we are in the process of integrating the Spyder5 with [Redacted] CMS.

We will report on our findings after that is complete.

[Redacted]

 

How does Spyder 5 compare against i1Display Pro / ColorMunki Display? Spyder 3 was horrible, Spyder 4 was better, but still had problems reading black levels. DataColor states that Spyder 5's black measurement accuracy has improved by some "50%".

My impression from playing with exactly one Spyder 5, is that it is noticeably more accurate than the Spyder 4 (I would say "40%" more accurate in terms of delta E as a rough estimate from the one comparison I did). Whether all units show this improvement, I can't tell you. From my perspective the underlying tech. doesn't seem to have changed very much - very similar filters and sensors to the Spyder4, so perhaps the calibration during manufacture has improved significantly.

 

So is it safe to assume it is just as accurate as i1Display Pro? I had no personal experiences, but there are reports that ColorMunki Display and Spyder 5 readings to differ, at least on monitors tested. I suggested to trust ColorMunki Display over Spyder 5...

 

I did some testing on the new Spyder5 and published a review on Cameratico (http://cameratico.com/articles/datacolor-spyder-5-review/), including a comparison with the older Spyder4 and the current X-Rite i1 Display Pro and Colormunki Display.

I think Datacolor really did their homework with the new units. It's a much more sensitive sensor, specially on the darker tones, and I'm confident to say that overall results on good quality IPS displays are comparable to the i1 Display Pro, with only slightly harsher transitions in the blues and reds and a tiny bit more banding, if I'm really nitpicking. TN panels, on the other hand, gave me much more inconsistent results, with severe banding and some cases of wacky color gamuts. In those cases, i1 Display Pro and Colormunkinki Display performed better.

I could not test unit to unit variance thoroughly, but the two units I had in use were very close to each other and close to the X-Rite products, except for the white point measurement, where the Datacolor pucks always measured about 200K lower, giving slightly warmer profiles. This difference was noticed by other users and seems to be consistent from unit to unit and not caused by any malfunction.

If you don't mind the super long calibration times, a $129 Spyder5Express with dispcalGUI and Argyll CMS is a killer deal. On higher price points I'd choose the X-Rite products, though.

 

I could not test unit to unit variance thoroughly, but the two units I had in use were very close to each other and close to the X-Rite products, except for the white point measurement, where the Datacolor pucks always measured about 200K lower, giving slightly warmer profiles. This difference was noticed by other users and seems to be consistent from unit to unit and not caused by any malfunction.

I have been trying both the Spyder5Pro and ColorMunki Display. I need to pick one to return and one to keep. I do photo editing in Lightroom and want the most realistic display and best match for prints. I have built profiles with Spyder software, ColorMunki software and dispcalGUI. I have noticed a consistent difference in the profiles between the two devices. The Spyder profiles seem to have more "color" or "warmth" when comparing test images in Lightroom and switching windows color profiles manually... I am a novice, and hope I am using those terms properly...

But, my main question is... which of the two is more accurate and closer to reality? I can always adjust in LR to get a picture to look like I want... but which of the two is more likely accurate and a better match for photo lab printing?

Thank you very much for any advice.

 

Interesting - the tests we performed show little benefit of of Spyer5 over the Spyder4, with the i1D3 still showing real benefit.

The results speak for themselves - the Spyder probes really struggled to read the darker colours.

With the small price difference between the Spyder probes and the i1D3 (especially the new RevB model - see: http://www.[Redacted]/i1_display_pro.html) the Spyder probes really do struggle to compare.

We are in discussion with DataColor, and have provided them all our findings.

[Redacted]

 

Thank you for sharing your results, Steve.

I approached my tests with an end user perspective. Datacolor claims a 55% improvement in low luminance accuracy. I had no means to measure this difference, but real world results were close enough to i1Display Pro to make me believe it. Using the OEM software, I noticed a good improvement in shadow detail, with less banding than Spyder4. Argyll CMS is not yet optimized for the Spyder5, I assume, so the calibration process takes hours, but the final results are very good. Again, not much to complain when compared to the i1D3.

What threw me off were some wacky results with lower quality TN displays. For example, on a 2011 13" MacBook Air, the OEM software produced a completely unusable profile, with compressed and uneven gamut. This happened when aiming for 6500K or native white point. Super strange. I still haven't contacted them about it.

In any case, I wouldn't recommend anything other than the Express version. On the higher price points, the X-Rite units deliver better results for a lower price.

 

I approached my tests with an end user perspective. Datacolor claims a 55% improvement in low luminance accuracy. I had no means to measure this difference, but real world results were close enough to i1Display Pro to make me believe it.

