X-Rite EyeOne Pro / I1 Pro Recertification Now Available from SpectraCal! - Page 4 - AVS Forum
Forum Jump: 
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #91 of 156 Old 02-26-2014, 01:18 PM
AVS Special Member
 
ConnecTEDDD's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Athens, Greece
Posts: 2,303
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 94 Post(s)
Liked: 471
Quote:
Originally Posted by derekjsmith View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by ConnecTEDDD View Post

Hello Derek, you have wrote at past that you are using a Reference LCD Panel for the re-certifications. (I can quote this if you like)

Are you still find at Lab that the 1000's i1PRO's (used meters under unknown conditions) are still +- 0.001xy , with only 2% Luminance from your reference? (So they all pass the re-certification duo to this tolerance from the reference)

We are talking for difference of 0.6dE Luv.

The difference to the above certification are extremely lower from 0.6dE LUV, this means that that i1PRO was virtually the same accurate as your Minolta, based to the reported 0.04, 0.006, 0.02 dE LUT, these numbers actually are under both meter measuring repealability.

DeltaE for 4 Color's is 0.0007? are you sure about these Derek, honestly?

If this happenning why someone to buy a Minolta?

And there not unit per unit variations.

How i1PRO2 perfrorms since it's improved over i1PRO1 vs. your Minolta?

If you compare a JETI or a PhotoResearch vs. your Minolta, for what differencies we can talk about?

I will have Darrell our lab engineer answer the detail on these questions. But yes we use the same LCD reference as X-Rite.

As for the reason someone would use a higher destiny spectro over a i1Pro or i1Pro2 is we test and recert in very controlled and ideal conditions. In the field you may or may not get that same accuracy because we have not control over that.

As for a Jeti vs. a PR vs. a KM they all have a slight difference from each other but are within the tolerance for NIST traceability to the references they were calibrated on. NIST is not an absolute. It is a traceability, tolerance, procedure and documentation process.The manufacturers specify what the tolerances are and if they are within tolerance they pass. A CS-2000 has a tighter tolerance than less expensive devices but also cost many times more. But does that last little bit of accuracy matter when in many cases you have exceeded the displays repeatability or uniformity. I don't like using words like "just good enough" but in this case unless you are doing research or other very detailed process you don't need a lab grade spectro for display calibration. The reason Jeti and the lower cost PR's exist.




According to the above differencies of this SpectraCAL's NIST Re-Certification of a used i1PRO vs. Minolta CS-2000, a simple dE calculation conversion to CIE xy differencies gives:

White dE LUV: 0.040691691 = Around x: 0.00005 y: 0.00000 Range

Red dE LUV: 0.006093582 = Around x: 0.00001 y: 0.00000 Range

Green dE LUT 0.024678944 = Around x: 0.00004 y: 0.00000 Range

Blue dE LUT 0.014343319 = Around x: 0.000027 y: 0.00000 Range

Is i1PRO so repeatable to track so perfectly the Minolta?


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

S/W: LightSpace CMS, SpaceMan ICC, SpaceMatch DCM, CalMAN 5, CalMAN RGB, ChromaPure, CalPC, ControlCAL
Meters: JETI Specbos 1211, Klein K-10A, i1PRO2, i1PRO, SpectraCAL C6, i1D3, C5
ConnecTEDDD is online now  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #92 of 156 Old 02-26-2014, 01:27 PM
AVS Special Member
 
derekjsmith's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Mukilteo, WA
Posts: 1,890
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 98
Quote:
Originally Posted by ConnecTEDDD View Post




According to the above differencies of this SpectraCAL's NIST Re-Certification of a used i1PRO vs. Minolta CS-2000, a simple dE calculation conversion to CIE xy differencies gives:

White dE LUV: 0.040691691 = Around x: 0.00005 y: 0.00000 Range

Red dE LUV: 0.006093582 = Around x: 0.00001 y: 0.00000 Range

Green dE LUT 0.024678944 = Around x: 0.00004 y: 0.00000 Range

Blue dE LUT 0.014343319 = Around x: 0.000027 y: 0.00000 Range

Is i1PRO so repeatable to track so perfectly the Minolta?

That i1Pro was under ideal conditions and a reference display. Are you going to get those numbers in the field probably not.

