Has anyone tried this meter? I believe that it is an update from the old Sequel Imaging meter that ColorFacts used to ship as the trichomat. I think it is also the same meter that Sencore markets as the ColorPro IV.

I'm just curious if anyone has had any experience with it and can recommend its performance.

The Display 2 is an improved version of what Sencore calls ColorPro III and integrates a light baffle to reduce internal reflections. The low light level sensitivity and linearity is a step below gretagmacbeth's best model.

Yes we at CalMAN have done a fair bit of testing with the Spyder2, Display2, i1Pro and the DTP94. So far in testing for a direct view LCD and CRT the Display2 edges both the Spyder2 and DTP94 out in matching the results from the i1Pro and has better low light results than the i1Pro. Once I have finished all of the testing including different types of displays front/rear DLP etc..., I will post my results and recommendations by display type and technology.

Yes we at CalMAN have done a fair bit of testing with the Spyder2, Display2, i1Pro and the DTP94. So far in testing for a direct view LCD and CRT the Display2 edges both the Spyder2 and DTP94 out in matching the results from the i1Pro and has better low light results than the i1Pro. Once I have finished all of the testing including different types of displays front/rear DLP etc..., I will post my results and recommendations by display type and technology.

Derek:

I look forward to that post. This information will be really useful for a lot of us. BTW, when is v 3 of CalMAN scheduled to ship? From your description, it sounds like this will be the version that I'd like to try.

Score a victory for the 4 sensor colorimeters for the display2 (matching i2pro and having better low light results)! I too look forward to your post derek, particularly seeing precisely what "edges" means exactly.

Best,
jeff

Derek:

I look forward to that post. This information will be really useful for a lot of us. BTW, when is v 3 of CalMAN scheduled to ship? From your description, it sounds like this will be the version that I'd like to try.
*cough*Free Upgrades*cough*

We are currently saying late 1Q07, but it will really be done when it's done. :)

Bill

Is the LT and D2 the exact same sensor?

Alvin

Is the LT and D2 the exact same sensor?

Alvin
Alvin - Per some documentation Greeno dug up, the answer is yes. I was unable to get a straight answer out of our GMB rep (or really, any answer in an official capacity), but the documentation below indicates the hardware is the same between them:
http://www.xrite.com/documents/literature/gmb/en/Eye-One_Monitor_Solutions_en.pdf

Bill

In that document, you'll note that in the sidebar on the last page, they refer to them (display2 and LT) as just "display". The differences appear to be the software.

Best,
jeff

With calMan software would this probe be the one to buy or the i1pro bundle? The price difference is significant.

the eye one pro is what the pro's would recommend (it's a spectraphotoradiometer for god's sake). I think the errors for the display2 are good and it's better in low light. That's my pick.

Best,
jeff

With calMan software would this probe be the one to buy or the i1pro bundle? The price difference is significant.The advantage of the Eye-One Pro is that it tends to be more accurate generally and and its accuracy is unaffected by the display type. On the other hand, filter-based meters, such as the Display2 and Spyder2, tend to do reasonably well with CRT, LCD, and plasma, but not as well with some DLP and LCoS projectors.

However, the Eye-One Pro is harder to use. For example, it requires the user to take dark readings about every 10-15 minutes. During a lengthy calibration session, this gets really annoying

I'm gonna go with a Display 2 beacuse i just do not trust the readings the Spyder 2 is giving me. I'm getting - SO IT SAYS!!!- dead on .313 .329 readings all the way from 40IRE-100IRE but there is no way it is correct because i can still see red in my gray windows. I don't know why, but the Spyder is telling me that my gray windows are right on but with my naked eye i can see they are not!

Just my 2 cents.
Happy Holidays guys!!!!
Carmine.

Quick question guys. in doing my research for the best price on the Display 2, i notice a lot of results for the Pantone EYE-ONE DISPLAY 2. Is this the same probe as the Gretag-Macbeth?

Thanks guys.
Carmine.

Quick question guys. in doing my research for the best price on the Display 2, i notice a lot of results for the Pantone EYE-ONE DISPLAY 2. Is this the same probe as the Gretag-Macbeth?

