I1 Pro or D3 if you could only have one meter?

Greetings,

I1 pro because it is more accurate... More often than D3.

My Jeti confirms this time after time.

regards

What about a D3 Pro with Chromapure reference meter corrections? Seems to be a very consistent meter. I understand it will drift, but you can send it in yearly for those updated corrections. Also much better in low light than the I1, and no 10 minute dark readings.

Im just speaking as a previous I1 owner. I understand why THX has it's opinions on the I1 vs the others because the I1 is a great meter, but from the results Ive seen so far, an amateur can save a little money and get the D3 pro from Tom.

Greetings

This is not THX's opinion ... it is mine, backed up with experience and evidence. But if you were in the THX class and you asked the same question, you'd get the same answer (from me).

Tables are better than nothing, but I have samples of the tables working and the tables being way off ... just in my own home. The question then becomes ... how do you know when the table is close to dead on or way off?

Regards

It's a tough call because you're comparing a colorimeter to spetrometer. They inherently have different strengths and weakness's.

For absolute color accuracy a colorimeter will never be as good as an i1 Pro. The minute the spectrum changes from what it was calibrated against a colorimeter starts loosing accuracy.

Colorimeters are great at low light, great with speed, but are dependent on correction tables for their accuracy. Really high end ones like a Klien K10 much less so because their filter set very nearly matches the standard observer curves, but we still create calibration tables even for K10s.

If you could only have 1 meter and accuracy was your number 1 priority then the i1 Pro is a clear choice.

I'd recommend the i1 Pro as well if you are only going to have one (assuming you budget is up to $1000-1200).

It's still used by many Professionals and I have still have not seen any reports of one (Rev D or even early Revs*) not in spec sent to X-Rite for recertification (undamaged of course)... you just can't match the track record of the i1 Pro for any other meter in its price or below.

*I try to only track Rev D

I get what you guys are saying, but I see these opinions always passed without the full story. More accurate? Yes. But, many times, a C5 run vs a I1 Pro run yields a difference less than the human eye is supposed to be able to notice (I know because I owned both). So...

I think the statement by turbe adds more to it, if your budget is $1000. If not, you can purchase a D3 knowing you are still getting a meter that will allow adjustment to exceptional PQ on a display. This is also why I used Amateur. IMHO, as a pro (someone paid to do the service), you should be at least using the I1 Pro, because you owe that to your customers.

I know you guys are the pros, and Im not disputing that, but being someone who has owned a C5 pro/enhanced, a I1 Pro, and a D3 Pro (also used both Calman and CP), no need to spend the $1000. Two things one wont miss about an I1 pro:

1) Dark Readings
2) Wonky activity below 30 IRE

My 2nd choice is the ColorMunki Spectro...

If I am only going to have one meter, I want a Spectro. Since the Jeti 1211 or Photo Research PR-655 is out of my budget, it's the i1 Pro or ColorMunki.

I actually own several i1 Pros and one ColorMunki along with a Klein K-10. With the K-10, I can profile it to one of my i1 Pros but I do actually have access to someone who can do tables for me by profiling it to a PR-655. Perhaps one day I will sell my stock of i1Pros and add the 1211 or PR-655 - I had an opportunity to pick up a used 1211 but passed and forwarded the info to 3 Calibrators, 1 jumped immediately on it.. I'm not sure I made the right decision to pass

Next time you get some extra cash, add the I1Display 3 to the mix.


I see there is a used I1 Pro for sale from another Forum Member... is the right decision to pass?

Colormunki is one Ive never tried.

That Munki was around $300 in the beginning.. X-Rite raised the retail I believe... I think it's $150 more now...

You still need software, but I edited my post and removed the budget up to $600..

Owning just one, it's the i1Pro then ColorMunki (depending on your budget) for my recommendation...

Greetings

Beyond human perception? dE of 3 or less is considered that. A dE 3 versus dE 4 ... same difference. A dE 1 versus dE 6 ...profiled versus tables ...