Like everything built the i1Pro has tolerances. Raise the ambient temperature out side of it's range and the accuracy goes down. Measure a light source outside of the i1Pro's absolute range and again your accuracy goes down. Measure a light source that has narrow band or very spiky SPD and again the accuracy goes down. Measure a light source that has a non consent level and again your accuracy goes down. Measure a display that has uniformity issues pixel to pixel again accuracy goes down by just moving a single pixel. In some cases we are talking about very small numbers. Higher end spectro's have designs to deal with all of the above but also cost a lot more.
PlasmaPZ80U likes this.

Derek

CTO / Founder - SpectraCal Inc.
derekjsmith is offline  
post #93 of 156 Old 03-03-2014, 10:17 AM
Newbie
 
DarrellB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 1
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 13
Hi, name is Darrell and I’m the Lab Director at SpectraCal. I’m just jumping in here to give a little background on our i1Pro Recertification process.

Ok, first let me say a little something about deltaE numbers in general. They are scalars, not vectors, meaning they only contain information about a distance away from something. They say absolutely nothing about directionality. Imagine throwing two darts that land 3 cm and 4 cm away from a bullseye. How far apart are they from each other? There's no way to know except that is somewhere between 1 cm and 7 cm. But if I said they are 3 cm above the bullseye and 4 cm to the right, respectively, you would know they are in fact 5 cm away from each other.

The point of mentioning all this is to show, there is no way to convert a deltaE number back to an x y offset.

Now, the deltaE number we use for i1pro recertification is dE(Luv). This is an unusual version of the deltaE and I'm the first to admit, it is not the best version to talk about meter differences in a way we're used to or in a way that is relevant to how the human eye perceives color differences. deltaE2000 is a much better choice and perhaps we will change to this in the future. However, we chose dE(Luv) because it was the same dE version that X-rite, at one point, used for the original certification document for new i1Pros. I believe it actually might be dE94 now. The point is, the number itself isn't really as important as the Pass/Fail criteria. The dE(Luv) value that triggers a "Fail" is one that was based on real measurements we did in the lab. We took a very large sampling of i1Pros to find the intrinsic variability between brand new meters. This provided us with a baseline for what a new meter should be. So regardless of what the reported number says on the certificate, the indication of a “Pass” says that the meter is within that tolerance of sampled new meters. The number itself is simply the scalar difference of an i1Pro to the CS-2000 in the uv color space. It is done in a light and temperature controlled environment, and for standardization, it is done on the same type of display X-Rite uses for tristimulous colorimeter calibrations. Read area is another factor that I’ve never heard anyone address. For the most accurate comparison of how two meters read relative to each other, care must be taken to ensure that they are reading the same area of the screen because the light/dark pixel structure does matter in how the meter registers light. In other words, either the i1Pro must be backed off slightly from the screen so that it matches the CS-2000’s 1 degree field of view, or the CS-2000 must be moved very close to the screen to match the i1Pro’s small read area. In any meter comparison that I’ve ever read about, I’ve never heard of anyone taking care to ensure proper read areas.

A true spectral calibration is one in which a pure wavelength calibration is done for the diffraction alignment and an integrating sphere is used for the luminance calibration. This is an incredibly expensive calibration and is one that few labs in the world can do. We provide the i1Pro recertification as a check against a NIST traceable reference device. This is really the only way to know if an i1Pro is still reading accurately outside of the much more costly integrating sphere calibration. But this is actually a very good solution because, typically, most i1Pros won’t need a full spectral calibration. Not all meters pass, but the vast majority do, which is a testament to the quality of an i1Pro.

I know this won’t answer everyone’s questions but I hope it clears up some of the ambiguities and misconceptions surrounding our i1Pro Recertification.
PlasmaPZ80U and randal_r like this.
DarrellB is offline  
post #94 of 156 Old 03-03-2014, 11:14 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Wetumpka, AL
Posts: 15,359
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 113 Post(s)
Liked: 191
DarrellB

Thanks for joining the discussion.

I guess what I'm trying to find out is if I can send my i1pro2 in to have you guys measure it and provide a printed report of difference to your Minolta reference spectro in terms of x,y,Y.

Object here is twofold. First, I find out if mine pass/fails and secondly, to increase it's precision by factoring in the difference to the Minolta spectro.

Is the above possible?