Thanks guys.
Carmine.
Yes, Pantone buys an OEM version. You can get an even better deal with the DisplayLT.

Bill

Hey Bill. I noticed a post by you stating that the Display LT was cheaper than the Display 2. So, it is the same hardware?

Thanks again Pal!!!!
Carmine.

Yes the D2 and LT are the same spec hardware just stripped down software for the PC side of things. Just like ColorVision does with the Spyder2express vs Spyder2pro same hardware different software.

For CalMAN we treat the D2 and LT the same

I have the same information, D2 and LT are the same probe, and like Calman, HCFR Colorimeter treat them the same. The software bundled with the probe differs, and of course one is better than the other. That's why the price changes ;)

Regards
Georges

A quick update on this thread. We've tested three different flavors of this meter, and they all have different calibration tables in the hardware. Our hypothesis is that these meters get a bit more attention after assembly than some competing models. For those looking to use a colorimeter with CalMAN, we recommend the DisplayLT/Display2 as the best bang-for-the-buck in the colorimeters we support.

Bill

Any updates on to which model is the most precise and most reliable now?

I think Derek wanted to comment on this. Or was this only related to the one software?

Now that I have gotten into the very guts of my Display2 and Display2 LT and can read/write the EEProm directly, we are saying the Display2 and Display2 LT are the same hardware and firmware. Each has a calibration table unique to the meter itself. So as long as the meter has not been damaged or has drifted out of spec, either one will do. The D2 LT is the better buy, unless you need the features from the GMB software. The only difference is how the GMB software treats them is what features are enabled/disabled. As for CalMAN the D2 and D2 LT are the same. Just find the the cheapest one you can :)

I'm still working on my review of which meter Spyder2, Display2, DTP94, i1Pro or Sencore ColorPro II III IV is the best or adaquit for various display types.

For LCD and CRT's you can't go wrong with a Display2, you just need the right software from a source that has the full SDK license from GMB and the understanding of how to setup and use them.

Hi,

I'm curious as to just what can drift or go out of calibration on these units. The sensors are basically just photo diodes are they not or solid state devices anyways.

Yes diode outputs can change over time and the filters can change over time when exposed to humidity. This is why a device that is NIST traceable is supposed to be recal'ed once a year.

I'm still working on my review of which meter Spyder2, Display2, DTP94, i1Pro or Sencore ColorPro II III IV is the best or adaquit for various display types.

For LCD and CRT's you can't go wrong with a Display2, you just need the right software from a source that has the full SDK license from GMB and the understanding of how to setup and use them.
Looking forward to your findings!

With LCD, do you mean projectors or flatscreens? I am looking to calibrate my upcoming PlasmaTV or LCD-TV and more importantly my upcoming projector, which is not sure which technology it will be (either DLP, LCD, D-ILA or SXRCD). Definitely no CRTs, neither TV nor pj.

Hi,

Do the Eye-One Display 2 and/or Display LT come with a tripod attachment like the SpyderTV Pro?

If not could a tripod attachment that could be used with the Display 2/LT be purchased?

Thanks.

Hi,

Do the Eye-One Display 2 and/or Display LT come with a tripod attachment like the SpyderTV Pro?

If not could a tripod attachment that could be used with the Display 2/LT be purchased?

Thanks.
No, they do not come with such an attachment. I doubt they sell an attachment specifically made for the Display. You'll probably have to go the ol' super-glue route. I've read posts from other people who have had luck just gluing a bolt onto their sensor.

So you want a tripod mount... for the D2
http://www.datapopuli.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=342

G-Bull and derekjsmith: Thanks for the replies and thanks for the link derek.

A quick update on this thread. We've tested three different flavors of this meter, and they all have different calibration tables in the hardware. Our hypothesis is that these meters get a bit more attention after assembly than some competing models. For those looking to use a colorimeter with CalMAN, we recommend the DisplayLT/Display2 as the best bang-for-the-buck in the colorimeters we support.

Bill

Does this mean that the DisplayLT/Display2 meter and Calman combo provides acceptable results for DLP front projectors with standard RGB color wheels?

