Has anyone here upgraded to CF 7.0 and if so is it worth it?
Also has anyone tried the spyder paltinum and are any differences to the one suplied with CF 6.0, such as a little more acurate perhaps. Just trying to decide if the upgrade is worth it at the moment. I am currently only using the spider as my sensor and am looking at getting another (more acurate readings being the main priority) :p

We received our S2 Platinum this week :)

It will be a few weeks for us to get all of the testing and results done but when we do I will post a link to the results.

Thanks!
Look forward to your review :)

Anyone else had a chance to play with cf7 and the spyder platinum?

hi guys.
The Platinum Spyder is 1/3 more accurate than the regular CF Spyder probe.
If accuracy is a primary concern (for all display types) as well as measurement and manipulation of primaries I would strongly consider the GTM piece as an upgrade.
Regards
Gregg

hi guys.
The Platinum Spyder is 1/3 more accurate than the regular CF Spyder probe.


Link please, is this via the vendor or independent measurements?

its via me

its via me

ok, can you present some justification for your statement other than "because I said so"?

read my signature

*yawn*

read my signature

It might be helpful if you relate your specific relationship with ColorVision. I can understand why your signature is perceived as less than a ringing endorsement.

i dont know how much clearer my relationship with Datacolor could be.

DATACOLOR PRODUCT TRAINER AND ISF VIDEO INSTRUCTOR FOR DATACOLOR.

i dont know how much clearer my relationship with Datacolor could be.

DATACOLOR PRODUCT TRAINER AND ISF VIDEO INSTRUCTOR FOR DATACOLOR.

While your affiliation might give you insight into product capabilities that the public might not have access to that doesn't change the fact that you made a specific claim without supporting data. I have no reason to believe such a claim without supporting data. Vendors hype their products every day and your affiliation infers you have a vested interest in this product.

This is a calibration forum with extremely well informed technical people and I would appreciate it if when people make specific claims to product accuracy and capabilities that they show a little respect to the readers and explain why they are making such claims, with as much specificity as possible. Without that your comment is insulting and unhelpful.

Yes, I definitely have a vested interest.

Regards

Gregg

Geez guys, chill out! Gregg certainly has access to data and information from Datacolor that is not public, and he is under has no obligation to share it. He made a simple statement regarding the accuracy improvement in the platinum spyder. If you want data to back it up, buy one and test it yourself.

-Steve

I certainly wouldn't buy one based on this kind of feedback. You don't have to give away trade secrets to provide a minimum level of validation.

Call Datacolor if you want specs and/or a list of improvements. Gregg does not have to prove anything to you or anyone else. People who have been here longer than you and have paid for his services know he isn't the one to post BS or "false claims". He's a damn good calibrator and knows his stuff.

Call Datacolor if you want specs and/or a list of improvements. Gregg does not have to prove anything to you or anyone else. People who have been here longer than you and have paid for his services know he isn't the one to post BS or "false claims". He's a damn good calibrator and knows his stuff.

Then what's the point of this forum? Gregg may be a super calibrator, I have no idea. Unless he is willing to share his expertise with us as in a collaborative way I don't understand the post. I for one am here to learn, not take dictation.

If you want to learn, I suggest you change your approach to politely asking someone for additional information instead of demanding proof. If Gregg had something he could "legally" post here, he would.

Share his expertise???? He has on numerous occasions. Don't believe me? I guess you need proof of that too, eh? Learn how to use the "Find more post by (username)" feature on this forum and READ.

If you want to learn, I suggest you change your approach to politely asking someone for additional information instead of demanding proof. If Gregg had something he could "legally" post here, he would.


My first post was polite, I even used the word "please", to provide more information and I got a very pithy response. It would have been very easy for him to reply as you suggest, saying that he could not legally do so.


Share his expertise???? He has on numerous occasions. Don't believe me? I guess you need proof of that too, eh? Learn how to use the "Find more post by (username)" feature on this forum and READ.
I could care less what he's posted in the past, I was referring to this instance. And why do you consider it appropriate to insult my intelligence also?

Geez guys, chill out! Gregg certainly has access to data and information from Datacolor that is not public, and he is under has no obligation to share it. He made a simple statement regarding the accuracy improvement in the platinum spyder. If you want data to back it up, buy one and test it yourself.