Samsung 64F8500, Panasonic 65VT50, Oppo 95, Tivo Roamio for OTA, Dish VIP722, Marantz AV8801 preamp, Rotel Amps, Atlantic Tech 8200 speakers, Seaton Submersive HP, Calman 5, Chromapure, Accupel DVG-5000, i1Display3pro, i1pro2, eecolor colorbox.
JimP is offline  
post #95 of 156 Old 03-03-2014, 11:19 AM
AVS Special Member
 
HDTVChallenged's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 8,387
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
Liked: 134
What I find interesting about this discussion is that some folks are apparently willing to believe that an OOB i1D3 is capable of both higher absolute accuracy and inter-device repeatability than the i1Pro, but appear flabbergasted that an i1Pro could "keep up" with a CS-2000 ... at least under laboratory conditions. wink.gifbiggrin.gif
HDTVChallenged is offline  
post #96 of 156 Old 03-03-2014, 11:30 AM
AVS Special Member
 
HDTVChallenged's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 8,387
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
Liked: 134
Quote:
Originally Posted by JimP View Post


Is the above possible?

I suspect only possible at one specific point in the greyscale ... say D65 @ 80cd/m2. If you're looking for a fixed offset to apply linearly to every reading, probably not. A linear tri-stimulus (XYZ) matrix transform (aka "profile") would be of more use ... unless you only care about "white/grey" and not the other 99.999% of the gamut.
HDTVChallenged is offline  
post #97 of 156 Old 03-03-2014, 11:53 AM
Advanced Member
 
CalWldLif's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: South Bay'Los Angeles California.
Posts: 501
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 61 Post(s)
Liked: 29
Quote:
Originally Posted by JimP View Post

DarrellB

Thanks for joining the discussion.

I guess what I'm trying to find out is if I can send my i1pro2 in to have you guys measure it and provide a printed report of difference to your Minolta reference spectro in terms of x,y,Y.

Object here is twofold. First, I find out if mine pass/fails and secondly, to increase it's precision by factoring in the difference to the Minolta spectro.

Is the above possible?
sounds like you want a profile matrix.
there is enough info but it would only apply to the TV used.
I believe a LCD/CCFL?
PlasmaPZ80U likes this.

Loving D65
CalWldLif is offline  
post #98 of 156 Old 03-03-2014, 12:44 PM
Member
 
randal_r's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 138
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 43 Post(s)
Liked: 53
...
PlasmaPZ80U likes this.
randal_r is offline  
post #99 of 156 Old 03-03-2014, 02:36 PM
Advanced Member
 
njfoses's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: New Jersey
Posts: 648
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Liked: 26
I very recently received back my i1pro from a Spectracal recert. I also very recently purchased a brand new oem i1 display pro from them as well. Now the question is, which meter to trust? They vary so greatly from each other that Calman throws an error when trying to profile them. These measurements were taken right after one another, same patterns with both meters in contact mode with my Mitsubishi rear projection dlp. I know the fov doesn't match exactly, but even when i moved the i1pro a few inches off the display to get a more accurate fov the variance became even greater at that point. Especially look at the grayscale variances between the two, not even close. Ignore the horrible cms tracking, that is the display, not the meters. Any thoughts or opinions are welcome.

I1PRO Gray Below



ID3 Gray Below



ID3 Sat Sweep Below



I1PRO Sat Sweep Below



ID3 Settings Below



I1PRO Settings Below



Meter Certificate Below

10k likes this.
njfoses is offline  
post #100 of 156 Old 03-03-2014, 04:39 PM
Advanced Member
 
njfoses's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: New Jersey
Posts: 648
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Liked: 26
Quote:
Originally Posted by njfoses View Post

I very recently received back my i1pro from a Spectracal recert. I also very recently purchased a brand new oem i1 display pro from them as well. Now the question is, which meter to trust? They vary so greatly from each other that Calman throws an error when trying to profile them. These measurements were taken right after one another, same patterns with both meters in contact mode with my Mitsubishi rear projection dlp. I know the fov doesn't match exactly, but even when i moved the i1pro a few inches off the display to get a more accurate fov the variance became even greater at that point. Especially look at the grayscale variances between the two, not even close. Ignore the horrible cms tracking, that is the display, not the meters. Any thoughts or opinions are welcome.

When i change the id3 to any of the crt modes it then measures very similar to the i1pro. Being that my display is a rear projection dlp i would have thought that the rear projector (uhp) mode would have been the correct mode for the id3. At least in my case, if i am to believe the i1pro it appears i need to use one of the crt modes instead.
njfoses is offline  
post #101 of 156 Old 03-04-2014, 12:24 AM
AVS Special Member
 
HDTVChallenged's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 8,387
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
Liked: 134
Quote:
Originally Posted by njfoses View Post

When i change the id3 to any of the crt modes it then measures very similar to the i1pro. Being that my display is a rear projection dlp i would have thought that the rear projector (uhp) mode would have been the correct mode for the id3. At least in my case, if i am to believe the i1pro it appears i need to use one of the crt modes instead.

