Hi Derek. I note that there's something in the works regarding CalMAN and hand profiled Enhanced Spyder3 sensors. I've been hesitating about buying CalMAN for my plasmas, mostly because everything I've read so far suggests I'd have to go to nothing less than a Chroma5 to get really accurate results. It's a bit of coin for that. So I have some questions.

1) How will this new Spyder3 / CalMAN compare to the Chroma5?

2) Will the Spyder combo produce results that are as accurate for a Pioneer 9G Elite?

3) Will this new Spyder3 provide a similar speed of integration as the Chroma5?

4) Given the deal currently being offered, for a 9G plasma will the Spyder / Enthusiast bundle be better than the Chroma5 / Home bundle?

I was having issues with a D2 i bought from SpectraCal with the Pro Software. They gave me options to replace the D2 with a new one or give me credit towards a bewtter probe or send me the calibrated S3 you mention above and to be a beta tester.

here is what they say about the S3....

We can Offer a new, calibrated Spyder 3, which we are about to introduce as a
CalMAN branded Spyder, with an offset table added to CalMAN specific to the
meter against a reference source, making that specific Spyder as or more
accurate than an NIST Certified Chroma 5. The Spyder 3 has 7 filters and
includes a tripod feature, so it's much better suited than D2 for projector
calibrations.

it sounded intriguing but I went with the Ey One Pro instead. But the guys at SpectraCal are great to work with!1 I think you'll like the S3 and calman package.

Athanasios

Hmm, this sounds pretty good. I'm hoping Derek chimes in with whether this holds true as well for the Elite plasmas. The Chroma5 is supposed to be particularly good for the Elite displays.

The CalMAN Enhanced Spyder3 will slot in between the Display2 and Chroma5 to fill that gap.

We are still finishing up testing over the next week or so.

Our first task at hand was to purchase a large quantity of OEM Spyder3's and then sort out the ones we felt were not up to the task, those will end up in recycling after we have destroyed them. Then the rest will be hand calibrated with 3 modes direct view, CRT/Plasma, front projector.

As for speed that is an area we are not able to improve upon. Low light it will be around 4 seconds with 2 seconds for brighter light.

I have always thought the design of the Spyder3 was interesting in using edge detectors instead of peak detectors.

More to come as we get our first batch of 50 ready.

derekjsmith

The CalMAN Enhanced Spyder3 will slot in between the Display2 and Chroma5 to fill that gap.

We can Offer a new, calibrated Spyder 3, which we are about to introduce as a CalMAN branded Spyder, with an offset table added to CalMAN specific to themeter against a reference source, making that specific Spyder as or moreaccurate than an NIST Certified Chroma 5. The Spyder 3 has 7 filters and includes a tripod feature, so it's much better suited than D2 for projector calibrations.

A filter based probes accuracy is only as good as the filter set provided allows. The calibration will provide good accuracy relative to the reference device however it will vary significantly based on the type of displays used in the field from that reference source. As displays primaries and spectral energy differ greatly from one display to the next there is no way of predicting how the probe will perform on a particular display without actually measuring it.

The calibration will improve overall accuracy of the instrument however it will not eliminate any shortcomings of the product itself. There is no magic involved here, if you need greater precision buy the Chroma 5 probe it is the better design and provides greater accuracy. More detectors do not mean better accuracy as it is also more difficult to integrate the added detectors. To do so requires throwing away a lot of light which in the end defeats much of what the additional detectors were supposed to improve upon.

Considering the difference in cost between a Display 2 and a Chroma 5 it seems foolish to consider the less expensive probe.

Considering the difference in cost between a Display 2 and a Chroma 5 it seems foolish to consider the less expensive probe.

Well, Derek is offering an incentive now that will get one a Spyder 3 and CalMAN Enthisiast for a great price if you already have CalMAN Home (I don't know if quoting actual prices is allowed here). The Spyder - Chroma5 cost difference taking into account the Enthusiast upgrade is $300. If CalMAN Home provides all the functionality necessary for a geeky tweaker then it's still a $300 difference.

More detectors do not mean better accuracy as it is also more difficult to integrate the added detectors. To do so requires throwing away a lot of light which in the end defeats much of what the additional detectors were supposed to improve upon.

Cliff, I'm not sure you understand how a Spyder3 works. Your statement of more detectors means less light on each one is simply not true. You may want to open a Spyder3 up and see the light path for yourself before you make such a statement.

The light path on the Spyder3 is first through a light pipe to minimize errors on a LCD, next is a NIR filter for dealing with IR energy from phosphor, next is a diffuser for even light distribution to the detectors, next is a lens array for focusing the light onto each detector. With this design is does not matter if you have 1 or 40 detectors they are all in the same light path.