The bottom line is ... maybe the dE is closer on one TV and not another ... but how do you know? Cross your fingers and take the word of the guy selling you the hardware he wants to sell you? You'd have more certainty if you had a spectro to verify every time ... but then, you wouldn't need to ask this question.

regards

it still needs the dark reading

but seriously, this doesn't add much time to the calibration.. What's the rush? I'd rather spend the time getting it right. I know it's frustrating when you are first starting out or even calibrating a display model for the first time... Professionals have been using the i1Pro for a long time and they don't get paid more for their time taking the dark readings... many of these guys have both an I1Pro and Chroma 5 (which is never used). They are paid the same regardless if they use either.. they choose to take the dark readings...

Greetings

Why is calibration a race? If you are a BB guy ... then it is because you only have 80 minutes to do a calibration. If you are not on a clock ... what difference does it make? Over the course of a 4 hour calibration session from the pro end ... the i1 pro adds maybe 15 min on top of that.

regards

Personally I'm a huge fan of having two meters.

A spectro to get the accuracy and a colorimeter to get the low light sensitivity.

oops... meant to type doesn't


I know DIYers like to calibrate, change setting(s), check calibration/make adjustment, change more settings, check calibration/make adjustments - oh now we don't like it at 32fL, lets try 36fL... start over.. damn wife turned on all the lights during the wb run, got to restart that.. hungry, need to take break.. thought of another setting to try, another picture mode etc etc etc.. tick tock - damn dark reading timer

a couple of days later, watched another move.. something doesn't look right.. time to: calibrate, change setting(s), check calibration/make adjustment, change more settings.............

the following week, read something from a forum, need to try that now.....

those dark readings can make things 'fun' - tick tock

EDIT: Oh guess what now, 3 weeks later, it's time to calibrate for 3D, your wife is eager to check it out... without an i1Pro, what meter <$1200 are you going to use?

I have a D3, and recently got an i1Pro. I love having both meters, it's very simple to profile before the calibration. Then after, I can double check with the i1Pro if I need to. As said many times, I definitely recommend having the 2 meter setup.

P.S. If I had to choose between the two, it'd be the i1Pro.

Personally I'm just a huge fan of the standard i1 Pro. For absolute accuracy you won't fine anything more accurate for less.

I have to echo what Michael, Turbe , Sotti, and ElectronicTonic have stated....if you can only have 1 meter...i1pro.

RayJr

on your display? what about the next display and the next?

What reference meter do you verify the accuracy of your D3 PRO or C6 on each display? If you do use a reference meter to check, when was it re-certifed/re-checked using an integrating sphere?

Basically, how do we know?

Well with the C6 we are starting to get close. With our ability to extend the expected spectral response of the various displays coupled with the excellent filter set makes it a great choice.

I still really like spectro's versus colorimeters in general. Spectro's measure real physical properties of light, colorimeters seek to emulate the way our eye percieves light. It may soon be that using a different CMF (Color Matching Function) to convert the spectrum to XYZ is something people may want to start toying with. Standard colorimeters cannot do that since their filter set is suppose to match the '31 observer curves. That is something a spectro can do.

My choice is the ColorMunki Spectro for those on a absolute budget. Then the i1Pro or a C6 depending on your goals. If you can afford/justify both a i1Pro and a C6 even better.

We also have a ColorMunki Spectro rental program for $99 probably the best option of all.

If you were going to profile the C6 against the i1 Pro instead of using its enhanced tables, why not just use a regular D3?

Um.. could have something to do with his day job....

The C6 does have some speed advantages due to it's adaptive exposure algorithm. But in general you'd get a virtually identical end results, just might take a little longer (but not much).

Does the D3 have all the sync modes the C6 has? I can't seem to remember if it did when I still had my OEM D3.

According to this Review, they have measured nearly 10 units of each colorimeter/spectrometer of each type which are commercially available and they have found that the i1PRO is not as accurate as supposed using a reference grade Photo Research PR-730 1nm spectro.

http://www.drycreekphoto.com/Learn/C...nHardware.html

Does anyone have compared a reference spectro like JETI, Minolta, Photo Research with a i1PRO to see how close in dE the i1PRO is following the reference?

