AVS › AVS Forum › Display Devices › Display Calibration › Upgrade to EyeOne Display 3 PRO w/ ChromaPure?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Upgrade to EyeOne Display 3 PRO w/ ChromaPure?

post #1 of 62
10/17/11 at 1:17pm
Thread Starter 
I currently have the OEM version of the i1 Display (3) with CalMAN and since they don't offer an enhanced version of this meter without spending way more money on a C6, I'm seriously considering buying ChromaPure and getting my meter upgraded to the PRO version. I will be using it to calibrate two Samsung Standard backlit LCD TVs and one Panasonic Plasma TV. My question is what kind of improvement can I expect with the PRO version of the meter for each of these two display types (in terms of RGB percentages in grayscale like 5% less red, 5% more blue, etc.)? In other words, what are typical errors for these display types prior to the PRO conversion and how much of that error is eliminated? Any and all information regarding this topic would be appreciated.
Reply
Reply

AVS Top Picks

post #2 of 62
10/17/11 at 1:39pm
Here is my meter's correction table.

Reply
Reply
post #3 of 62
10/17/11 at 2:33pm
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by fahrenheit View Post

Here is my meter's correction table.


thanks, how can I convert this into RGB percentages for grayscale?
Reply
Reply
post #4 of 62
10/17/11 at 2:54pm
Ah...this is a great thread. I wanted to know the answer as well. Can you really tell the difference between OEM and PRO calibrated pictures ? Are the errors so small that you can't tell ?
Reply
Reply
post #5 of 62
10/17/11 at 2:59pm
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ranger View Post

Ah...this is a great thread. I wanted to know the answer as well. Can you really tell the difference between OEM and PRO calibrated pictures ? Are the errors so small that you can't tell ?

Yeah, I have the $300 or so to get the ChromaPure software and get the PRO conversion done but I want to make sure it would be worth the money. If not, I'd rather spend the money on something else (most likely not a calibration tool).
Reply
Reply
post #6 of 62
10/17/11 at 6:51pm
I don't recall, do you have another meter from which to profile from? I have the "enhanced" ColorMunki from Spectracal from which I am profiling the i1 Display 3 from. If not, then the enhanced D3 might be the way to go.
Reply
Reply
post #7 of 62
10/17/11 at 6:55pm
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Razz1 View Post

I don't recall, do you have another meter from which to profile from? I have the "enhanced" ColorMunki from Spectracal from which I am profiling the i1 Display 3 from. If not, then the enhanced D3 might be the way to go.

I only have the i1 display 3 (OEM version).
Reply
Reply
post #8 of 62
10/17/11 at 7:32pm
Based on that calibration chart, the delta error looks very small.
Reply
Reply
post #9 of 62
10/17/11 at 8:21pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Razz1 View Post

I don't recall, do you have another meter from which to profile from? I have the "enhanced" ColorMunki from Spectracal from which I am profiling the i1 Display 3 from. If not, then the enhanced D3 might be the way to go.


Profiling your D3 to a Spectro.. like the Munki is the best way to go.
This practice is even better then having preloaded profiles.

Hope this helps
RayJr
Reply
Reply
post #10 of 62
10/17/11 at 10:16pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rayjr View Post

Profiling your D3 to a Spectro.. like the Munki is the best way to go.
This practice is even better then having preloaded profiles.

Nope. This is not generally the case, even with the i1Pro. It certainly wouldn't be the case using the ColorMunki.

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showp...&postcount=702
Reply
Reply
post #11 of 62
10/18/11 at 8:01am
Tom,

I have a question for you. I have an i1 Pro calman enhanced with 4.3

Can I use this meter with your software or is my meter "locked" to calman only?

Thanks
Reply
Reply
post #12 of 62
10/18/11 at 9:09am
Quote:
Originally Posted by TomHuffman View Post

Nope. This is not generally the case, even with the i1Pro. It certainly wouldn't be the case using the ColorMunki.

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showp...&postcount=702

Looking at the test you ran, it involved a sample of one i1 Pro compared to a meter profiled to a reference meter (through offsets) on one plasma, and then their performance compared on another brand of plasma. There are too many unknown variables in this test to come to a general conclusion. For example, if you used the Jeti to measure the two brands of plasma, how much did they vary? Also, you included positional variance (x,y) and not luminance (Y) variations. It could be argued (and has been) that relative luminance variations of the primary colors are more important than positional variances. I believe profiling includes Y and I assume software offsets include Y as well, but I don't know. In any event, luminance measurements would have been good to have. Also, other technologies could give different results so it would have been good to know what the results would be for LCD panels and others. Also, contact measurements vs non-contact like projectors. Many variables that complicate tests like this. However, even if these things were done it would still be a single sample test and difficult to draw meaningful conclusions beyond that.