I did not state that there is less light on each detector at all if you read my post correctly. I stated that integrating the light from a larger number of detectors is difficult to perform and one of the side effects of this is that the instrument becomes less efficient rather then more efficient in the process. The Spyder 3 does not have equivalent low light level sensitivity to the C-5 and this is one of the contributing factors for the loss in sensitivity. This has nothing whatsoever to do with the light path or amount of light reaching the detectors.

I'm with Cliff on this one. The cost differential between the Spyder and the Chroma 5 is just not large enough to justify forgoing the considerably increased performance that the Chroma 5 provides and the measurably better performance that the Display 2 provides.

The Spyder is attractive because it is cheap and easy to use (no dark reading and easy tripod mount). That's about it.

Correcting it with a reference instrument is a good idea, but this is really only useful for whatever display it was corrected for. A generic correction is of marginal value.

i'm with cliff on this one. The cost differential between the spyder and the chroma 5 is just not large enough to justify forgoing the considerably increased performance that the chroma 5 provides and the measurably better performance that the display 2 provides.

The spyder is attractive because it is cheap and easy to use (no dark reading and easy tripod mount). That's about it.

Correcting it with a reference instrument is a good idea, but this is really only useful for whatever display it was corrected for. A generic correction is of marginal value.

+3

I'm with Cliff on this one. The cost differential between the Spyder and the Chroma 5 is just not large enough to justify forgoing the considerably increased performance that the Chroma 5 provides and the measurably better performance that the Display 2 provides.
??? ... I think the $279 vs $575 price different is substantial enough for some people to go with the Spyder3. That's nearly $300 more for the Chroma5!

Yes, $300 isn't maybe that much to some people where HT is involved but to others it's a substantial investment. No argument that the Chroma5 is a better meter however, but for someone with $1000-$2000 invested in their entire HT it's a harder upgrade pill to swallow.

I get a lot of comments from people asking if there's a CHEAPER option than a $70 Spyder1. :rolleyes:

Kal

I'm with Cliff on this one. The cost differential between the Spyder and the Chroma 5 is just not large enough to justify forgoing the considerably increased performance that the Chroma 5 provides and the measurably better performance that the Display 2 provides.

The Spyder is attractive because it is cheap and easy to use (no dark reading and easy tripod mount). That's about it.

Correcting it with a reference instrument is a good idea, but this is really only useful for whatever display it was corrected for. A generic correction is of marginal value.

Are you saying that the Display 2 is more accurate than the CalMAN Enhanced Spyder 3?

A filter based probes accuracy is only as good as the filter set provided allows. The calibration will provide good accuracy relative to the reference device however it will vary significantly based on the type of displays used in the field from that reference source. As displays primaries and spectral energy differ greatly from one display to the next there is no way of predicting how the probe will perform on a particular display without actually measuring it.

The calibration will improve overall accuracy of the instrument however it will not eliminate any shortcomings of the product itself.

Isn't a D2 also filter based? So how is this any different for the D2? Isn't a D2 then only as good as its filter set?

I'm with Cliff on this one...Correcting it with a reference instrument is a good idea, but this is really only useful for whatever display it was corrected for. A generic correction is of marginal value.

Wouldn't a corrected Spyder still be better than an uncorrected D2? Even if a D2 is corrected during its prodcution process wouldn't it also be a generic correction?

I guess I understand that the C5 will trump either D2 or Spyder, but comparing an uncorrected D2 to a corrected Spyder would seem to give the edge to the corrected Spyder wouldn't it? Or are you saying the filters in the Spyder are typically so bad or so much worse that even with the correction the uncorrected D2 is still better?

emptychair
Isn't a D2 also filter based? So how is this any different for the D2? Isn't a D2 then only as good as its filter set?

The fact that they both share the same filter based technology does not mean that they have identical filter sets used which is what will ultimately dictate the degree of accuracy that the instrument is able to provide. A calibrated filter based instrument is certainly more accurate then an uncalibrated one. What needs to be kept in perspective here is what the calibrated instrument was calibrated to as a reference light source.

For the reference light source used the calibrated instrument will be in very close agreement to the reference instrument however when a different light source is used there is a large degree of uncertainty as to the accuracy. An example of this is the instrument is calibrated to a Samsung LCD display which provides excellent results however when you attempt to calibrate substituting a Sharp LCD due to the fact that different backlights are used as well as different LCD glass with different primaries the results are far less then ideal. Since you would ultimately require a separate corrective matrix calibration for every display made for good results this becomes a catch 22 type of approach to creating an acceptably accurate instrument. This is typically referred to as a profiling an instrument.

emptychair

Wouldn't a corrected Spyder still be better than an uncorrected D2? Even if a D2 is corrected during its prodcution process wouldn't it also be a generic correction?