Are you sure "Rear Projector" doesn't refer to a "Front Projector" setup in "rear projection mode" (projector mounted "behind" the screen?)

In either case, this is a perfect example of why it's foolish to rely on a standalone colorimeter. wink.gif You have no real way of "knowing" if the profile you select is the "right" profile for your display.

Oddly enough with some older colorimeters, often times an "LCD" profile works better on CRT based rear-projectors ... chaos and insanity!!!! wink.gif (Hint: It's the fresnel / lenticular screen stack.)
HDTVChallenged is offline  
post #102 of 156 Old 03-04-2014, 09:32 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Rolls-Royce's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Victorville, CA
Posts: 2,013
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 17 Post(s)
Liked: 63
Quote:
Originally Posted by HDTVChallenged View Post

Are you sure "Rear Projector" doesn't refer to a "Front Projector" setup in "rear projection mode" (projector mounted "behind" the screen?)

In either case, this is a perfect example of why it's foolish to rely on a standalone colorimeter. wink.gif You have no real way of "knowing" if the profile you select is the "right" profile for your display.

Oddly enough with some older colorimeters, often times an "LCD" profile works better on CRT based rear-projectors ... chaos and insanity!!!! wink.gif (Hint: It's the fresnel / lenticular screen stack.)

I've also noticed that the "sync" setting can make a difference with the I1D3. Try running the same tests with sync off and sync on and see how it stacks up to the I1Pro in those cases.
PlasmaPZ80U and ConnecTEDDD like this.

...Royce...

"I never drink...wine."
Bela Lugosi, DRACULA, 1931
Rolls-Royce is offline  
post #103 of 156 Old 03-05-2014, 09:55 AM
AVS Special Member
 
HDTVChallenged's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 8,387
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
Liked: 134
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rolls-Royce View Post

I've also noticed that the "sync" setting can make a difference with the I1D3. .

You could be on to something there. I vaguely recall scanning a few posts about the D3 vs DLP color-wheels vs Sync.
HDTVChallenged is offline  
post #104 of 156 Old 03-05-2014, 04:20 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Rolls-Royce's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Victorville, CA
Posts: 2,013
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 17 Post(s)
Liked: 63
Quote:
Originally Posted by HDTVChallenged View Post

You could be on to something there. I vaguely recall scanning a few posts about the D3 vs DLP color-wheels vs Sync.

In my case, it was with a CRT RPTV. I was seeing big swings in luminance and chromaticity from reading to reading at 40% gray during auto cal. Out of desperation, i switched sync from "auto" to "on" and the instability disappeared. My bedroom LCD doesn't seem to be so finicky, but that CRT sure is. My hunch is that the luminance at 40% gray on the CRT is right at a threshold in the D3's auto sync programming when it shifts modes, while the LCD is bright enough that it stays out of that trigger zone.

...Royce...

"I never drink...wine."
Bela Lugosi, DRACULA, 1931
Rolls-Royce is offline  
post #105 of 156 Old 03-11-2014, 03:17 AM
AVS Special Member
 
ConnecTEDDD's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Athens, Greece
Posts: 2,303
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 94 Post(s)
Liked: 471
900x900px-LL-2d294755_i1_PRO1_2.jpeg

This is an older test, comparing the i1PRO1 vs. i1PRO2 using a Samsung SyncMaster 2233BW - TN LCD 120Hz PC Monitor.

I used both meters in contact mode, carefully aligned using Meter Positioning Pattern and Full Field Patterns for the WRGBCMY measurements used.

The i1PRO2 was a brand new unit, i1PRO1 was an only 2 month NIST Re-certificated meter from X-Rite's Factory in Switzerland, both meters were connected to the same PC for 30min for proper warmup.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

S/W: LightSpace CMS, SpaceMan ICC, SpaceMatch DCM, CalMAN 5, CalMAN RGB, ChromaPure, CalPC, ControlCAL
Meters: JETI Specbos 1211, Klein K-10A, i1PRO2, i1PRO, SpectraCAL C6, i1D3, C5
ConnecTEDDD is online now  
post #106 of 156 Old 03-11-2014, 03:23 AM
AVS Special Member
 
ConnecTEDDD's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Athens, Greece
Posts: 2,303
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 94 Post(s)
Liked: 471
The funny thing is the the X-Rite is giving 0.4dE average with 1.0dE Max for any NIST certified factory shipped meter the same time SpectraCAL is giving 0.0007dE deviation from the reference for USED meters.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

