Just let me preface this by stating that this is not to start a debate about who's calibration product is better. I'm simply trying to pry some information from you guys.

I'll be talking about measurments taken by Datacolor vs Measurements taken by Calman. Let me state that the measurements taken by datacolor was using the included Spyder2 colorimeter while the measurments taken in Calman was taken using a Eye-One Display 2 / LT.

Anyway, I just got my Datacolor package a couple nights ago, so last night I went through the process of calibration. Prior to this, I had calibrated with calman and everything looked really good. DEs < 4 across the entire grayscale, 6504k across the greyscale (give or take +150 either way). Balanced RGBs, etc. Gamma looked good. The only issue I really had was my color decoder which I'll have to rectify using a Red-Push attenuator since my mitsu doesn't give access to the color decoder settings. Anyway, the point being everything looked good in Calman.

My next step was to Calibrate with datacolor. I went throught the entire process and the resulting graphs / charts looked good. BTW, let me say that Datacolor is pretty sweet (user interface, usability, etc). I do have to say that while I was calibrating with datacolor, I didn't feel comfortable with the recommended settings. I'm by no means an expert, but just didn't feel right in the gut. Example the range for my settings are 0 - 62. In the blue and red contrast / brightness, I had to reduce the settings to ridiculously low amounts. In Calman, blue brightness may have been 30, in datacolor it was set to 6 (just one example). Anyway, I completed the entire process.

My next step was to re-measure with Calman to see what it would look like there.
Let me say that I was shocked. DEs were > 15 across the entire grayscale. RGB balance was pretty off (over 20 % in some parts of the scale). And the RGB tracking to the gamma were terrible.

Now my question is...... WTF..........
Can the spyder's calibration be that far off or maybe the D2 or a combination. These measurements were taken back to back. It's kind of a concern to me now because 'Which one do I trust'. I thought the settings / measurements between the two would have been pretty close. NOT.

Anyway, let me here some input from you guys. Thx.


P.S - Can't wait for the Colorfacts 7.0 upgrade. That new forum would come in VERY handy right about now.

Hi scooper

You are doing something terrible for your nerves : you are calibrating a device using two different probes and two different softwares… You can’t say which probe is the reference, and which software is the reference…

I would say “use Colorfacts with Eye One, both are worldwide reference”. But obviously, you can’t. If you are confident with Calman, you can use this software with both Spyder 2 and Eye One. It’s a way to check if results are coherent.

You can also look at ColorHCFR. Another software… but this one is free, and you can make simultaneous measures with both your probes, and compare them. It’s a good way to check if your probes give reasonably identical results.

And you will have more information to check what is reliable, and what is not.

Regards
Georges

No criticism of you, but I am getting weary repeating this. The Spyder2 is just not as accurate as the Display 2. I'm not surprised you got different results. I do too. I suspect anyone who tried a comparison would. The difference you see has nothing to do with the software packages. It's the meters.

If you want to be as close to certain as one can be about these things that your readings are accurate, spring for the i1Pro spectroradiometer. However, on every display I've looked at, except plasmas, the Display 2 gets about the same results.

See http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=9602772&&#post9602772
and subsequent posts

and

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=9635567&&#post9635567

and

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

Thx Tom. I did expect the readings to be different since I was using different meters. I really just didn't expect them to be that different. Anyway, i'm going to wait for Colorfacts 7.0 which is released next week. It's supposed to support the Eye-One Display 2. I truly didn't plan on using the Spyder. I was just in a situation whereby I had the software, wanted to play with it and had no other choice as far as meters since the current V6 doesn't support the Display 2.

I need to just STEP AWAY from colorfacts for now until I can either get a Eye-One Pro or just wait another week for V7 to support my Display 2 / LT.

However, on every display I've looked at, except plasmas, the Display 2 gets about the same results.

.

What sensor do you recommend for plasmas if Display2/LT is not good for this purpose?

i1Pro..

What sensor do you recommend for plasmas if Display2/LT is not good for this purpose?