By the way, I am not argueing that one way is better than the other as I don't know. I sometimes use profiling with CalMAN, but I find it extremely cumbersome and time consuming to set the meters up precisely so that the results are repeatable and can be relied on.
Reply
Reply
post #13 of 62
10/18/11 at 9:15am
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Citation4444 View Post

Looking at the test you ran, it involved a sample of one i1 Pro compared to a meter profiled to a reference meter (through offsets) on one plasma, and then their performance compared on another brand of plasma. There are too many unknown variables in this test to come to a general conclusion. For example, if you used the Jeti to measure the two brands of plasma, how much did they vary? Also, you included positional variance (x,y) and not luminance (Y) variations. It could be argued (and has been) that relative luminance variations of the primary colors are more important than positional variances. I believe profiling includes Y and I assume software offsets include Y as well, but I don't know. In any event, luminance measurements would have been good to have. Also, other technologies could give different results so it would have been good to know what the results would be for LCD panels and others. Also, contact measurements vs non-contact like projectors. Many variables that complicate tests like this. However, even if these things were done it would still be a single sample test and difficult to draw meaningful conclusions beyond that.

By the way, I am not argueing that one way is better than the other as I don't know. I sometimes use profiling with CalMAN, but I find it extremely cumbersome and time consuming to set the meters up precisely so that the results are repeatable and can be relied on.

the i1 display 3 is very accurate with Y readings (as are the C5 and the i1 display 2/LT), so it's not necessary to correct Y in the PRO version, only xy
Reply
Reply
post #14 of 62
10/18/11 at 10:11am
Quote:
Originally Posted by PlasmaPZ80U View Post

the i1 display 3 is very accurate with Y readings (as are the C5 and the i1 display 2/LT), so it's not necessary to correct Y in the PRO version, only xy

And you know this how? Have you seen a spec sheet on the i1 display 3 that states its accuracy for Y? Or, for the i1 Pro? My i1 display LT is not even remotely close to my other meters in measuring Y of red, for example, and if I use this meter it will give a red-biased grayscale. It did this when new and it does this now.
Reply
Reply
post #15 of 62
10/18/11 at 10:51am
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Citation4444 View Post

And you know this how? Have you seen a spec sheet on the i1 display 3 that states its accuracy for Y? Or, for the i1 Pro? My i1 display LT is not even remotely close to my other meters in measuring Y of red, for example, and if I use this meter it will give a red-biased grayscale. It did this when new and it does this now.

a red biased grayscale is purely an xy error

also the spectros (i1Pro and ColorMunki) are less accurate with Y than most colorimeters (when compared against a reference meter such as a light meter)
Reply
Reply
post #16 of 62
10/18/11 at 3:24pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by rovingtravler View Post

I have a question for you. I have an i1 Pro calman enhanced with 4.3

Can I use this meter with your software or is my meter "locked" to calman only?

To be honest, I don't know. You'd have to ask the SpectraCal folks if their i1Pro enhancement precludes usage with other software.

I know this is the case with the enhanced Chroma 5 and the C6, but I don't know about the i1Pro.
Reply
Reply
post #17 of 62
10/18/11 at 3:31pm
I said in the post that the test was not conclusive. However, at a minimum it falsifies the claim that profiling with an inexpensive spectro is always superior to using a built-in profile created with a reference spectro. In my experience the difference between an inexpensive spectro and a 5nm spectro is larger than the difference in accuracy that a good colorimeter provides between two displays of the same type.

We don't correct Y values. This is because even inexpensive colorimeters do an excellent job reading luminance. I have tested this many times against a Minolta LS100 and a Klein K10. At low light levels, they do a better job than the i1Pro. Our correction matrix uses xyz.

Edit: I see that this has been answered below. I concur with PlasmaPZ80U's posts.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Citation4444 View Post

Looking at the test you ran, it involved a sample of one i1 Pro compared to a meter profiled to a reference meter (through offsets) on one plasma, and then their performance compared on another brand of plasma. There are too many unknown variables in this test to come to a general conclusion. For example, if you used the Jeti to measure the two brands of plasma, how much did they vary? Also, you included positional variance (x,y) and not luminance (Y) variations. It could be argued (and has been) that relative luminance variations of the primary colors are more important than positional variances. I believe profiling includes Y and I assume software offsets include Y as well, but I don't know. In any event, luminance measurements would have been good to have. Also, other technologies could give different results so it would have been good to know what the results would be for LCD panels and others. Also, contact measurements vs non-contact like projectors. Many variables that complicate tests like this. However, even if these things were done it would still be a single sample test and difficult to draw meaningful conclusions beyond that.

By the way, I am not argueing that one way is better than the other as I don't know. I sometimes use profiling with CalMAN, but I find it extremely cumbersome and time consuming to set the meters up precisely so that the results are repeatable and can be relied on.
Reply
Reply
post #18 of 62
10/18/11 at 5:04pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by TomHuffman View Post

Nope. This is not generally the case, even with the i1Pro. It certainly wouldn't be the case using the ColorMunki.

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showp...&postcount=702

Tom, I have read and reread your post:
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showp...&postcount=702

I am having trouble understanding the outcomes. I would greatly appreciate it if you could state the results a little more plainly as to what your findings mean.