S/W: LightSpace CMS, SpaceMan ICC, SpaceMatch DCM, CalMAN 5, CalMAN RGB, ChromaPure, CalPC, ControlCAL
Meters: JETI Specbos 1211, Klein K-10A, i1PRO2, i1PRO, SpectraCAL C6, i1D3, C5
ConnecTEDDD is online now  
post #107 of 156 Old 03-11-2014, 03:26 AM
AVS Special Member
 
ConnecTEDDD's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Athens, Greece
Posts: 2,303
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 94 Post(s)
Liked: 471
Quote:
Originally Posted by DarrellB View Post

The point of mentioning all this is to show, there is no way to convert a deltaE number back to an x y offset.

Hello Darrel, can you please find some random reports of i1PRO1/2/ meters and post us their xyY difference from your Minolta CS-2000?


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

S/W: LightSpace CMS, SpaceMan ICC, SpaceMatch DCM, CalMAN 5, CalMAN RGB, ChromaPure, CalPC, ControlCAL
Meters: JETI Specbos 1211, Klein K-10A, i1PRO2, i1PRO, SpectraCAL C6, i1D3, C5
ConnecTEDDD is online now  
post #108 of 156 Old 03-11-2014, 03:41 AM
AVS Special Member
 
ConnecTEDDD's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Athens, Greece
Posts: 2,303
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 94 Post(s)
Liked: 471
Quote:
Originally Posted by DarrellB View Post

It is done in a light and temperature controlled environment, and for standardization, it is done on the same type of display X-Rite uses for tristimulous colorimeter calibrations. Read area is another factor that I’ve never heard anyone address. For the most accurate comparison of how two meters read relative to each other, care must be taken to ensure that they are reading the same area of the screen because the light/dark pixel structure does matter in how the meter registers light. In other words, either the i1Pro must be backed off slightly from the screen so that it matches the CS-2000’s 1 degree field of view, or the CS-2000 must be moved very close to the screen to match the i1Pro’s small read area. In any meter comparison that I’ve ever read about, I’ve never heard of anyone taking care to ensure proper read areas.
Darrell, something is not ok to your post.

Minolta has by far a smaller FOV vs. the i1PRO's so you have to move Minolta futher from the display to match i1PRO's larger FOV. But you did the opposite, you moved Minotla closer to the display... can you explain please?





(Thanks <^..^>Smokey Joe for these charts)
JimP likes this.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

S/W: LightSpace CMS, SpaceMan ICC, SpaceMatch DCM, CalMAN 5, CalMAN RGB, ChromaPure, CalPC, ControlCAL
Meters: JETI Specbos 1211, Klein K-10A, i1PRO2, i1PRO, SpectraCAL C6, i1D3, C5
ConnecTEDDD is online now  
post #109 of 156 Old 03-11-2014, 11:33 AM
AVS Special Member
 
HDTVChallenged's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 8,387
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
Liked: 134
Quote:
Originally Posted by ConnecTEDDD View Post

The funny thing is the the X-Rite is giving 0.4dE average with 1.0dE Max for any NIST certified factory shipped meter

Not sure what you're trying to get at here, but to clarify for the easily manipulated, the Xrite results (from the certification sheets) mean the following:

On reflective targets: 1) It's an average 0.4dE between different instruments (aka repeatability between instruments.) 2) It's no more than 1.0 dE94 from the specified tolerances of i1Pro.

Furthermore, at least on my x-rite certification sheet, there is *no* mention of illuminated emissive targets (AKA the ones we actually use the meters upon here.) Although, I do recall that x-rite did specify illuminate emissive accuracy at D50, 80 cd/m^2. Note: D50 @ 80 cd/m^2 is *not* D65 @ 150 cd/m^2 where some have tested the beast. smile.gif

So first let's make sure we're comparing apples to apples and not apples to oranges. Secondly, if you're going to imply something hinky is going on, you might want to make sure you're telling the whole story(s) and not just the part(s) that benefits your position (whatever that is.)

To me, it seem logical that the i1Pro would be more accurate on illuminate emissive targets vs. reflective ...

PS: When I get the time, I will recheck my X-Rite certification sheet to make sure I haven't posted any inaccurate information above. (I'm working from memory at the moment.)

PPS: I find it curious that you "quoted" dry-creek-photo's "inter-instrument" results when the *really* damning results would appear to be the "absolute accuracy" table. confused.gif

I apologize if this ruffles any feathers.