-Steve

I think Gregg has stated his position succinctly. The company is out to make money. I happen to own a SpyderTV Pro package now for about 5 months. For me it's been a worthwhile investment.

However, I too would have liked to have obtained more information about the updated 2007 version, to properly assess whether or not to upgrade. For the price, $300, it seems a reasonable request.

I've been in technical sales for more than 30 years in the computer industry. It strikes me that this business (I'll call it color management, for lack of a better phrase) is far less than forthcoming when providing sufficient information to allow customers to make informed buying decisions. So, it's not just ColorVision I find at fault, but this industry segment in particular.

Of course I could be wrong -- maybe it's ColorVision in particular, especially if they are the leader in the segment. Top dogs do finally get caught up reading their own press and fail - product obsolesense, diminished customer support, etc. eventually knock them off their pedestal.

But please pardon me if I'm out of line. I've not spent decades in this business, as clearly many who participate here in the forums.

All in all -- rather off putting.

Hey guys, I certainly did not mean to start any flaming wars!!!
really chill! All I was originally after was some info if anyone has actually upgraded to CF 7.0 and used the spyder platinum. I am thinking of upgrading and would like a sensor that is more acurate. The upgrade with the sensor is $499 I think and just the upgrade (from ver6) is $99 so I am trying to figure out which way to go that's all. If you have usefull info then great, please share if not, then what does getting upset and having a go at people got to do with the original question. Man, too many angry people :p
Anyway thanks Gregg, I will way up my options.
I will also Look at the GTM piece. Do you mean the i1Pro.

I will also Look at the GTM piece. Do you mean the i1Pro.I'm sure he does. The only other GTM sensor widely used is the Display 2 and ColorFacts doesn't support that.

On a related subject, I find it really sad what's happened to ColorFacts. When it was a small, independent company it was vibrant and cutting-edge. Mark Hunter participated in discussions here and elsewhere, the software was substantially updated on a regular basis, and they hosted a forum for users. Since being bought out by Data Color, it's basically been left to wither on the vine.

CF 7.0, from what I can gather, includes only small improvements. I know that Mark had wanted to offer some substantial feature enhancements, but it looks like the corporate bean counters put the kibosh on that. The Spyder2 probe is, well, let's say an instrument aimed at the cost-conscious customer. I haven't seen the Platinum model yet, but based on the info in this thread it doesn't sound real encouraging.

Vendors hype their products every day and your affiliation infers you have a vested interest in this product.


Well, I for one don't consider an endorsement to buy a GTM product for greater accuracy hyping of datacolor products.

hi guys

Lots of thoughts in this thread.

Any pod design is still a pod design, whether it be a true tri stimulus pod or the Spyder unit with 7 sensors. By design (dictated by cost) it can only be so accurate. Personally I use the ColorFacts software with a PhotoResearch PR-650. I also keep 3-4 GTM pieces around for back up.

My personal thoughts on the Spyder: it comes with a 2 year warranty that is specified to remain within spec for that period of time. It is not meant to be recalibrated. The Platinum upgrade is a good path for those individuals who Spyder is approaching the 2 year time frame. However, please read my post from earlier in the thread.

I have faithly used the ColorFacts product since around 2002-3. I have been on Datacolor's pay roll as a consultant / educator / beta tester etc for about 3 years now. After performing more than 2000 calibrations (and being in a position to use any gear I want to use) i still use the ColorFacts software. I think that my endorsement of CF is why they continue to have me as a consultant. My income is still primarily from calibration, and I would not risk that revenue stream by being with Datacolor if I didnt believe in their product.

As Tom has mentioned, ColorFacts has changed under corporate ownership. I dont think it is in a bad way. ColorFacts is a very robust product and even more so with version 7.0 (and it is only $99 to upgrade). The web site forum support comment is one that Datacolor has taken to heart. Datacolor has contracted with LionAV to provide support for the ColorFacts 7.0 forum. This forum is ready to go on LionAV's side but needs Datacolor to finish creating the portal gateway on their site. I am hoping that this forum will be ready in the next week or so and I will post as soon as I have firm answers from Datacolor relating to the forum.