As I noted the ColorMunki which I have profiled from was enhanced by Spectracal. How would my Spectracal OEM i1 Display 3 profiled from my enhanced ColorMunki be expected to differ from your Pro version of the i1 Display 3?
Reply
Reply
post #19 of 62
10/18/11 at 7:55pm
Tom,
If i buy from you i1pro , is still have benefit profiling to i1display 3 ?
Assumed the i1pro is already upgraded to pro version .
Reply
Reply
post #20 of 62
10/18/11 at 7:57pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Razz1 View Post

Tom, I have read and reread your post:
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showp...&postcount=702

I am having trouble understanding the outcomes. I would greatly appreciate it if you could state the results a little more plainly as to what your findings mean.

What the test shows is that using a Display 3 that was profiled on plasma 1 using a reference spectro was more accurate measuring plasma 2 than the same Display 3 was measuring plasma 2 when profiled on plasma 2 using the i1Pro.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Razz1 View Post

As I noted the ColorMunki which I have profiled from was enhanced by Spectracal. How would my Spectracal OEM i1 Display 3 profiled from my enhanced ColorMunki be expected to differ from your Pro version of the i1 Display 3?

I can't comment on this as I have not tested an enhanced version of this instrument.
Reply
Reply
post #21 of 62
10/18/11 at 8:00pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by rachmat-d View Post

If i buy from you i1pro , is still have benefit profiling to i1display 3 ?
Assumed the i1pro is already upgraded to pro version .

Probably. This test compared a Display 3 PRO to a Display 3 profiled using a i1Pro.

We don't offer an enhanced version of the i1Pro. It is just the stock meter--a 10nm spectroradiometer.
Reply
Reply
post #22 of 62
10/18/11 at 8:52pm
Tom,
Have you measured a standard non-Pro Display 3 to see how far off it is compared to your reference instrument?
Reply
Reply
post #23 of 62
10/18/11 at 9:13pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ericglo View Post

Have you measured a standard non-Pro Display 3 to see how far off it is compared to your reference instrument?

Every day. I have commented on this elsewhere. There is some variation among individual units and between individual colors, but the average error is in the neighborhood of 0.006. Blue is nearly perfect. I see the biggest errors in white and red with green somewhere in between.
Reply
Reply
post #24 of 62
10/18/11 at 9:31pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by TomHuffman View Post

Every day. I have commented on this elsewhere. There is some variation among individual units and between individual colors, but the average error is in the neighborhood of 0.006. Blue is nearly perfect. I see the biggest errors in white and red with green somewhere in between.

I knew it right after I posted. It is getting late. Anyway, thanks for the numbers. It looks like the standard Display 3 is a great instrument by itself and Pro takes it to another level.
Reply
Reply
post #25 of 62
10/19/11 at 1:41pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by TomHuffman View Post

Every day. I have commented on this elsewhere. There is some variation among individual units and between individual colors, but the average error is in the neighborhood of 0.006. Blue is nearly perfect. I see the biggest errors in white and red with green somewhere in between.

It seems the errors are quite high. Average error of 0.006 is about 5-6 dEs on the CIELAB. Is that right, Tom ? I think the PRO calibration is worth it.
Reply
Reply
post #26 of 62
10/19/11 at 2:04pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ranger View Post

It seems the errors are quite high. Average error of 0.006 is about 5-6 dEs on the CIELAB. Is that right, Tom ? I think the PRO calibration is worth it.

Between 3-6 depending on how the error is distributed.
Reply
Reply
post #27 of 62
10/19/11 at 8:45pm
I take it back then. How noticeable is a 3-6 dE? For what I do, a dE over .75 can be noticeable on a light color like a light tan, beige, etc. On a dark color like chocolate brown, a dE of 1.5 or higher may not be noticeable.
Reply
Reply
post #28 of 62
10/20/11 at 12:20am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ericglo View Post

I take it back then. How noticeable is a 3-6 dE? For what I do, a dE over .75 can be noticeable on a light color like a light tan, beige, etc. On a dark color like chocolate brown, a dE of 1.5 or higher may not be noticeable.

5-6 dE should be easily visible. 3-4 less so, but possible.
Reply
Reply
post #29 of 62
10/20/11 at 2:01pm
Thread Starter 
So, I've gone ahead and ordered the PRO conversion for my i1D3. How long is the typical wait once the meter is received for the service to be performed? If I ship my meter tomorrow morning, when I can I expect to receive it back? 1-2 weeks? less? I am quite excited to see the difference it makes over the stock calibration tables loaded into the meter.
Reply
Reply
post #30 of 62
10/20/11 at 4:48pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by PlasmaPZ80U View Post

So, I've gone ahead and ordered the PRO conversion for my i1D3. How long is the typical wait once the meter is received for the service to be performed? If I ship my meter tomorrow morning, when I can I expect to receive it back? 1-2 weeks? less? I am quite excited to see the difference it makes over the stock calibration tables loaded into the meter.

Once I get it, the turn around is just a day or two. Shipping back to you is another couple of days.
Reply
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Display Calibration

AVS Top Picks

AVS › AVS Forum › Display Devices › Display Calibration › Upgrade to EyeOne Display 3 PRO w/ ChromaPure?