Generally speaking No. Every D2 is calibrated individually making it better to begin with along with its more precise filter set.

I guess I understand that the C5 will trump either D2 or Spyder, but comparing an uncorrected D2 to a corrected Spyder would seem to give the edge to the corrected Spyder wouldn't it? Or are you saying the filters in the Spyder are typically so bad or so much worse that even with the correction the uncorrected D2 is still better?

Will the instrument work well with the display that you own is the unanswered question which only using one will answer. How it compares with a more expensive filter based product such as a C-5 or other model is typically not as well on displays aside from what it was calibrated on. This is essentially due to the CMF color matching function of the filters used and the basic technology behind the instruments design.

There is not a lot of difference between the design of a D2 and a C-5 aside from the processor in the C-5 utilizing a Quartz crystal reference oscillator vs the D2 using a Ceramic resonator. The level of the calibration performed on the D2 is not to quite as tight a spec as the C-5 either. There are a couple of other minor differences but the filters used in the D2 in general should provide better accuracy then the Spyder 3.

ghibliss, thank you for the informative and helpful reply.


The fact that they both share the same filter based technology does not mean that they have identical filter sets used which is what will ultimately dictate the degree of accuracy that the instrument is able to provide.

Ah, that's what I was wondering about. I thought that given their similarity in price, they would share a similar design, filter set and/or level of accuracy.

A calibrated filter based instrument is certainly more accurate then an uncalibrated one. What needs to be kept in perspective here is what the calibrated instrument was calibrated to as a reference light source.

For the reference light source used the calibrated instrument will be in very close agreement to the reference instrument however when a different light source is used there is a large degree of uncertainty as to the accuracy. An example of this is the instrument is calibrated to a Samsung LCD display which provides excellent results however when you attempt to calibrate substituting a Sharp LCD due to the fact that different backlights are used as well as different LCD glass with different primaries the results are far less then ideal. Since you would ultimately require a separate corrective matrix calibration for every display made for good results this becomes a catch 22 type of approach to creating an acceptably accurate instrument. This is typically referred to as a profiling an instrument.

Good example, and I do get all of that, but I guess I was wondering how the D2 avoided experiencing varying results with different light sources/displays.



Generally speaking No. Every D2 is calibrated individually making it better to begin with along with its more precise filter set.

That would answer my above question then. So basically the D2 is simply a better quality probe...


Will the instrument work well with the display that you own is the unanswered question which only using one will answer. How it compares with a more expensive filter based product such as a C-5 or other model is typically not as well on displays aside from what it was calibrated on. This is essentially due to the CMF color matching function of the filters used and the basic technology behind the instruments design.

There is not a lot of difference between the design of a D2 and a C-5 aside from the processor in the C-5 utilizing a Quartz crystal reference oscillator vs the D2 using a Ceramic resonator. The level of the calibration performed on the D2 is not to quite as tight a spec as the C-5 either. There are a couple of other minor differences but the filters used in the D2 in general should provide better accuracy then the Spyder 3.

Thank you again.

Has anyone used the CalMAN Enhanced Spyder 3 and had the opportunity to compare it to the Display 2? Particularly on a Plasma Display? I recently bought the Display 2 and since its my only meter I can't make any comparisons.

Has anyone used the CalMAN Enhanced Spyder 3 and had the opportunity to compare it to the Display 2? Particularly on a Plasma Display? I recently bought the Display 2 and since its my only meter I can't make any comparisons.
Derek and LA gave me the following news:

"The results of the Spyder3 calibrations have been very good. The calibrated Spyder3 definitely provides superior results when compared to the Display 2."

I don't have any more details then that. Maybe they can post something...

Kal

For me, the Display 2 was the easy choice since I wanted the most affordable meter worth using for calibration purposes. Since my TV cost me only $800 at the time (now sells for just $700), spending around $300 for a pro calibration or the CalMAN Enhanced Spyder 3 seemed excessive. Still, on this thread there appears to be significant debate on which meter is better and under what applications.

I would certainly like to see a side-by-side comparison on the two meters, just like the Spyder 2/Display 2 comparison on your Calibration for Dummies Guide.

I would certainly like to see a side-by-side comparison on the two meters, just like the Spyder 2/Display 2 comparison on your Calibration for Dummies Guide.
If I ever had time to do one and got my hands on one I'd certainly go for it, but for now I have to rely on what Derek and LA's results tell us. It's a very new product. The Spyder3 comes with a projector mount is also better suited for projector calibration because the diffuser is not great for illuminant measurement (I'm told).

The D2 comes with the regular X-rite software to create calibration profiles for PC monitors so that's the one good point about the D2. Given that the price is the same for both currently the Spyder3's the one I'd be getting if I didn't have PC monitors to calibrate as well.

I do mention some of this in my FAQ "Which meter is right for me?" (http://www.curtpalme.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=11436)

Kal

ordered my enhanced spyder3 and calman last weekend. waiting for it. Any impressions yet good or bad from anyone that has had a chance to use it yet? Does it appear to be better than the i1d2?

Bought one, and am very happy, compared to the eye2 I was previously using and comparing the results to that of an eye one pro, it was very close.

ERIC

good answer..just what i was hoping to hear..thanks

Bought one, and am very happy, compared to the eye2 I was previously using and comparing the results to that of an eye one pro, it was very close.

ERIC

Isn’t cool how we cache the calibration files for you on our server and you can download them at anytime as needed :) Once downloaded CalMAN switches from standard S3 mode to Enhanced S3 mode.

BTW, we just ordered our 3rd large batch of S3's this is a very popular product.

One of these days Chris and I will take pictures of us destroying the rejects :)

Bought one, and am very happy, compared to the eye2 I was previously using and comparing the results to that of an eye one pro, it was very close.

Which display(s) did you use?

received my enhanced spyder today..calibrated my panny 50v10 tonight..first cal for me...i have read where the i1d2 has to be taken off the screen and calibrated by putting it in pitch black every ten minutes..is this also the case with the enhanced spyder3? I did it for about half of my cal and it got too tedious..did the cal in a completely dark room except for the light from my laptop.

received my enhanced spyder today..calibrated my panny 50v10 tonight..first cal for me...i have read where the i1d2 has to be taken off the screen and calibrated by putting it in pitch black every ten minutes..is this also the case with the enhanced spyder3? I did it for about half of my cal and it got too tedious..did the cal in a completely dark room except for the light from my laptop.

No need for this with the D2 or S3 when using CalMAN.

great...thanks for the quick reply

Great discussion on these meters. Readying the "which meter" faq, I saw this line:

Some new LED based displays can pose challenges for the EyeOne Display 2/LT. The least expensive meter that can and does work correctly with LED (and all other) displays is the EyeOne Pro (see below).



While this comments calls out the EyeOne LT it does state that the Pro is needed for LED. Does the LED issue affect the CalMAN and Spyder3?

Then again, what is the LED issue? Does it matter if it's backlit verses edgelit?

Great discussion on these meters. Readying the "which meter" faq, I saw this line:



While this comments calls out the EyeOne LT it does state that the Pro is needed for LED. Does the LED issue affect the CalMAN and Spyder3?

Then again, what is the LED issue? Does it matter if it's backlit verses edgelit?

We have just started testing the D2, S2, S3, C5 with LED backlights. It does not matter if it is a edgelit, backlit or backlit RGB.

Currently the only tristim based colorimeter that officially supports LED is the Klein K-10 with LED calibration running CalMAN v3.5.

Is v3.5 available? I see nothing about it on the forum. I have a few quirks with 3.4 that I won't bother to mention if they are worked out...

We have just started testing the D2, S2, S3, C5 with LED backlights. It does not matter if it is a edgelit, backlit or backlit RGB.

Currently the only tristim based colorimeter that officially supports LED is the Klein K-10 with LED calibration running CalMAN v3.5.Thanks Derek. I've updated my "Which meter is right for me?" (http://www.curtpalme.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=11436) FAQ to make this clearer.

Kal

We have just started testing the D2, S2, S3, C5 with LED backlights. It does not matter if it is a edgelit, backlit or backlit RGB.

Currently the only tristim based colorimeter that officially supports LED is the Klein K-10 with LED calibration running CalMAN v3.5.

Thank you for the response. That is very good to know. I'm curious however, what is the issue? Is it the fact they are "pinpoints" of light rather than continuous bars?

Thanks again!

Edit:

Holy cow! I could buy 4 of my Toshibas for the price of the K-10! :D

Is v3.5 available? I see nothing about it on the forum. I have a few quirks with 3.4 that I won't bother to mention if they are worked out...

The v3.41 we have been working on became v3.5 because of all the features we added it was not just a minor release we had planned.

Thank you for the response. That is very good to know. I'm curious however, what is the issue? Is it the fact they are "pinpoints" of light rather than continuous bars?

Thanks again!

Edit:

Holy cow! I could buy 4 of my Toshibas for the price of the K-10! :D

Yes the K-10 is overkill for most. The issue is LED's produce a different spectral response then CCFL used in LCD's now. More on this subject as we perform more testing as our LED based projector, edge and back lit displays come in over the next few days for testing.

Trust me we WILL have an answer for those that need to calibrate LED but need something less than a K-10.