One example of contrast to what Tom has written is Datacolor's support for education. Datacolor decided they needed to offer training classes. In conjunction with LionAV we now offer 2 day training classes (8a-8p day 1, 8a-6 p day 2) which includeS ISF certification. We responded to requests for ColorFacts specific training and that users wanted a "hands on training" class. We have secured state of the art gear for these classes and offer them quarterly at the Datacolor Head Office in Lawrenceville NJ. Many attendees of the training are experienced calibrators and advanced enthusiasts that want to better learn the art behind the science and to further hone their skills. I really enjoy teaching these classes.

I hope everybody is having a good weekend, personally I am fighting a cold. Hopefully it will improve enough for me to fly on Monday when I go to Atlanta for the SBE 2007 Show.

Regards

Gregg
gloewen@datacolor.com

Well, I for one don't consider an endorsement to buy a GTM product for greater accuracy hyping of datacolor products.

My criticism was in reference to the spyder comment, not the GTM comment. Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to attack a specific product. In fact, after looking at the design of the spyder which is really quite unique, I believe it has the potential to be more accurate than the GTM tristims but this requires a lot of investment in individual characterization by the vendor to achieve that. My expertise is in radiometric calibration and spectrometer design and I understand all too well how hard it is to achieve improvements in accuracy over baseline designs. I apologize if my comments seem abrupt, I just believe that accuracy and performance claims need discussion for people to be able to evaluate the trade-offs.

Thanks Gregg for your detailed clarification. Given the wide background of folks on these forums, it's usually wise to "introduce" ourselves when at least starting a post, and preferably always doing so. Our background and objectives will go far in preventing any misconceptions, and allow everyone a clearer picture of the questions/issues we raise.

I believe that for me, someone who is not a trained calibrator, the SpyderTV Pro was the great initial ticket. I think the sensor and software is targeted at installers, rather than calibrators. CF seems targeted at calibrators.

Using the package I find the Spyder2 software and hardware great for getting my various computer laptops and LCD displays quickly color corrected. And the SpyderTV software also has taken me beyond the typical DVD's out there in getting to better gray scale.

As I contemplate moving farther into calibrating my gear, I'm trying to determine whether to invest in the 2007 upgrade or not. It sounds like the Spyder sensor I have today will do the job for the next year or so.

What I want to know about Spyder Platinum?

Are they individually lab calibrated to reference spectro - or like the Spyder2 loaded with default tables on all sensors?

Is it an improved design with less noisy sensors for better black sensitivity like Spyder2 was over Spyder1 - or just an improved calibration process?

What is the guaranteed recalibration/refurbishment schedule/procedure/costs?

Or am I grossly clueless and the only difference is one is black paint the other platinum paint for a few more benjamins?

You do not need to give away engineering and QA lab data to answer these questions - and I think many calibrators would not upgrade without such information provided - especially if competitors are more than willing to provide sensor accuracy information so that informed decisions can be made. This is a product targeted to professionals - and professionals make decisions for capital assets based on ROI - not "BUY OUR NEW UPGRADE" sales statements.

What I would really like to know is if I compare it to a reference KM instrument on the displays I do against my sensor - does it measure up - as I am very happy with my Spyder2 lab prototype in that comparison. But I doubt anyone can find the lab report so instead I will ask - if it does not measure up - what is the return policy?

What I want to know about Spyder Platinum?

Are they individually lab calibrated to reference spectro - or like the Spyder2 loaded with default tables on all sensors?

Is it an improved design with less noisy sensors for better black sensitivity like Spyder2 was over Spyder1 - or just an improved calibration process?

What is the guaranteed recalibration/refurbishment schedule/procedure/costs?

Or am I grossly clueless and the only difference is one is black paint the other platinum paint for a few more benjamins?

You do not need to give away engineering and QA lab data to answer these questions - and I think many calibrators would not upgrade without such information provided - especially if competitors are more than willing to provide sensor accuracy information so that informed decisions can be made. This is a product targeted to professionals - and professionals make decisions for capital assets based on ROI - not "BUY OUR NEW UPGRADE" sales statements.

What I would really like to know is if I compare it to a reference KM instrument on the displays I do against my sensor - does it measure up - as I am very happy with my Spyder2 lab prototype in that comparison. But I doubt anyone can find the lab report so instead I will ask - if it does not measure up - what is the return policy?