I did this recently with a Pioneer plasma.

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

Errors in white and green are in the 0.004-0.005 range.

As stated in the above link the test is not conclusive nor done in a lab environment so I have to call FUD on this one.

In order to properly evaluate a meters performance it needs to be done in a lab environment with tightly controlled tolerances. Those tolerances are for temperature, lighting, humidity and mechanical. The mechanical tolerances are down to just 1mm or less and 1 degree of angle or less.

In the example above it is shown a tristimulus meter being calibrated to a display using a spectroradiometer. This process involves reading a White, Red, Green, Blue sequence on the display using a spectroradiometer and then again with the tristimulus meter. When done properly you should see differential tolerances in xy of less than +/- 0.001 and less than +/- 2% Y. What does done properly mean? Done properly is different for each meter and display type. But at the very least the two meters being used need to have the same field of view within 1 mm be reading the exact and I mean exact same spot on the display and less than 1 degree of angle difference. The i1Pro has a very small aperture and a narrow field of view. So in order for the i1Pro FOV to match anything else you have to pull it off of the display but then you have to deal with mechanical alignment and lighting control. Lighting control has to be done in an absolute black room not even the light from equipment leds can be allowed.

In the above example the i1Pro was shown to be different than a Jeti 1211 on a Plasma. As with any fixed pixel structure display you get non pure light effects from the display. If a display put out just pure light then FOV would not matter as much. But on Plasma if you use high magnification you can see the area between each pixel. Also on Plasma that area between the pixels can look to be a shade of green because of the coatings on the display. So with an i1Pro in contact mode on a Plasma it is also seeing the green pixel structure and can give you false results.

Also in the above example the i1Display3 that was calibrated to the Plasma using a Jeti 1211 was shown to get closer results than the i1Pro on a Plasma why? Because it was calibrated to it so it should if done correctly have results within +/- 0.001 xy but it does not. Again it’s all about having the proper lab, knowledge and procedures to do this.

What is my take away from the above test? Well all it shows is the i1Pro was seeing something different then the calibrated Display3. Even the Display3 was not giving results I would conceder acceptable.

So what does SpectraCal find in the lab with the i1Pro. We NIST recertify hundreds of i1Pro we have yet to find one outside the factory accepted tolerances. We have had one fail but that was an internal diagnostics failure and was not giving any readings must have been dropped hard. In order to NIST recertify the i1Pro we have the lab starting with a CS-2000 that is environmentally controlled. We have mechanical jigs that give us tolerances of less than 1 mm. The reference displays are allowed to properly warm up in most cases this takes at least one hour. So in order to properly evaluate a meter you need a lab with a fair amount of gear, procedures and knowledge, lots of time.

A bit of my background to stand behind my above statements. I have been doing this type of work for a living for over 30 years. I have a background in computer science, electronic design, audio testing, military specification testing procedures and color science. I started my computer science in 1975 so going on some 36 years. Audio testing and calibration in 1983. Electronics design and military specification testing in 1985. Color science is the most resent in 2003.

The mil-spec certification procedures for electronic components are very similar to what we do for NIST certifications. So setting up a NIST lab was fairly straight forward from my background. But we wanted to make sure it was done right and we did not want over look anything so we hired Ed Kelly of NIST the guy that authored a lot of specification used today to help us setup our NIST lab and train our lab techs.

What has been so cool about forming SpectraCal in 2005 is I get to use most of my skills and knowledge I have acquired over the last 30+ years. I also have a long list of guys I can call on to confer with on ideas. Those include Ed Kelly, Charles Poynton, David Long, Jim Sullivan, Joel Silver, Joe Kane, Michael Chen, John Dahl, Gerry Lemay, Tom Leanza and many others. I’m in the processing of reviewing sections of Charles Poynton’s next book for him. So even thought color science is a relatively new area of study for me only the last 8 years I have an extensive background in lab research, testing, calibration and certification. As you can tell I have a huge passion for all of this just like most of you. My goal is to educate as many as I can on proper color science and display calibration.