Edited 3/14/14 to correct terminology.
PlasmaPZ80U and randal_r like this.
HDTVChallenged is offline  
post #110 of 156 Old 03-11-2014, 11:52 AM
AVS Special Member
 
ConnecTEDDD's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Athens, Greece
Posts: 2,303
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 94 Post(s)
Liked: 471
Quote:
Originally Posted by HDTVChallenged View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by ConnecTEDDD View Post

The funny thing is the the X-Rite is giving 0.4dE average with 1.0dE Max for any NIST certified factory shipped meter

Not sure what you're trying to get at here

According to SpectraCAL's posted Certification papers above, i1PRO's have average difference from reference of about 0.002-0.007dE...

If i1PRO is so accurate device why X-Rite is not writing this at their's NIST certificate paper? ...to showcase that it's an ultra accurate meter for D65 Luminance readings? Since they are using the same reference LCD (both SpectraCAL's Labs + Xrite Labs)... is it so difficult from X-Rite to write this at their certificate? or they don't write it because it's not matching the specs?

Tom and Michael Chen has found i1PRO that has differencies vs. a reference (2-4dE) the same time that spectracal finds all i1PRO's to be under 0.001 xy , 2% Lum. Do you believe this?

The problem is that if I post measurements from 5 different displays with JETI vs. i1PRO1 vs. i1PRO2, we will talk again that I had not the exact FOV, not accurate mechanical alighnment to measure exact the same pixels etc. and a lot of more...


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

S/W: LightSpace CMS, SpaceMan ICC, SpaceMatch DCM, CalMAN 5, CalMAN RGB, ChromaPure, CalPC, ControlCAL
Meters: JETI Specbos 1211, Klein K-10A, i1PRO2, i1PRO, SpectraCAL C6, i1D3, C5
ConnecTEDDD is online now  
post #111 of 156 Old 03-11-2014, 12:01 PM
Advanced Member
 
sawfish's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 787
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 26 Post(s)
Liked: 110
Quote:
Originally Posted by HDTVChallenged View Post

PPS: I find it curious that you "quoted" dry-creek-photo's "inter-instrument" results when the *really* damning results would appear to be the "absolute accuracy" table. confused.gif

What really puzzles me is what I've asked about twice before but have yet to receive an answer on; maybe the third time will be the charm:

Quote:
Originally Posted by sawfish View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by ConnecTEDDD View Post

Combination of i1PRO + i1D3 is the minimum calibration gear for any calibration work (but not reference performance).

According to that paper you cited, the i1Pro is worse than the i1D3 for both unit-to-unit variability and accuracy. For the "CCFL and LED range of displays" they tested, profiling an i1D3 to an i1Pro would degrade the former's performance. You've posted that the X-Rite certification is for reflectance mode, not the emissive mode relevant for monitors, so it's meaningless for display calibration. You've also claimed that the SpectraCal i1Pro certification for display calibration is basically a joke. So, there's no way of knowing if an i1Pro is worth a damn except by comparing it oneself to a hugely expensive spectro, which if you have one, it would be silly to buy an i1Pro. Yet despite all this that you've posted, you're now saying the "i1PRO + i1D3 is the minimum calibration gear for any calibration work". Under what conditions would you use the i1Pro, and given the alleged worthlessness of the available certification processes, what would be your basis for trusting it?

Also, has anyone done a similar study for plasmas, preferably the contemporary models like the ST60?
PlasmaPZ80U and randal_r like this.
sawfish is online now  
post #112 of 156 Old 03-11-2014, 12:17 PM
AVS Special Member
 
ConnecTEDDD's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Athens, Greece
Posts: 2,303
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 94 Post(s)
Liked: 471
I still recommend i1PRO but for better performance the i1PRO2 to be paired with i1d3 for any display calibration, the point is that i1PRO1/2 are not reference spectro's as SpectraCAL is claiming with 0.007 dE differencies only that are by far invisible to be seen by human eyes.

If used 1PRO1's have so small differencies vs. 35.000$ Minolta, why someone to buy a JETI or PhotoResearch or Minolta for display calibration?


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

S/W: LightSpace CMS, SpaceMan ICC, SpaceMatch DCM, CalMAN 5, CalMAN RGB, ChromaPure, CalPC, ControlCAL
Meters: JETI Specbos 1211, Klein K-10A, i1PRO2, i1PRO, SpectraCAL C6, i1D3, C5
ConnecTEDDD is online now  
post #113 of 156 Old 03-11-2014, 12:30 PM
Advanced Member
 
sawfish's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 787
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 26 Post(s)
Liked: 110
Quote:
Originally Posted by ConnecTEDDD View Post

I still recommend i1PRO but for better performance the i1PRO2 to be paired with i1d3 for any display calibration

The paper you cited invalidates that recommendation, and repeating it doesn't clarify why you say it. Clearly, you believe the paper invalidates SpectraCal's claims, so why do you believe the paper for one thing but not the other?
PlasmaPZ80U and randal_r like this.
sawfish is online now  
post #114 of 156 Old 03-11-2014, 01:32 PM
Member
 
randal_r's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 138
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 43 Post(s)
Liked: 53
...
PlasmaPZ80U and ConnecTEDDD like this.
randal_r is offline  
post #115 of 156 Old 03-12-2014, 12:08 AM
AVS Special Member
 
HDTVChallenged's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 8,387
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
Liked: 134
Quote:
Originally Posted by ConnecTEDDD View Post


Tom and Michael Chen has found i1PRO that has differencies vs. a reference (2-4dE) the same time that spectracal finds all i1PRO's to be under 0.001 xy , 2% Lum. Do you believe this?

Belief is not required here. I'll take the results at face value. I will say, I don't see any advantage to "fudging" the results in the i1Pro's favor, I'm guessing the per-unit profit is much higher on a "value added" C6 or Display PRO than on a "stock" i1Pro/2. Let's be honest, turning a $250 instrument into a $500 to $600 instrument is where the real money's at, not in saying, 'Yeah we can re-certify your i1Pro for ya, but you're kinda wastin' yer money.' wink.gif

PS: I have no disconnect with Michael's results (if in fact that's a true quotation.) Real World is not The "NIST" Lab.
PlasmaPZ80U and ConnecTEDDD like this.
HDTVChallenged is offline  
post #116 of 156 Old 03-12-2014, 05:28 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Wetumpka, AL
Posts: 15,359
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 113 Post(s)
Liked: 191
Quote:
Originally Posted by ConnecTEDDD View Post

I still recommend i1PRO but for better performance the i1PRO2 to be paired with i1d3 for any display calibration, the point is that i1PRO1/2 are not reference spectro's as SpectraCAL is claiming with 0.007 dE differencies only that are by far invisible to be seen by human eyes.

If used 1PRO1's have so small differencies vs. 35.000$ Minolta, why someone to buy a JETI or PhotoResearch or Minolta for display calibration?

Ted

One point that I'd like to bring up is how the i1pro2 may be more accurate on one type of display than on another.

I'm asking not as an expert but a hobbyist who is trying to connect the dots.

One of the attributes of the Jeti 1211 is its ability to synch with pulse width modulation displays such as plasma. This is a weakness of the 1201. I'm not aware that the i1pro2 has such a feature and for that matter it may not even need it.

So my question is are the deficiencies that some of us see with the i1pro2 have more to do with inability to read plasma displays (and probably CRTs) than an overall weakness to read other type of displays?????

Samsung 64F8500, Panasonic 65VT50, Oppo 95, Tivo Roamio for OTA, Dish VIP722, Marantz AV8801 preamp, Rotel Amps, Atlantic Tech 8200 speakers, Seaton Submersive HP, Calman 5, Chromapure, Accupel DVG-5000, i1Display3pro, i1pro2, eecolor colorbox.
JimP is offline  
post #117 of 156 Old 03-12-2014, 08:19 AM
AVS Special Member
 
PlasmaPZ80U's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 7,197
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 89 Post(s)
Liked: 198
Quote:
Originally Posted by ConnecTEDDD View Post



Tom and Michael Chen has found i1PRO that has differencies vs. a reference (2-4dE)

do you have a link to the results from Michael Chen's test? if you are referring to the colorimeter tables article, I recall much smaller errors (http://www.tlvexp.ca/2012/04/do-calibration-tables-really-work-for-tri-stim-devices/3/)


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.



To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.



To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
PlasmaPZ80U is offline  
post #118 of 156 Old 03-12-2014, 09:27 AM
AVS Special Member
 
ConnecTEDDD's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Athens, Greece
Posts: 2,303
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 94 Post(s)
Liked: 471
Quote:
Originally Posted by JimP View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by ConnecTEDDD View Post

I still recommend i1PRO but for better performance the i1PRO2 to be paired with i1d3 for any display calibration, the point is that i1PRO1/2 are not reference spectro's as SpectraCAL is claiming with 0.007 dE differencies only that are by far invisible to be seen by human eyes.

If used 1PRO1's have so small differencies vs. 35.000$ Minolta, why someone to buy a JETI or PhotoResearch or Minolta for display calibration?

Ted

One point that I'd like to bring up is how the i1pro2 may be more accurate on one type of display than on another.

I'm asking not as an expert but a hobbyist who is trying to connect the dots.

One of the attributes of the Jeti 1211 is its ability to synch with pulse width modulation displays such as plasma. This is a weakness of the 1201. I'm not aware that the i1pro2 has such a feature and for that matter it may not even need it.

So my question is are the deficiencies that some of us see with the i1pro2 have more to do with inability to read plasma displays (and probably CRTs) than an overall weakness to read other type of displays?????

Jim, JETI 1211 is a very sensitive device, so it's necessary to be synchronized with the display's refreshing rate to have the best repeatability, if you don't use sync the measurement repeatability will be poor for some displays.

BTW JETI 1211 can sync for any display for up to 2.000 Hz.

Also it has a Shutter that is automatically taking a black reading before measurement.

for i1PRO1/2 I have used for years, I had no problem in any plasma measurement with reapeatability, don't forget that plasma is not so stable device because of it's non-fixed pixel status and the way it creates the each frame per second.

But in case you are using i1PRO1/2 for plasma in contact mode (which repeatately I have post that is not good idea for a lot of reasons) the aperture size for spot measurements is 4.5mm only, if you do the calculations to the pixels that the meter is seeing to this area in 1080p display are only a few pixels, count also the gap between each subpixel (pixel pitch), you possible measuring 10-12 pixels only (It has to do with screen size and pixel pitch), you will not have perfect repeatability, the will be able to detect more aggresibe the pixel's PWM noise, but it will improved if you measure with a non-contact measurements, there some published documents that suggesting to measure about 100 pixels minimum for display calibration.
JimP likes this.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

S/W: LightSpace CMS, SpaceMan ICC, SpaceMatch DCM, CalMAN 5, CalMAN RGB, ChromaPure, CalPC, ControlCAL
Meters: JETI Specbos 1211, Klein K-10A, i1PRO2, i1PRO, SpectraCAL C6, i1D3, C5
ConnecTEDDD is online now  
post #119 of 156 Old 03-12-2014, 09:35 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Wetumpka, AL
Posts: 15,359
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 113 Post(s)
Liked: 191
Ted....good post.

I've never used the i1pro2 in contact mode and usually have it somewhere around 18" away.

Have you found a particular distance to work best?

Samsung 64F8500, Panasonic 65VT50, Oppo 95, Tivo Roamio for OTA, Dish VIP722, Marantz AV8801 preamp, Rotel Amps, Atlantic Tech 8200 speakers, Seaton Submersive HP, Calman 5, Chromapure, Accupel DVG-5000, i1Display3pro, i1pro2, eecolor colorbox.
JimP is offline  
post #120 of 156 Old 03-12-2014, 09:43 AM
AVS Special Member
 
ConnecTEDDD's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Athens, Greece
Posts: 2,303
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 94 Post(s)
Liked: 471
Quote:
Originally Posted by PlasmaPZ80U View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by ConnecTEDDD View Post



Tom and Michael Chen has found i1PRO that has differencies vs. a reference (2-4dE)

do you have a link to the results from Michael Chen's test? if you are referring to the colorimeter tables article, I recall much smaller errors (http://www.tlvexp.ca/2012/04/do-calibration-tables-really-work-for-tri-stim-devices/3/)

Hi, since dE don't indicate a direction on CIE Chart, if you take out the xyY errors you see at Michael's test and you compare the dE by using the JETI's xyY as a reference you will see larger dE numbers.

As you know well, if we compare 2 difference dE measurements, one with 1dE and one with 1.5 dE it doesn't mean that the difference between them is 0.5dE... the 1dE maybe is more red and the 1.5 dE more green.. so if you compare them using the one's meter as a reference, the difference can be 2.0 - 2.5dE in some cases.

BTW here is another test from Tom using JETI 1201 readings as a reference:



Post link here.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

S/W: LightSpace CMS, SpaceMan ICC, SpaceMatch DCM, CalMAN 5, CalMAN RGB, ChromaPure, CalPC, ControlCAL
Meters: JETI Specbos 1211, Klein K-10A, i1PRO2, i1PRO, SpectraCAL C6, i1D3, C5
ConnecTEDDD is online now  
Reply Display Calibration

User Tag List

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off