The lack of any response to your questions, or mine, is very telling.

hi guys

The question was not responded as I have had no time to respond to it. I am currently setting up / teaching at the SBE2007 Show in Atlanta. If anybody is in the area please come by and say hi it is always neat to meet the "online" guys.

Most of the questions have been previously answered.

This is a product targeted to professionals - and professionals make decisions for capital assets based on ROI - not "BUY OUR NEW UPGRADE" sales statements

I have in no way said that...please read my previous posts in this thread.

What I would really like to know is if I compare it to a reference KM instrument on the displays I do against my sensor - does it measure up - as I am very happy with my Spyder2 lab prototype in that comparison. But I doubt anyone can find the lab report so instead I will ask - if it does not measure up - what is the return policy

Comparing the Spyder to a $13500 KM piece? Of course it is not going to measure up. And news for you...neither will your Spyder2 lab prototype (whatever that is). Datacolor has a 30 day satisfaction money back guarantee as they always have had.

As I have said previously in this thread that people dont seem to be reading or taking to heart anyways:

If accuracy is a primary concern (for all display types) as well as measurement and manipulation of primaries I would strongly consider the GTM piece as an upgrade.

Regards

Gregg

Actually none of my questions were answered. Unless I missed them - can you answer each question with a real answer - rather than saying they have been answered. I only asked them because they are questions I have - that nobody is answering.

1) Are they individually lab calibrated to reference spectro - or like the Spyder2 loaded with default tables on all sensors?

2) Is it an improved design with less noisy sensors for better black sensitivity like Spyder2 was over Spyder1 - or just an improved calibration process?

3) What is the guaranteed recalibration/refurbishment schedule/procedure/costs?

All of these were answered to me satisfaction when I swapped from my Spyder1 to Spyder2 prototype - and would only swap again if again answered to my satisfaction.

I take it you where not around using ColorFacts when I was if you don't know what the Spyder2 prototype is - being that I am a ColorFacts owner since Milori Colorfacts first in 2000 - let me inform you. It is the Optimagery sensor casing with the Spyder2 guts before they made a new casing - in CF it uses the Optimagery selection while Windows uses the Spyder2 driver.

It's calibration tables (which is a necessary required step if you read the spyder patent) were optimized as part of its QA process against the lab spectro that CV had - I was told the report had it's xy accuracy was 3x better than the spec. And I have news for you - on the FP DLP display's I calibrate - using the 2' wide image the way I calibrate - it dithered against a NIST traced (calibrated just that month) KM portable instrument to the ten thousandth place. Now maybe for OLED displays or off-screen dark reading the KM better certified for so this may not be true for setups that differ from my test. But I don't appreciate your attempt to dismiss me by dismissing the testing I did as well as CV did which assured me of accuracy sufficient for the work I do.

It has been said by independent parties that the Spyder2 production all have the same calibration tables - it is not the sensor design that is inaccurate - it is the lack of calibration. Thus my questions - which will inform me if I should upgrade or stick with what I have. I have even made the presumption that Platinum is the same hardware with the effort put into lab calibration - which certainly is worth the price being asked - but your non-answers to that direct question leads me to think I should no longer be making that presumption.

So far if your non-answers are indicative of support that LionAV provides - then if I did buy the sensor - I know who not to go to. You certainly are not making any sales here. Even your statement of 1/3 more accurate is meaningless - is that the xy accuracy spec, the repeatability spec, the dark luminance limit, the bright white limit, the life before drift spec - or something even simpler like 1/3 the tests it beat the GM piece you refer to?

Good morning Kras!

My apologies for not answering...i thought I had:

1. I have no idea...all I know that only ones that measure at a tighter tolerance are used as Platinum. The tolerance spec is 1/3 tighter than the regular spyders.

2. See answer # 1, it is basically the same sensor (with tighter tolerances).

3. I know I have answered this one, in this thread but will do so again (perhaps you didnt see it as it may have been "buried"). There is no recalibration procedure as Datacolor does not recommend it. This falls under the 2 year warranty, and if the product drifts we will happily replace it under that warranty. It is recommended that the spyder be replaced after 2 years of useage. In addition there is a 30 day satisfaction guarantee.

Hope this helped.

BTW, LIonAV does not sell the sensors, that would be a direct to Datacolor purchase.

Regards

Gregg

1. I have no idea...all I know that only ones that measure at a tighter tolerance are used as Platinum. The tolerance spec is 1/3 tighter than the regular spyders.


What a waste of a superb design.

1. ...all I know that only ones that measure at a tighter tolerance are used as Platinum. The tolerance spec is 1/3 tighter than the regular spyders.

Gregg

The unfortunate thing about this is that for budget constrained hobbyists buying a standard Sypder II in the future, they're likely to get a less accurate sensor. The ones that test out better will be segregated for sale as Platinum versions. At least, I see that as a highly probable result.

Good morning Kras!

My apologies for not answering...i thought I had:

1. I have no idea...all I know that only ones that measure at a tighter tolerance are used as Platinum. The tolerance spec is 1/3 tighter than the regular spyders.

2. See answer # 1, it is basically the same sensor (with tighter tolerances).

3. I know I have answered this one, in this thread but will do so again (perhaps you didnt see it as it may have been "buried"). There is no recalibration procedure as Datacolor does not recommend it. This falls under the 2 year warranty, and if the product drifts we will happily replace it under that warranty. It is recommended that the spyder be replaced after 2 years of useage. In addition there is a 30 day satisfaction guarantee.

Hope this helped.

BTW, LIonAV does not sell the sensors, that would be a direct to Datacolor purchase.

Regards

Gregg

Why replace after 2 years? Does the accuracy degrade because of usage or something like "half life" (i.e., degrades even if not used) for for a component in the sensor?

Why replace after 2 years? Does the accuracy degrade because of usage or something like "half life" (i.e., degrades even if not used) for for a component in the sensor?

This is pure speculation but since there are 7 edge filters in the design my guess is that it is due to the drift in these filters as they are probably hydroscopic and sensitive to moisture over time. Best practice would be to keep it in a sealed container with dessicant to preserve the calibration.

And then knock on wood...

This is pure speculation but since there are 7 edge filters in the design my guess is that it is due to the drift in these filters as they are probably hydroscopic and sensitive to moisture over time. Best practice would be to keep it in a sealed container with dessicant to preserve the calibration.After two years my Spyder2 was about 50K lower when compared with with a telephotometer. It seems the results are indistinguishable (by me) from new. My old origional Spyder hadn't changed either at age three. I haven't checked it in awhile though.

Charlie

Another question: My suction cup popped loose and the meter fell to the carpet after bouncing off the edge of the entertainment center. Is the accuracy affected much by jolts? Bottom line: Is there much of a risk that it no longer works correctly?

Another question: My suction cup popped loose and the meter fell to the carpet after bouncing off the edge of the entertainment center. Is the accuracy affected much by jolts? Bottom line: Is there much of a risk that it no longer works correctly?Just give it a shake to see if the filters are still in place. I had to send back my original Spyder after a few months due to one of the filters getting loose. I think they are more careful now with the gluing. My Spyders have hit the floor numerous times with no change yet.

Charlie

And then knock on wood...

but don't knock the Spyder itself on wood :p

but don't knock the Spyder itself on wood :p

Actually, that may be how the new, more accurate spyders will be chosen. Throw a bunch of spyders against the wall, the ones that stick we'll call "platinum".

Actually, that may be how the new, more accurate spyders will be chosen. Throw a bunch of spyders against the wall, the ones that stick we'll call "platinum".You don't suppose...?

You guys have been helpful. Another question that I haven't seen answered. When would you remove the blue filter from the meter?

I'm using it to calibrate my SXRD and leave the filter on. Is this correct?

Like many, I had to replace the OB in my Sony SXRD XBR1. Original had been ISF'ed; but with the way these OB's are going, I'm not paying for another ISF. Therefore, I bought the SpyderTV Pro and have been pleased with the results. I've calibrated the 480i component input for my Denon (using the Spyder's disc) and 1080i HDMI input for my PS3 (using calibration files I downloaded from the net (HD 709 color). I'm also using the results of the PS3 as values for my HD Tivo HDMI input.

I ran a second calibration for the Denon (about a week after the first) and found some variability (-1 click on red drive, +2 clicks on red cut, and +1 click on blue cut). The lamp was new (75 hours on first calibration, and 160 hours on the second). Does this seem like a reasonable variance?

