Test of monitor calibrators

[stefohl]

Did you know that different companies come up with the final data differently? It seems shocking at first but this is one reason why we recently saw X-Rite introduce a new metric (XRGA standard). So while it was useful to use a better reference grade unit (the Minolta), there could be some differences here just due to the way two companies report the data. Having a higher end X-Rite reference instrument would make the test results a bit more accurate. Can you specify the colors or are they a fixed set? Being able to specify the colors is useful. Many “validation” processes we see are fixed and often, the companies select colors that are easy to produce low deltas.  

I'm quite aware of the difficulties do this with a perfect result. I tried to find a way to spot the calibrators that gave a decent result and those who failed badly, that is that they showed an average of more than Delta E 5 or a maximum of more than Delta E 10. We have tested both EyeOne Pros rev A, B and D and they all passed. And when we compared the monitors when we used a profile created by those calibrators that failed and compared them with the profiles that were created by the those that passed, there were no problems to decide which monitor was profiled with the bad calibrators.

[Czornyj]

Can you specify the colors or are they a fixed set? Being able to specify the colors is useful. Many “validation” processes we see are fixed and often, the companies select colors that are easy to produce low deltas.

Lastly, while we all hope our instruments produce “accurate” and more importantly, consistent data, in terms of a display, the ultimate goal, one that’s very difficult to measure in terms of a success is how well the prints and display visually match.

It's a fixed set. My understanding of such validation process is that it's only to verify whether the calibration process didn't go wrong for some trivial reason (like screen saver etc.).

Would be interesting to read the link you are referring to.

http://lists.apple.com/archives/colorsync-users/2009/Nov/msg00175.html

[stefohl]

It's a fixed set. My understanding of such validation process is that it's only to verify whether the calibration process didn't go wrong for some trivial reason (like screen saver etc.).
http://lists.apple.com/archives/colorsync-users/2009/Nov/msg00175.html

I normally use the ColorNavigators Fogra 39 validation, as this gives me an idea about the quality not only of the calibration but also on the of the monitor's gamut. But here I used the simple validation because I just wanted a comparison of the measurements of the reference calibrator and the calibrator that is tested. And I think that the link that you provided pretty much shoved the same results that I have found.

[Steve Weldon]

Thanks.. looking at the chart you posted you're also well under 1 for most measurements.  Curious what colorimeter you're using and if you think there's any way to infer the measurements I'm getting from SVII against basICColor?  It just seems to be a huge difference between what I'm getting and the measurements the OP is getting.

Would the SVII colorimeter being filtered to work with the NEC's affect it's Delta E?  It generally measures less than my 1id2, but we're still talking a measurement under 1.. so I suppose not but thought I'd ask.

Is any of this software free or perhaps it includes a 30 day trial?  For fun I'd like to see what my devices get using the same testing software.. though really I don't see what all the hoopla is about if a person is getting consistent measurements and the screen is matching output.. but in the area of color it seems I always have more to learn.