"Does this mean that the DisplayLT/Display2 meter and Calman combo provides acceptable results for DLP front projectors with standard RGB color wheels?"

and/or DTP-94 ??

:cool:

I will test the D2 with my Optoma H79 this week. Which is a UHP bulb with a 8 segment wheel RGBgRGBg

I've been using the Display2 for a couple of days now on both a Sony CRT and a Sharp DLP front projector. I'm very impressed with this meter. The results are VERY close to what I get with the EyeOne Pro and measurably better than what I get from the Spyder2.

Highly recommended.

Thanks Tom, for that precious nugget of information. It made my day :)

Thanks Tom, for that precious nugget of information. It made my day :)
BTW, your CA-6X is closely related to the D2/D-LT. I'd be curious to see your results with it vs. the D2.

Bill

Does anyone know if Colorfacts software supports, or can be made to work with the Display2 meter?

Does anyone know if Colorfacts software supports, or can be made to work with the Display2 meter?Yes, I know because I asked them. They don't and they have no plans to. Big mistake IMHO.

Yes, I know because I asked them. They don't and they have no plans to. Big mistake IMHO.

That's unfortunate. I'm still using the Trichromat-1 sensor, which has worked very well for me. I was thinking about picking up a Spyder2 as a backup (I can get one from Costco fairly cheap), but the reviews of this meter are a bit mixed.

BTW, your CA-6X is closely related to the D2/D-LT. I'd be curious to see your results with it vs. the D2.
Thanks Bill for the info. I'll be sure to test the CA-6X with the French freeware app. I'd be more than happy to test it with CalMAN as well, if you can offer a time-limited version for me.

Thanks Bill for the info. I'll be sure to test the CA-6X with the French freeware app. I'd be more than happy to test it with CalMAN as well, if you can offer a time-limited version for me.
We are looking into supporting the CA-6X, but haven't released anything yet. Stay tuned, though. ;)

I posted some thoughts on it here.

http://lcdresource.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=45&Itemid=36

Apparently there is a Gretag-Macbeth and Pantone version using the same HW but different software. I use basiCColor for software now anyways though and the results have been much better than with Eye One Match.

Tom,

When you calibrate the DLP projector are you using the diffusor?

Tom,

When you calibrate the DLP projector are you using the diffusor?I tried it both ways. It didn't seem to make much difference.

I tried it both ways. It didn't seem to make much difference.

Interesting,

I'm noticing and measuring the diffusor absorbs green and blue more than red therefore once calibrated for the final image is shifted towards cyan. At least with the Display LT I purchased it would appear the diffusor is not completely linear in it's diffusing and the end result color shift is not what I would consider subtle either.

What are others experiencing?

I decided to do some more formal testing. What I discovered was interesting. There was more deviation between the Display2 taking measurements of the screen and directly from the lamp with the diffuser installed than there was between the Eye One Pro and the Display2, both taking measurements off the screen.

Meters: Gretagmacbeth Eye One Pro and Display2
Software: CalMan 2.12
Display: Sharp XV-Z20000
Screen: 100" Stewart StudioTek

EyeOne Pro Gray scale

http://home.comcast.net/~tlhuffman/calman/eyeone_pro_gray_scale.gif

Eye One Pro Color Points

http://home.comcast.net/~tlhuffman/calman/eyeone_pro_CIE.gif

Display2 Gray scale off-screen

http://home.comcast.net/~tlhuffman/calman/display2_gray_scale_screen.gif

Display2 Gray scale from lamp

http://home.comcast.net/~tlhuffman/calman/display2_gray_scale_lamp.gif

Display2 Color Points off-screen

http://home.comcast.net/~tlhuffman/calman/display2_CIE_screen.gif

Display2 Color Points from lamp

http://home.comcast.net/~tlhuffman/calman/display2_CIE_lamp.gif

Based on these results, it seems as though the off-screen mode is preferable. The diffuser seems to have a problem with red at high IRE to the extent that I would think a calibration in this mode would yield visibly different results than from using the meter off the screen.

Even more surprising is how close the Display2 and Eye One Pro spectroradiometer are in performance. Between 20-100 IRE the Display2 reads slightly less red at 100 IRE, but I doubt that the difference between the calibrations would be visible. With respect to chromaticity, the area of traditional strength of spectroradiometers, there is a small difference in green and blue. Again, I seriously doubt whether these differences would be visible.

This confirms my earlier assessment that this is a very impressive inexpensive meter. I'd also like to mention that CalMan is a great tool, especially for the price. When they release version 3, which will be a standalone application that can take real-time measurements, I may end up retiring ColorFacts.

That is impressive, thanks.

Perhaps the color shift I noted is due to my high power screen, I'll retest tonight with a low gain angular reflective screen.

edit: sorry about the redundant diffusor question.

Thanks

Based on these results, it seems as though the off-screen mode is preferable. The diffuser seems to filter out enough red that I would think a calibration in this mode would yield visibly different results than from using the meter off the screen.

Hugh2 has hit upon the question that comes to my mind. Have you tried the Pro in ambient mode? I would be curious whether the difference is due to a slight color shift from the screen. Both look like fairly tight results, though.

EDIT: This is with the i1 Pro monitor that does not do the ambient mode, right? If so, then we'll add this to our never-ending series of tests to do in-house. I've done pieces of this using multiple measures over several hours, but never to test the linearity of the included diffusers. I'll be working up a DIY diffuser for comparison using higher-grade glass.


This confirms my earlier assessment that this is a very impressive inexpensive meter. I'd also like to mention that CalMan is a great tool, especially for the price. When they release version 3, which will be a standalone application that can take real-time measurements, I may end up retiring ColorFacts.

Thank you. This is very high praise. :)

Bill

I've tested my Display LT with and without the diffusor facing both a black-out cloth screen with a gain of about .9 and on Da-lites High Power screen. The sensor postion remained unchanged throughout the test. The projector is a UHP lamp, RGBRGB wheeled Infocus SP4805 DLP projector.

For reference I've calibrated best I could the sensor with diffusor onto the black out cloth screen, the other tests are all relative to this reference.

What I previously described as a green/blue issue now appears to be solely a blue issue. I can not draw any conclusions as to which is more accurate as I have no objective reference so I'll leave that up to others who can compare with sensors known to be relatively accurate. I can conclude, however, that there is a measureable and relevant difference between using the sensor with or without the diffusor and that the high power screen was not the cause of the shift I noted earlier, this screen actually has a slight red push.

I've Jpeg'd the RGB charts only.

And one more.

I should add that somewhat contrary to my previous impression turning the diffused sensor towards the projector did not changed the readings. A non diffused sensor aimed at the projector showed a remarkable change compared to the same sans diffused sensor aimed at the screen, the result so scewed, or screwed, that I'll go out on a limb and eliminate that sensor scenerio as accurate.

Hugh2 - Which version of the ColorimeterHCFR app are you using?

Hi,

Version 1.21

I've tested my Display LT with and without the diffusor facing both a black-out cloth screen with a gain of about .9 and on Da-lites High Power screen.I'm confused. Isn't the whole point of the diffuser to enable pointing the sensor directly at the lens of the projector and not taking readings off the screen?

That's what I originally believed the diffusor should be used for but there's been conflicting info how of this implementation working for facing the screen.

Now I'm confused too, didn't you use the sensor with diffusor facing the screen?

Hmmmm, I just re-read your post and I've obviously misinterpreted how you employed the diffusor

You said...

"There was more deviation between the Display2 taking measurements of the screen and directly from the lamp with the diffuser installed"

Thought you used it for both facing the PJ and screen, my mistake. :o At least we came to the same conclusion.

I will add that if the diffusor is not linear, which appears to be the case (yours filters red mine blue), then readings facing the PJ are corrupt as well.

I'm confused. Isn't the whole point of the diffuser to enable pointing the sensor directly at the lens of the projector and not taking readings off the screen?

Yes that is why we have a screen offset feature in CalMAN so you can get a reference from the screen and use that as an offset when reading the PJ directly.

That's what I originally believed the diffusor should be used for but there's been conflicting info how of this implementation working for facing the screen.

Now I'm confused too, didn't you use the sensor with diffusor facing the screen?