I'm actually enjoying the process. Thanks for the input.

When would you remove the blue filter from the meter?I never have had to use the filter but it is for reducing infrared energy that is not visible but is sensed by the Spyder. I would guess that any projector that had a hot tungsten filament (not much different from a black body radiator) would be a good candidate for using the filter since there is always a lot of infrared energy. CRT's are relatively cold and don't need the filter.

I never have had to use the filter but it is for reducing infrared energy that is not visible but is sensed by the Spyder. I would guess that any projector that had a hot tungsten filament (not much different from a black body radiator) would be a good candidate for using the filter since there is always a lot of infrared energy. CRT's are relatively cold and don't need the filter.

There are two reasons the LCD mode uses the filter attachment, one is as Charlie mentions to remove energy longward of about 680 nm. The filter's transmission is chosen to help form the red edge of the x-bar function. The other reason is the honeycomb baffle, this reduces the angular view of the probe when used with LCD's since LCD's have poor angular color retention. btw Charlie, CRT's red phospor has quite a bit more energy than LCD's in the deep red region (680-705 nm).

Okay. As I read your responses, I don't have any reason to use the filter on my rear projection (SXRD).

But I did use it when I made all my initial calibrations. Would that have negatively affected the accuracy (i.e., should I remove the filter and do them again)?

Thanks again!

Okay. As I read your responses, I don't have any reason to use the filter on my rear projection (SXRD).

But I did use it when I made all my initial calibrations. Would that have negatively affected the accuracy (i.e., should I remove the filter and do them again)?

Thanks again!

It might be interesting to know what the difference is, I'm not sure if there have been any reports of problems using the S2 with the SXRD technology but since it's LCD based leaving the filter on is probably the best way to go.

It might be interesting to know what the difference is, I'm not sure if there have been any reports of problems using the S2 with the SXRD technology but since it's LCD based leaving the filter on is probably the best way to go.

During setup with the SpyderTV Pro software, the LCOS option (i.e., SXRD) is under rear projection. I presumed LCD was for the flat panels.

The SpyderTV Pro software gives no guidance regarding when to use or not use the filter.

During setup with the SpyderTV Pro software, the LCOS option (i.e., SXRD) is under rear projection. I presumed LCD was for the flat panels.

The SpyderTV Pro software gives no guidance regarding when to use or not use the filter.

What I meant by LCD and SXRD having similar technolgy is that they both use liquid crystal based filters (LCD is transmissive, SXRD/LCoS is reflective) so that their spectral distribution functions should also be similar.

Thanks. That makes sense.

I just sent Colorvisions an e-mail, asking them if I should use the TV Pro with/without filter on the SXRDs? I'll see what they say.

Received response from Colorvision. Filter must always be utilized unless calibrating a CRT.

Just an update: seems that someone at ColorVision has put out a bit of information on the differences between the Spyder2 and the new Platinum. I'll leave it to KRAS and others on this forum to let us know what the new tolerances for accuracy and inter-instrument agreement actually mean.

http://www.colorvision.com/product-ht-SW600.php

That says the CIE xyY measured on LCD's is one third more accurate on Platinums in reference comparison (also is a max spec not a typical spec), and the Y variance between Spyder Platinums is one third better. The hardware specs are identical - so it supports the idea that these are sensors that are the cream of QA but does not clear up if the difference results from individual calibration.

Note the fine print that these accuracy specs are for bright monitors - not dim HT displays - this is very common in consumer sensors originally designed for PC monitors. They are not specifying performance at 12ftL movie screen readings - but you can expect worse accuracy as they get dimmer - for something $$K like a KM CS-200 this would be specified.

The dynamic range spec points out that it capable of measuring high contrast specs - but you need to elevate your black levels to do so (use small image sizes with FP). To maintain CIE accuracy you want to use small image sizes with FP anyways since 160 cd/m2 or nits is 46ftL - nearly 4x brighter than a movie screen - and it will only have that accuracy at whites. I have always used 2' wide images and get good accuracy.

Also note that the specs are given for LCD's (transmissive) and CRT's (with specific phospor sets) so there is no way to know how accurate they are with the other "supported" display technologies.