -- NEC SpectraView II and EIZO ColorNavigator support it. I've corrected my old post.

[probep]

I recently borrowed a Colormunki for some weeks to experiment with it. I calibrated/profiled my screens and printers (Epson 2100 and 7880) with it and was satisfied with the results. It is easy profiling with the Munki, its a little bit a 'point and shoot' profiler. But the possibilities are limited in my modest opinion.
You cannot remote-profile with the Munki because there are no external targets available. It is not possible to edit your profiles although you can refine your profiling by making extra targets  with specific colours.
I didn't like the manual it is far to limited but in the Q&A section of XRite you can find some additional answers. A lot of knowledge I found on the splendid website from www.northlight-images.co.uk. The Colormunki is well described there!!

On the same website I found a review about the Spider Studio SR. I downloaded the software and the manual. The manual is fabulous, extensive and very well ordered. It is allmost a complete introduction into colourmanagement.
Last week I purchased the Spider Studio and although I'm in the experimental phase; the results are very nice and in my opinon much better then than the results of the Colormunki. It is more difficult to profile with the Spyder but it has a lot of possibilities. I like the way you can edit (with a direct softproofing in the program) your profiles. I even got really B&Wprints out of my old Epson 2100. They always had a slight greenish hue and I could not correct this with the Munki.
Remote profiling is possible with the Spider.

The Spider Studio SR is a little bit more expensive than the Colormunki (50 euro's more)

Ton

You can profile printers remotely with ColorMunki using mentioned free Argyll. Or even using powerful (and very expensive) X-Rite ProfileMaker and MonacoPROFILER.  ProfileMake and MonacoPROFILE don't support ColorMunki directly, but there are tricks and tips.
Moreover some specialists make rulers for Munki.

[probep]

What I'm getting from this, is that I would need another couple of hundred dollars worth of software to make the ColorMunki work properly for monitor profiling. That would raise the total cost to the point where the incremental cost (versus getting a i1D2) to do printer profiling isn't worth it to me...

Recent ColorMunki software version 1.1.1 is good enough to profile monitors.

[probep]

BTW - I also tested Spyder3 against i1pro, ColorMunki and I agree it's at least not convincing...

I've tested all my meters with various monitors and profilers.
Look at results of only one test.
That is one of reasons, why I try not to profile wide gamut monitors with colorimeters. Although my i1d2 is better than my Spyder3.

[Czornyj]

I've tested all my meters with various monitors and profilers.
Look at results of only one test.
That is one of reasons, why I try not to profile wide gamut monitors with colorimeters. Although my i1d2 is better than my Spyder3.

Mine was similar. Here's an interesting quote that explains a lot:

To reply on the wish about frank opinions from other scientists: We´ve evaluated at least 20 and up to 100 units of the following devices in the past 18 months to get an idea about the precision, repeatability and inter instrument agreement in real world usage for a scientific research project. The devices have been stock units - not especially selected ones to avoid any manufacturer selection. The Munki is missing because there is no real third party support for it.

- Eye One Display 2
- Spyder 3 Elite
- DTP94b
- EyeOne Pro Rev D

We´ve used a Minolta CS200, CS1000 and CS2000 to get reference values. The test have been done on stabilized displays with the following base specs:
- 72% NTSC display with LG S-IPS and CCFL Backlight
- 72% NTSC display with LG S-IPS and pseudo white LED (blue LED + yellow phosphor) Backlight
- 92% NTSC display with LG S-IPS and CCFL Backlight (WCG)
- 102% NTSC display with LG S-IPS and CCFL Backlight (extended WCG)
- 108% NTSC display with LG S-IPS and RGB LED backlight

I will summarize the findings we had so far:

1) Inter instrument agreement between at least 20 units:

- EyeOne Display 2 - max 18E, mean 8 E
- Spyder 3 Elite - max 15 E, mean 7 E
- DTP94b - max 3 E, mean 1,5E
- EyeOne Pro Rev D - max 3 E, mean 2 E

As recommended by others, one should only make use of one (1) EyeOne D2 or Spyder 3 unit for all installed displays, because the tolerances between these devices are much too high to get consistent results. Even the 3E max tolerance of the DTP94 or EyeOne pro can be too high. However, both devices show a much better inter instrument agreement.

2) Measurement quality

We used the "best" set of the evaluated units to perform some quality tests. All selected colorimeters showed an acceptable performance on the 72% NTSC CCFL display. However, on a white LED unit, the readings differ a lot from the reference. The spectra of a white LED unit differs a lot from a standard CCFL it replaces and the colorimeters are trained on a specific panel type and spectra. As soon as the spectra differs too much, the device tends to report wrong readings. The Wide Gamut CCFL and RGB-LED readings showed - as expected- even larger deviations. When the colorimeters are trained on the specific panel/spectra, their readings again reach an acceptable quality. However, the filter set of the DTP94 proofed to be farer away from the CIE standard observer than the ones from the EyeOne Display 2 or the Spyder. It needs therefore a higher correction for wide gamut display. Although, the EyeOne Dispaly 2´s and Spyder 3´s filter may match better to the CIE curves, they are still far off. As a result, all colorimeters need a correction for
wide gamut (and white LED according to our test). Some display vendors use specially trained sensors for their wide gamut displays, others use standard ones and implement the training on the specific panel/spectra in the calibration software. The result should be always the same. But, keeping the large deviations from (1) in mind , it´s at least questionable if the single EyeOne Display 2 or Spyder 3 Elite matches the correction curve (either in Hardware or in Software). For the sensors that come bundled with a display, one can only hope that the inter instrument agreement is better than with standard retail units.


3) Differences between Colorimeter and Spectro during the tests

The only visible deviations that we´ve seen was a quite noticeable difference in the dark tone represenation on the selected displays. The older 72% NTSC unit had a lowest black of 0.5cd/m2. Here, the EyeOne Pro
Rev.D performed equal to the colorimeters. On the 72% white LED and 92% NTSC CCFL with only 0.3cd/m2, the EyeOne pro started to created more noise in the darks and had a lot of questionable readings. As far as I know, the Spectro is not able to set individual integration times with different luminance levels (in contrast to the colorimeters). The visible result can be described as drowning dark tones (no matter if they were real blacks or dark colors). This gets even worse with the RGB LED backlighted 108% NTSc unit. This unit had a blackpoint of only 0.1cd/m2 and here we´ve seen even more drowning and colorfull (noisy darks with visible colorshifts and high Kelvins) darks - to be fair, the EyeOne Pro is not specified for dark readings below 0.2cd/m2. However, even the EyeOne Display and the Spyder created more noise on this display than on the thers. The DTP94 created the best results - in terms of details and neutrality - in the darks but is also well known for being the slowest device at all. The dark readings of the DTP94b take even more time as the device adjusts the integration time (like the other colorimeters, too). The EyeOne pro uses - compared to the 1nm reporting of the CS2000 - a wider sampling interval. It has been often discussed, that the relatively small peaks of CCFL displays (discontinous spectral characteristic of CCFLs) may cause interpolations errors with the EyeOne pro, because they can be spectrally located between two 10nm measurement steps. This can be noticed on both, the 92% and 102% unit in comparison to the Minolta Spectroradiometers. However, there is no visible difference between the Colorimeters and the EyeOne pro in real world perception tests. Therefore - according to our tests - there is a limitation of the EyeOne regarding the spectral interval, but is has no or little effect on the color representation on the selected displays.

To summarize, the EyeOne Pro Rev D (the A/B Revs performed far less good) is well suited for today´s displays except the extreme dark readings. All Colorimeters need an additional correction matrix on wide gamut and white LED displays. Additionally, 2 of the 3 evaluated colorimeters suffer from poor inter instrument agreement. The DTP94 (not available from Xrite any more) performed close to the EyeOne Pro in regards of inter instrument agreement and with a correction for wide gamut, it showed the best results even on the displays with lower black luminances.

I hope this makes the image a bit clearer.

[probep]

Czornyj
Thank you for very interesting quote. It's extremely useful for me.

[BruceHouston]

Please note that the Beta Argyll 1.1.0 driver for ColorMunki does not work in Win 7 x64.  The .inf installs 32-bit versions of the special Argyll USB driver (libusb0.sys and libusb0.dll) instead of the 64-bit versions of these files.  The 64-bit versions are in the Argyll libusbw folder but do not get installed for some reason (likely a problem with the .inf), as follows:

[attachment=19288:ColorMun...gyllCMS_.gif]


A high-quality, inexpensive display calibration system comprising (dispcalGUI + Argyll + ColorMunki) looks very promising.  Does anyone know of a workaround for the above-described problem in Win 7 x64?  Or could someone with .inf manipulation knowledge take a look at the .inf?

The Argyll USB driver is unsigned.  A workaround for the "unsigned driver" problem in Win 7 is found at: http://www.ngohq.com/home.php?page=dseo

Thanks,
Bruce