That's not really a test of accuracy then. You need to compare to an instrument of known better accuracy than both (i.e. a JETI).

Argyll CMS is not yet optimized for the Spyder5, I assume, so the calibration process takes hours, but the final results are very good. Again, not much to complain when compared to the i1D3.

ArgyllCMS is as optimized as it is ever going to be for the Spyder - i.e., not at all :- it treats each instrument equally, and the Spyder5 is highly similar to the Spyder4. The Spyder is much slower than the i1d3 because it doesn't have the light gathering optics that the i1d3 has. DataColor had the opportunity to improve the quality of their product with the Spyder5, but doesn't seem to have taken full advantage of it. They needed to do three things: 1) make it faster by gathering more light into the sensors, 2) Improve the filters to be closer to the 1931 standard observer, and 3) Characterize the filters of each unit more accurately. My impression is that they have done some of 3) but neglected both the others.

 

Spyder 5 Test

I thought it would be useful to provide some hard numbers to this discussion. This test compares a Spyder 5 with and i1D3 using a JETI 1211 as a reference. Here's the results.

Test Conditions
dE values: CIE94
Speed test: 6^3 color matrix (215 colors)
Display Type: Plasma

Maximum Low light Sensitivity
Spyder 5: 0.005 cd/m2
i1D3: 0.003 cd/m2

Color accuracy @ 100% video
Spyder 5
W 2.99
R 1.69
G 1.52
B 3.11

i1D3
W 2.15
R 1.01
G 0.67
B 0.63

Color accuracy @ 25% video
Spyder 5
W 2.99
R 1.69
G 1.39
B 3.34

i1D3
W 2.70
R 1.32
G 0.58
B 0.33

Speed
Spyder 5: 570 seconds to completion
i1D3: 330 seconds to completion

Conclusions

The i1D3 reads lower, faster, and with better color accuracy. Low light levels had little effect on the color accuracy of either meters. Although the Spyder 5 could not match the color accuracy of the i1D3, it is significantly better in the regard than the Spyder 4. The biggest downside to the Spyder 5 is its speed. It takes nearly twice as long to take measurements as the i1D3. The color errors trouble me less because those can be significantly reduced with profiling and the errors are fairly small in any case. However, the speed and low-light limitations are inherent to the design and cannot be improved upon.

 

Tom are your low light Sensitivity measurements repeatable?
And would all D3 have the same light Sensitivity measurements

ss

 

Tom are your low light Sensitivity measurements repeatable?
And would all D3 have the same light Sensitivity measurements

I have measured this with the i1D3 several times. I always get about the same number. I don't have enough long term experience with the Spyder 5 to say, but I have no reason to believe that it wouldn't be repeatable.

There is always some unit-to-unit variation, but I wouldn't expect it to be large when reading luminance only.

 

I just wanted to thank you all for your replies. I'm not a color scientist, but a very involved user who has been using color management products for the past 15 years. I've leaned a lot from this thread.

Couple of questions:

Measurement times using the Spyder5 OEM software are pretty fast. I didn't count the number of patches - granted - but overall it takes less than 6 minutes for a full calibration. Is the measurement time for each patch equal for both OEM and third party software, only limited by hardware? Or the OEM software has access to speedier reading methods?

When we talk about sensor accuracy, I have a feeling that the profiling process is optimized to avoid bad measurements and to make the best use of the data provided by a less than stellar calibrator. Could this explain why my practical results with the Spyder5 were closer to the i1D3 than synthetic tests show?

Keep in mind that I don't have vested interests in any product. I'm not defending the Spyder5 or anything like that. Just trying to get a deeper understanding of how monitor profiling software works behind the scenes.

I think the Spyder5 is a good buy on the cheaper Express version and preferably if used with dispcalGUI and Argyll CMS (if you can wait for the long measurement times). Above that price point, the i1D3 and Colormunki Display are better choices.

 

Perfomance at the low intensity levels is one of the most important parts of a calibration, and where the spyder 5 performs the worst.

Couple that with the fact that their exposed sensors are likely to age and drift compared to the Xrite meters and I can't imagine a good reason to go with the spyder. Any money saved wouldn't be worth it in the long run.

 

Well, spyder have a rather poor track record, where i1d3 is pretty much established as a good meter.
But like fhoech said, you can run some verification report using the one meter vs a profile made by the other meter. It may happen the number is identical, but their driver approach aim different target (wild guess.)

Sent from my 306SH

 

I am in no way associated with B&H - I came to this thread because I have been considering a Spyder 5 but today, 12/15, B&H has a great deal on the i1. $120 after rebate.
Just saying.