Anyway, i'm going to wait for Colorfacts 7.0 which is released next week. It's supposed to support the Eye-One Display 2.On what do you base this? I spoke with them a couple of weeks ago and they told me that that do not currently support the Display 2 and they have no plans to do so in the future.

When they were Milori, they were just a software company and had every reason to remain neutral regarding hardware. Now that it has been acquired by DataColor, who markets its own hardware (Spyder2), GretagMacbeth is a competitor.

I spoke with Cindy in the HT Division. I explicitly asked if they were adding additional devices (Namely the Display 2) to the list and she stated that she believed so. She didn't give me a 100% yes, so i'm just hoping at this point. I believe she is in the Sales Dept so ..... you know how that is.

Although, since they do support the i1Pro and the i1 Display (although that may have been done in Milori days) I don't see why they wouldn't go ahead and support the Display 2. We'll see in about a week I guess.

I'm crossing my fingers.

I spoke with Cindy in the HT Division. I explicitly asked if they were adding additional devices (Namely the Display 2) to the list and she stated that she believed so. She didn't give me a 100% yes, so i'm just hoping at this point. I believe she is in the Sales Dept so ..... you know how that is.

Although, since they do support the i1Pro and the i1 Display (although that may have been done in Milori days) I don't see why they wouldn't go ahead and support the Display 2. We'll see in about a week I guess.

I'm crossing my fingers.That's really strange. I also spoke to Cindy about 2 weeks ago. She put me on hold and spoke to Mark Hunter. When she returned she relayed to me the news about no plans to support it. Either they've changed their mind or they've decided to offer up vaguely positive non-answer answers when people ask them this question. I'm guessing that you and I are not the only two who have asked the question.

Okay, here's the list of supported hardware for V7 (including signal generators).

GretagMacbeth Eye-One Monitor (w/ spectral graphing)
GretagMacbeth Eye-One Display
GretagMacbeth Eye-One Pro (NEW)
PhotoResearch PR-650 (w/ spectral graphing)
ColorVision Spyder (originally resold slightly modified as the "Optimagery Sensor")
ColorVision Spyder2
Minolta CL-200 handheld chroma meter
Minolta CA-210 LCD "box" colorimeter
Minolta CA-100 colorimeter
Minolta CA-110
Minolta CS-100A through-the-lens colorimeter
Minolta CS-200 can now be used with ColorFacts Professional (NEW)
Minolta CS-1000 1 nm resolution spectroradiometer (w/spectral graphing)
Milori Trichromat-1 (rebranded Sequel Imaging Chroma 4)
Generic, non-password protected Sequel Imaging Chroma driver
The Extron VTG-400 signal generator is now supported (NEW)
Sencore VP300
Sencore VP400, 401, 402, 403
QuantumData 802 series
Accupel HDG-3000


I was under the impression that the Eye-one pro was already supported (Listed as Eye-One Beamer in V6). Don't know why it's listed as new.
This really sucks though. Now I have to go purchase an Eye-One Pro when I have a perfectly good Display 2 / LT (even though those aren't good for plasmas).

I asked about upgrading my Spyder 2 to the new Platinum version, the cost of that upgrade package (software / dongle / tripod mount / Platinum Spyder) is $450 I believe. I'm just going to do the software upgrade at $99. I really wish they had expanded on the hardware support a bit more.

the way they treat the Spyder Hardware as a disposable that you should upgrade (by purchase) every few months really turned me off.... :mad:

Yea, when we first starting supporting the Spyder2 we had really high hopes for it. The design should give very good results. It has a IR filter, a diffuser, a light pipe for off angle, 7 sensors. But ColorVision doesn't seem to be calibrating them to any decent tolerances. I guess that's that the Spyder2 Platinum is, a cherry picked, hand calibrated S2.

I was under the impression that the Eye-one pro was already supported (Listed as Eye-One Beamer in V6). Don't know why it's listed as new.
This really sucks though. Now I have to go purchase an Eye-One Pro when I have a perfectly good Display 2 / LT (even though those aren't good for plasmas).