Hmmmm, I just re-read your post and I've obviously misinterpreted how you employed the diffusor

You said...

"There was more deviation between the Display2 taking measurements of the screen and directly from the lamp with the diffuser installed"

Thought you used it for both facing the PJ and screen, my mistake. :o At least we came to the same conclusion.

I will add that if the diffusor is not linear, which appears to be the case (yours filters red mine blue), then readings facing the PJ are corrupt as well.
A diffusor can help mitigate some aiming error in taking measurements either in direct or reflective modes, but the primary use for them is to correct for the difference between reflected vs. direct light ("cosine corrector"). As a result, meters require multiple internal calibration tables to use them properly. Since xy is not a linear colorspace, it is hard to judge the linearity of a meter's response using xy-based color. Instead, you may want to try testing your diffuser using CIE-Luv space, and you may also want to wait for the HCFR team to support the diffuser modes formally (theoretically v1.22) to maximize the accuracy of the data feeding the analysis.

Bill

My initial tests intrigued me, so I decided to take a look at two other low-cost meters, the Milori Trichomat (Sequel Imaging Chroma IV) and the Spyder2. Since I don't have a license for the Spyder2 for CalMan and it doesn't support the trichomat in any case, I used ColorFacts.

Again, the results were surprising and quite revealing. First, neither of these meters have a diffuser, so the user is free to use them either pointed at the screen or directly towards the lamp. I quickly discovered that the meters behave differently in this regard. The trichomat did not yield good results when pointed towards the screen, so it should always be used in the direct reading mode. The Spyder2 was the opposite. It worked better when taking readings off the screen. Odd.

You can use my earlier readings from the EyeOne Pro and Display2 as a reference.

Trichomat gray scale reading

http://home.comcast.net/~tlhuffman/calman/trichomat_grayscale_lamp.jpg

Trichomat chromaticity

http://home.comcast.net/~tlhuffman/calman/trichomat_CIE_lamp.jpg

Spyder2 gray scale

http://home.comcast.net/~tlhuffman/calman/spyder2_grayscale_screen.jpg

Spyder2 chromaticity

http://home.comcast.net/~tlhuffman/calman/spyder2_CIE_screen.jpg

As you can see, the trichomat, though not as accurate as the Display2, does a reasonably good job when pointing directly at the lamp. The Spyder2, on the other hand, is not very accurate. Based on earlier testing, I determined that the trichomat does a better job than the Spyder2 with CRTs.

All in all, I can't recommend the Spyder2. The Display2, especially the LT version, is very inexpensive and performs much better. In fact, at least with a DLP projector it performs essentially the same as the much more expensive EyeOne Pro spectroradiometer.

Has anyone looked at the accuracy of the Display2 against some of the newer LED DLP solutions? Are any of the inexpensive meter solutions doable, or does one really need the more expensive i1 pro to use against some of the newer display technologies?

-pd

TomHuffman,

ColorHCFR V1.21 does offer a way to calculate screen or meter offsets.

Actually, the Spyder has a diffuser underneath the polarizing filter. This layering of filters is most likely why the D2 feels more accurate/"snappier" at low light levels than the Spyder does, since there is less attenuation of the signal before it reaches the diodes.

As for the Trichromat, we should also be able to support it at some point after v3 launches if there is demand for us to do so (it would be in the Pro bundle).

Bill

We currently sell the Progressive Labs software package with the new C-5 probe which is an enhanced version of the Display 2 providing a more linear detector response. The C-5 comes supplied with a bayonnet mounted diffuser used when measuring FPTV with the probe oriented towards the lens. The diffuser may be removed and used with the standard suction cup accesory for direct contact measurement of emissive displays including LCD flat panels.

The C-5 is supplied exclusively by Progressive Labs with three (3) calibration matrices one for direct contact measurement applications, a second calibration exclusively for LCD flat panel displays, and the third for calibration of FPTV when using the diffuser. It is important to note that the FPTV calibration is performed with the diffuser in place as the Display 2 does not provide a calibration performed with the diffuser from the factory! This makes a significant difference in xy measured data as the diffuser material does impart a chromaticity shift.

For more information contact Progressive Labs at 212-254-3541. Information on the new software package and C-5 probe will be listed on our website by the weekend.

naturally.... right after buying a display lt to cal my new DLP projector, I find I may have bought the wrong thing :confused:

arrrrghh....

naturally.... right after buying a display lt to cal my new DLP projector, I find I may have bought the wrong thing :confused:

arrrrghh....Why do you say this? I certainly wouldn't just assume it. I'll be calibrating a Samsung DLP rear projector. I'll try it with both the EyeOne Pro and the Display2 and I'll report back.

"Why do you say this? I certainly wouldn't just assume it."

"and the third for calibration of FPTV when using the diffuser. It is important to note that the FPTV calibration is performed with the diffuser in place as the Display 2 does not provide a calibration performed with the diffuser from the factory! This makes a significant difference in xy measured data as the diffuser material does impart a chromaticity shift. "

that's why....

:mad:

"Why do you say this? I certainly wouldn't just assume it."

"and the third for calibration of FPTV when using the diffuser. It is important to note that the FPTV calibration is performed with the diffuser in place as the Display 2 does not provide a calibration performed with the diffuser from the factory! This makes a significant difference in xy measured data as the diffuser material does impart a chromaticity shift. "

that's why....

:mad:
There is an offset in the meter for use with the diffuser, so while it is not a specific calibration matrix for the diffuser, it essentially acts like one. With v3, we will be able to write out calibration profiles to the D2, so there will be a procedure to create a table internally to the meter to account for the diffuser. I will also be working on a small "arts and crafts" guide on how to install a higher quality diffuser. Barring your getting a DLP FP with a wacky color wheel or LED light source, you should be good with the D2.

Just put down the Spyder, and walk away slowly, and no one gets hurt. :)

Bill

"Why do you say this? I certainly wouldn't just assume it."

"and the third for calibration of FPTV when using the diffuser. It is important to note that the FPTV calibration is performed with the diffuser in place as the Display 2 does not provide a calibration performed with the diffuser from the factory! This makes a significant difference in xy measured data as the diffuser material does impart a chromaticity shift. "

that's why....

:mad:If you are concerned about the effects of the diffuser, then, well, DON'T USE THE DIFFUSER. Take the measurements off the screen. This is what I've been doing with a DLP projector and getting great results. The diffuser is only necessary when you point the meter directly at the lens.

Just put down the Spyder, and walk away slowly, and no one gets hurt. :)

Bill

Too funny Bill!

Also to Bill, regarding a higher quality diffuser, do you get the edmonds optical catalog?

Best,
jeff

"Just put down the Spyder, and walk away slowly, and no one gets hurt. :)"

is that a hint, Bill ? :D

Also to Bill, regarding a higher quality diffuser, do you get the edmonds optical catalog?

Nope, don't get the catalog (anymore - the website is fairly easy to navigate). ;) The P/N you are looking for is NT43-043, NT43-718 or NT46-106, but let me test whether the sucker feet can hang onto it before folks start rushing off to order it. The opal diffusers are fairly heavy in the size the D2 needs, so there may actually need to be some real "arts and crafts" with this one. I'm hoping it is as simple as buying a $10 piece of glass, though (and paying $10 for shipping. :( ).

Jim - It was a little more than a hint, but then, you've already made one contribution to the "CalMAN Home for Wayward Spyders". ;)

Bill

"There is an offset in the meter for use with the diffuser, so while it is not a specific calibration matrix for the diffuser, it essentially acts like one. With v3, we will be able to write out calibration profiles to the D2, so there will be a procedure to create a table internally to the meter to account for the diffuser."

Each probe must be calibrated individually with the diffuser mounted to it to provide accurate results. A simple offset file will only provide accuracy for calibration at various levels of Gray however it will not be accurate for measurement of primaries and secondaries. Since a user in the field will not typically have a reference spectroradiometer to perform the calibration routine the degree of accuracy will not be reliable. Developing a matrix which was performed on one probe with a diffuser will not provide accurate results for another instrument when installed in it!

"There is an offset in the meter for use with the diffuser, so while it is not a specific calibration matrix for the diffuser, it essentially acts like one. With v3, we will be able to write out calibration profiles to the D2, so there will be a procedure to create a table internally to the meter to account for the diffuser."

Each probe must be calibrated individually with the diffuser mounted to it to provide accurate results. A simple offset file will only provide accuracy for calibration at various levels of Gray however it will not be accurate for measurement of primaries and secondaries. Since a user in the field will not typically have a reference spectroradiometer to perform the calibration routine the degree of accuracy will not be reliable. Developing a matrix which was performed on one probe with a diffuser will not provide accurate results for another instrument when installed in it!

Agreed that just coming up with a matrix or a offset is not the correct way to account for the diffuser and yes each probe must be calibrated to it's diffuser. In CalMAN now we allow users to have a meter to meter and/or screen to PJ offsets but these are just xy coords like everyone else does.

Trust me we have a plan for a much better way of doing this, including to allow users to create a calibration maxtrix for the D2 and for the other meters we support a new way to calculate the differences.

Since using the diffuser seems to be such a pain in the neck, and since using one doesn't seem to yield results that, at least based on my testing, are any more accurate than using it without, what's the point? Why not just use the probe WITHOUT the diffuser and save yourself the headache?

Since using the diffuser seems to be such a pain in the neck, and since using one doesn't seem to yield results that, at least based on my testing, are any more accurate than using it without, what's the point? Why not just use the probe WITHOUT the diffuser and save yourself the headache?

Mostly methodological purity. For users, if the diffuser doesn't add anything, then we would definitely recommend not using it. I am hoping that the third party diffuser improves upon the performance of the D2 vs. the i1 Pro with a similar diffuser.

Bill

Will the Display 2 have any trouble with the DLP Mits 6-color wheel, e.g. WD-65831 model?

One more thing, how do these sensors attach to these Mits?

Derek:

Have you completed testing with DLP rear projectors and the Display2?

If it's a bulb based DLP then yes the D2 will work just fine. We have not tested with the new led or laser DLP displays.

any opinions on whether the Display LT is ok for DLP then? I'm really enjoying this thread!

Optoma HD72.

Also anyone know of any mac software for calibration? thanks....

Read above.

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=9495885&&#post9495885

Thanks Tom..I'm a record producer by trade, so still struggling with the technology a bit !

I think i'm going to buy a Display LT..do you think the included software is any good for calibrating DLP projector at all, or know of any mac based software i could run? i think i could use virtual PC , but it makes my head hurt ! thanks .

Thanks Tom..I'm a record producer by trade, so still struggling with the technology a bit !

I think i'm going to buy a Display LT..do you think the included software is any good for calibrating DLP projector at all, or know of any mac based software i could run? i think i could use virtual PC , but it makes my head hurt ! thanks .My guess is "no." You really need dedicated display calibration software. Calman is inexpensive commercial and Color HCFR is open source. Both work with the Display 2.

Can Eye-One Display2 be used on plasmas? I´ve read something earlier about lack of infra red filter. But is that fixed now?

If it is not working on plasmas, do anyone have another suggestion?

It can be used on plasmas.

Depending on the plasma it may report too much red. If that is the case then you just need to adjust your calibration to have it report less red.

The Calman guys have been looking at the potential IR issue. I say potential because I'm not 100% convinced it's necessarily IR but could also be a sensitivity to visible red that exists in some plasma models.

EDIT: I should add TomHuffman has a lot of data on how much red is over reported.

Can Eye-One Display2 be used on plasmas? I´ve read something earlier about lack of infra red filter. But is that fixed now?

If it is not working on plasmas, do anyone have another suggestion?

yes it can be used on plasmas. The probe over reports red by a small amount, typically 3-4%. It has been tested with and without an external IR filter with no effect so near-IR leakage is not the cause. The most likely cause is the simple fact that it is calibrated for LCD and CRT spectral distributions and not plasmas which contain significantly more in-band red emission than LCDs. Tristimulus probes generate errors when used on displays in which the spectral distribution is significantly different from the one on which their calibrations are based. If you use it for white point calibration several avs members have reported errors of ~ 4 dE when calibrating to D65, you can compensate by shooting for a red level that is slightly high corresponding to a color temperature shift of ~150K (to the warm side).

I want to calibrate my DVD-player + front projector with a Display2. Does anyone know which software that supports using test patterns played from a standalone DVD-player and NOT from the computer with the measuring software?

HCFR does, but do the Gretag Match software that is included in the Display2 package do?
What about Calman?
Other suggestions?

/Ludvig

Both softwares that you mention support stand-alone dvd playback for patterns. I am not familiar with Calman, but, for HCFR you just copy the eyeone.dll file into the HCFR directory after you have installed the drivers onto the computer.

Both softwares that you mention support stand-alone dvd playback for patterns. I am not familiar with Calman, but, for HCFR you just copy the eyeone.dll file into the HCFR directory after you have installed the drivers onto the computer.

Which two? Do you mean Gretag Match and HCFR or Calman and HCFR?

I mean HCFR and Calman. Typically, those are better software packages than the Gretag. You will, however, have to install the driver from gretag to get your probe to work with either software.

I mean HCFR and Calman. Typically, those are better software packages than the Gretag. You will, however, have to install the driver from gretag to get your probe to work with either software.

That was bad news. I bought the Display2 because the LT version software did not support separate RGB gamma adjustments. Now that I don't seem to be able to use the Gretag Match software at all with my DVD, it means that I have just wasted $100 on display2 instead of going on an LT :-(

That was bad news. I bought the Display2 because the LT version software did not support separate RGB gamma adjustments. Now that I don't seem to be able to use the Gretag Match software at all with my DVD, it means that I have just wasted $100 on display2 instead of going on an LT :-(

If you can take it back, take it back and get an LT. The probes are identical but the Calman or HCFR is better than the Gretag for home theater display calibration.

By $100, you mean $100 more than the LT, right? I paid a little over $100 for my LT, I just wanted to make sure I didn't get ripped off.

It gets a little confusing around here because many people use eyoneLT and eyeoneD2 interchangibly but that's because they are the same probe. If you haven't read it yet make sure you read as much of this THREAD (http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=737550) as possible. Also, this POST (http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=11174391&&#post11174391) was almost the same question that you asked.

Stick with it, it's well worth it when you get your display calibrated. Speaking of that, what type of display are you trying to calibrate and what dvd are you going to use?

You're right, the difference between LT and D2 was ~$100 here in Sweden.

The equipment are Panasonic DVD-S99 and BenQ8720.

You're right, the difference between LT and D2 was ~$100 here in Sweden.

The equipment are Panasonic DVD-S99 and BenQ8720.

I am not familiar with the S99.

I had excellent success using that probe with my Benq PB6200 and Panasonic XP-30 with HCFR.

Good luck!

You're right, the difference between LT and D2 was ~$100 here in Sweden.

The equipment are Panasonic DVD-S99 and BenQ8720.
Definitely see if you can return the Display2 since the LT saves you quite a bit of money.

Bill

You're right, the difference between LT and D2 was ~$100 here in Sweden.

The equipment are Panasonic DVD-S99 and BenQ8720.

Where can you buy LT in Sweden, how much was it in kruunu :D? I live in Finland but maybe they also sell here.

Thought I'd jump back in here real quick...

So I think i will pick up the EyeOne Display LT per the recommendation, and will probably be using HCFR.

My plan is to use a screen offset, and then calibrate the PJ with the Display LT pointed at the PJ. I have read various posts about baffles, etc, and HCFR not having to correct settings to use the Display LT pointed at the PJ.

Can anyone shed some light onto how to get the best results with Display LT and HCFR? I don't need a full tutorial, just an idea of how to orient the probe and whether or not I should be using the diffuser or not, and what settings i should be using in HCFR.

Thanks
Patrick <---- calibration noob...be gentle

Hi
Is the D2 lt ok for crt front projection with the HCFR software and facing sensor to crt projector, are the buffles needed for that configuration?, or is a spyder2 better?

Just not quite sure which to buy for my crt projector.

If your getting the reading off the screen, how do you do that without blocking the crt beams?

Thanks Guys
Ryan