The EyeOne Display should be the same hardware as the DisplayLT and the Display2. The "beamer" which they have supported previously was without using the ambient light head. Presumably, the support for the "EyeOne Pro" now means that they support the ambient light head that comes with the retail (and certain OEM... ;) ) packages.

Bill

Will someone here be testing the new Platinum up against the old Spyder2, to see wether there is a justification for the upgrade cost ?

Thanks

Unless they provide the individual calibration results and/or a NIST cert for it. I would not trust it anymore than a standard S2. To perform any real field testing you need to have a larger sample then 1. Of my many S2's I have for dev and testing 1 of them does OK the others need some work. So if I judged the results from my cherry pick one as how most S2's would perform it would be wrong because the sample was to small.

Like I said before I do think they have a great design in the S2 that should provide very good results they just need to be factory calibrated better. We do have a pro calibrator on this board that does have a hand calibrated S2 prototype that is very accurate. They also need to have a recert program for the S2 Platinum to succeed.

Hey Tom,

It's nice to see the old names still around. I haven't been here much, but plan to be visiting more in the future.


Tom Wrote:
That's really strange. I also spoke to Cindy about 2 weeks ago. She put me on hold and spoke to Mark Hunter. When she returned she relayed to me the news about no plans to support it. Either they've changed their mind or they've decided to offer up vaguely positive non-answer answers when people ask them this question. I'm guessing that you and I are not the only two who have asked the question.

We don't really have anything that sinister going on. We'd still like to support just about EVERY hardware device capable of returning colorimetric data with ColorFacts, but you are correct in that we're not quite as "neutral" with regards to hardware as we were when we were just a software company.

The problem is not that we don't want to support the other meters, but it's a little more difficult to get sample hardware, SDKs and time on an engineer's calendar when you are someone's competitor than when you are their partner.

I wouldn't rule out us supporting other devices in the future. Just keep in mind that it may not be as easy as it once was.

I WILL tell you this...the marketplace dictates a lot of the direction in this area. If our current and future ColorFacts customers seem to really want a particular hardware device supported...it definitely tends to put some urgency behind our attempts.

Hi Mark. I'm pleased to see you post here. I haven't read anything from you here or in the 313329 forum in a long time.

Don't make your self so scarce!

Regarding meter support, there's been a lot of positive experiences had by myself and a lot of others with the GTM Display 2. I know that I use CF less than I used to because the Display 2 is my meter of choice when I'm not using the i1Pro.

Regarding the Spyder2, I think it might depend on where you got it from. When I purchased ColorFacts 6, I got a SpyderTV as a bonus. Both probes *looked* absolutely identical and both worked with ColorFacts and were identified as exactly the same. However, the probe that came with SpyderTV left the greyscale looking visibly red in comparison to the probe that came with ColorFacts. I remember reading here that all the ColorFacts probes were individually calibrated while the others were not. Perhaps there is some truth to that.

Will someone here be testing the new Platinum up against the old Spyder2, to see wether there is a justification for the upgrade cost ?

Thanks

I'll be getting the SpyderTV Pro 2007 upgrade package next week. My plan is to use the updated Spyder Platinum and SpyderTV software (which, as I understand it has not had any significant changes, just fixes) to calibrate both my Ruby and Z5 projectors. I'll be able to report on whether significant differences result between the two. Understand that I won't as yet have used any more extensive calibration software. I'm a bit of a novice at this, so until I obtain CalMAN, etc. I won't have much more to go on.

However, given what Derek has stated, whether I see big differences, or not, will probably tell me little. Without a known / absolute reference point against which either my existing S2 or the new Platinum is measured I won't know much (only their possible variances against each other). And if the software has changed in some ways (that is the device driver code materially affects the way the Platinum gathers and communicates to the SpyderTV software) then that just adds further complications.

For me this is more about learning and hopefully diminished frustration :rolleyes: