or Connect
AVS › AVS Forum › Display Devices › Display Calibration › D2 compared to i1pro
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

D2 compared to i1pro - Page 2

post #31 of 90
Quote:
Originally Posted by curlyjive View Post


Thought about that....but doesn't the C6 read lower and faster? The RS40 isgets pretty dark, and shadow detail gets lost....so any extra sensitivity might help.

I believe they are both supposed to be sealed designs....not sure if the C6 is supposed to hold up longer though.

There's been a lot of confusion about the differences of the 2 meters, but I think they're essentially the same meter. If you didn't have something to profile with, the C6 would be the way to go, it comes pre loaded with some profiles. I have an i1Display, and profile it to an i1Pro, it reads plenty fast. This is all just my own opinion, and it might be wrong.
post #32 of 90
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by curlyjive View Post

Thought about that....but doesn't the C6 read lower and faster? The RS40 isgets pretty dark, and shadow detail gets lost....so any extra sensitivity might help.

I believe they are both supposed to be sealed designs....not sure if the C6 is supposed to hold up longer though.

The C6 has firmware changes allowing table updates with Calman and an adaptive exposure that will actually make it read longer to get better readings as it gets into lower light. The D3 does not have this automated exposure. Also, if you end up buying Calman, any issues with the meter/firmware/calman I would think would be addressed faster since the C6 is their meter. Lastly the accuracy of the meter is NIST certified and documented so you know what you are getting. This cert does not make it more accurate, just verifies the tolerances against a traceable reference meter. All that aside same optics as the cheaper D3, is the C6 worth the premium price.. no idea..
post #33 of 90
Quote:
Originally Posted by airscapes View Post

The C6 has firmware changes allowing table updates with Calman and an adaptive exposure that will actually make it read longer to get better readings as it gets into lower light. The D3 does not have this automated exposure. Also, if you end up buying Calman, any issues with the meter/firmware/calman I would think would be addressed faster since the C6 is their meter. Lastly the accuracy of the meter is NIST certified and documented so you know what you are getting. This cert does not make it more accurate, just verifies the tolerances against a traceable reference meter. All that aside same optics as the cheaper D3, is the C6 worth the premium price.. no idea..

It also lets you take up to 20 samples per reading (which are auto avg'd); I believe the standard D3 only takes one sample per reading.
post #34 of 90
Quote:
Originally Posted by airscapes View Post

This is exactly what happened to mfish's Mitsubishi.
Here are the deltaEs OUT OF BOX

i1pro out of box DeltaEs
dE76 1.6474 1.6557 1.9415 2.6283 2.7062 3.118 3.5121 3.931 3.7292

D2 out of box DeltaEs
dE76 3.3913 3.7905 5.768 6.4981 7.6321 8.8111 10.7827 11.4731 16.0817

As you see, if you calibrate to a DeltaE of .6 with D2 which can be achieved, you have really made things much worse than not even touching it!

You're assuming that the D2 wasn't "defective" a/o was stored properly. Some people just seem to have extremely bad luck with their not-so-expensive modern electronic devices.

Of course there's still the RPTV + DLP factors to consider: Again, the D2 wasn't really designed for either of those two techs ... and you've combined them into one big problem. So ... DUH????

I'm assuming that you at least made sure the room was completely dark to avoid any light reflections back through the screen.

The bottom line here is you can't really trust *any* colorimeter without profiling it to a reference meter. If you think you're going to avoid the issue by throwing more money at a D3Pro, C6 or whatever, you're just fooling yourself.

So the only real question to ask, is how much do you want to spend on an instrument. If you're only willing to spend $150 or less then your options are limited ... or of the rental variety. OTOH, if you're going to go the 'profile it to a "reference spectro" route' anyway, then maybe you should ask yourself if you really need a D3Pro or C6 ... maybe you can "get by" with a lowly D2 ... if only they weren't out of production.

So now that this topic has been hashed through for approximately the billionth time on the forum, perhaps we can move on to something more useful.

PS: For the record, the last professional grade optical comparator had a price tag of ~$850 ... used properly it would help you set grayscale at two points ... it's been out of production for at least 8 years. Carry on.
post #35 of 90
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by HDTVChallenged View Post

You're assuming that the D2 wasn't "defective" a/o was stored properly. Some people just seem to have extremely bad luck with their not-so-expensive modern electronic devices.

So how does one know? And knowing you can't trust them why would you even think about spending any money on something uncertain to "Calibrate" your display?

Of course there's still the RPTV + DLP factors to consider: Again, the D2 wasn't really designed for either of those two techs ... and you've combined them into one big problem. So ... DUH????

So Mfish was dumb for buying the meter since he didn't want to spend a lot of money.. read your first post.

I'm assuming that you at least made sure the room was completely dark to avoid any light reflections back through the screen.

If you would bother to READ the first post you would have not needed to ask. If you had read Mfish's comments on what he did with the TV and D2 and his results you might not be now making a fool of yourself

The bottom line here is you can't really trust *any* colorimeter without profiling it to a reference meter. If you think you're going to avoid the issue by throwing more money at a D3Pro, C6 or whatever, you're just fooling yourself.

Yep, if you want it accurate that has always been the truth, but the new meter is a lot better than the one we are talking about. And the D3/C6 is not a $6000-$10000 meter either, so get a grip on the scale of the price tags for the real tools. Just happens the i1pro and Munkie are in the consumer range of affordability and are accurate

So the only real question to ask, is how much do you want to spend on an instrument.

That may be your question but it was not the question this thread is about. If you don't have the money to buy good tools, buy junk and get a junk picture your choice. But get the facts before you buy.. wait that is what I was doing, posting the info for others to read .. however the thread got dragged down the money hole. I don't do this for a living and I don't sell the equipment.

If you're only willing to spend $150 or less then your options are limited ...

What make you think that you should "HAVE" any options at that price? Cost me $60 to fill my gas tank, how do you figure a highly acculturate lab instrument for measuring color and light should be available for next to nothing?

or of the rental variety.

Great choice, $99 to rent a spectro, $50 for a D2 you got your wish!

OTOH, if you're going to go the 'profile it to a "reference spectro" route' anyway, then maybe you should ask yourself if you really need a D3Pro or C6 ...

You don't, if you do not plan on doing front projection or care about the 0-20 RGB reading on a flat panel. I have a projector so I need something that is sensitive at low light levels Oh, then there is the cost of the Spectro, you had talked about that earlier....

maybe you can "get by" with a lowly D2 ... if only they weren't out of production.

???????????????????????????

So now that this topic has been hashed through for approximately the billionth time on the forum, perhaps we can move on to something more useful.

So you have done this before?
Please do tell us what would be more useful to chat about? Oh, I know, lets talk about adjusting CMS using the D2 so the picture is not so RED or GREEN when we are all done!


PS: For the record, the last professional grade optical comparator had a price tag of ~$850 ... used properly it would help you set grayscale at two points ... it's been out of production for at least 8 years. Carry on.


See above post in RED. He got me at a moment of weakness I could not just ignore it .. sorry folks . Hope I proof read that enough..what a waste of time.. 30 minutes responding to that.. I would just say never mind and close the browser but I wasted all that time now! This will be my last response to the "Challenged one"
post #36 of 90
This thread proves people can be very defensive of their purchases/choices, so much to the point where the facts no longer matter to them. The D2 is cheap and can provide decent results on some displays but can also provide horrible results on other displays. My guess is this applies to LED-LCDs as well as DLP RPTVs among other display types the D2 wasn't explicitly designed for. Who knows, this problem may also occur on some CRTs, Plasmas, and CCFL-LCDs. Without a spectro you just don't know.
post #37 of 90
Quote:
Originally Posted by airscapes View Post

See above post in RED. He got me at a moment of weakness I could not just ignore it .. sorry folks . Hope I proof read that enough..what a waste of time.. 30 minutes responding to that.. I would just say never mind and close the browser but I wasted all that time now! This will be my last response to the "Challenged one"

Yes it's was a waste of time to dig up an equine that's been expired for a least half a decade, flog it for the billionth time, bury it again, dig it up, flog it a couple of more times ... and then pat yourself on the back for a job well done.

It's simple: if you want the accuracy of i1Pro ... buy or rent an i1Pro or i1Pro 2. Don't get upset when your D2 turns out not to be an i1Pro.

PS: Yes it's a bit silly to spend the big bucks on the 73" incher and then try to "cheap out" on your calibration option. Sounds more like a budget priority problem to me.

PPS: I'm completely satisfied with the current results from my D2 on my $525 EEFL LCD. I know that appears to cause some folks' heads to explode around here.
post #38 of 90
Quote:
Originally Posted by HDTVChallenged View Post

Yes it's was a waste of time to dig up an equine that's been expired for a least half a decade, flog it for the billionth time, bury it again, dig it up, flog it a couple of more times ... and then pat yourself on the back for a job well done.

It's simple: if you want the accuracy of i1Pro ... buy or rent an i1Pro or i1Pro 2. Don't get upset when your D2 turns out not to be an i1Pro.

PS: Yes it's a bit silly to spend the big bucks on the 73" incher and then try to "cheap out" on your calibration option. Sounds more like a budget priority problem to me.

PPS: I'm completely satisfied with the current results from my D2 on my $525 EEFL LCD. I know that appears to cause some folks' heads to explode around here.

The point of this thread is to illustrate a case where using the D2 is worse than leaving the advanced picture settings on the TV alone. So, anyone looking to buy a D2 can be aware that at the very least in some cases it can be worse than useless, actually making colors much less accurate post-cal vs. pre-cal. It's not about the i1Pro, but rather about the unreliability of the D2 and colorimeters in general. Calibrating is about making the picture objectively better and if the D2 cannot do that on some displays than it is useless on said displays. However, without a spectro you may not realize it if you happen to own one or more of those said displays.

Your posts indicate that what should be 'obvious' to readers of this thread still eludes you. So, perhaps you need to re-read this thread from start to finish until you get the point some of us are trying to make.
post #39 of 90
Quote:
Originally Posted by PlasmaPZ80U View Post

The point of this thread is to illustrate a case where using the D2 is worse than leaving the advanced picture settings on the TV alone.

The operative word here being "A" as in one single isolated data point.

The point I'm making is that it is possible to know the potential limitations of a device, and *still* be able to get useable results from the device. Indeed, in this case, apparently the D2 in question was still good enough to be profilable on the DLP.

So in a nutshell:

I made a $130 bet that my D2 would produce better results than trying to evaluate a 10 point greyscale by unaided human eyeball (on my LCD.) Airscapes et. al. made a $600 to $700 bet that his i1Pro would produce better results than a D2 (and by extension unaided human eyeball.) Both are pretty good bets.

Still doesn't change the fact that the only way to know the "truth" is to check *both* results against a $8000+ reference spectro. Otherwise, you're just kicking the can of uncertainty further down the road.

At what point do you stop and say, "That's good enough." When does it become more of an obsession with chasing a number as opposed to actual picture improvement.

PS: People are still buying RPTV's????

PPS: Again, all of this has been hashed out numerous times over the years and yes, at this point I automatically assume that these types of threads are less about the informational than they are about the promotional. But that's just me ...
post #40 of 90
Quote:
Originally Posted by HDTVChallenged View Post

[b]
PPS: Again, all of this has been hashed out numerous times over the years and yes, at this point I automatically assume that these types of threads are less about the informational than they are about the promotional. But that's just me ...

LOL Hash and rehash. . . corned beef hash anyone?

And the real kicker "people can be very defensive of their purchases/choices" . . . does that include owners of C6 meters too?


Nope it's not just you. . . I found this mildly entertaining, revealing, and somewhat humorous. I had a D2 and a Spyder 3. Maybe someday another meter . . . that won't drift. . . or cause me to make calibration run after calibration run through endless hours. Or maybe call in another calibrator . . . or two . . . and verify my meter and charts and numbers are ok! Naw. . . I'll just enjoy my TVs with the settings I have. Which are still better than 98% of what I see in other peoples homes.
post #41 of 90
It's dangerous to give opinions in the calibration threads, as people love turning up their flame torches to high in here.

Nothing can be worse than by eye, because it's YOUR eye, so even if it is worse than your EYE, your eye will tell you it was worse and then you can change it back, so it won't matter... It's not like we have 1-calibration preset on our devices and once we begin to change it we can never compare or go back. So IMHO, the worst case scenario is that a meter is equally deficient to the eye (but if it is worse to the eye, then just use your eyes to make it better again). However, even if equally deficient to the eye, it is unlikely to be as equally deficient at all points to the eye when mixing the best of two calibrations together (so it can still benefit). If you cannot tell the difference by eye between two calibrations after numerous comparisons (such as vs. an unaltered MFR preset), then it probably won't matter anyways if you are calibrating for yourself, because your eyes are what is interpreting the picture (unless you care what your friends think).

Plus the cheap meters can give you accurate overall gamma reads (even if inaccurate RGB points) for perceived contrast as well as number references, so they can have some benefit in knowing what numbers looked better to your eye, even is those numbers were off. It's like drawing a point of reference map, the map will suck, but at least you have some point of reference to find your way home even if you end up 20 miles off course. That doesn't mean because your map is not accurate that you get no benefit from the map, in which case without it there is at least some probability of ending up 100 miles off course.

The argument of exactly what MONEY point needs to be spent to have any reasonable meter is going to be different for every individual. The D3 or C6 is probably a good starting point for those that can afford it, but more expensive ones will of course be better to varying degrees (depending on your luck and your drift). The iPro Rev D (uv-cut) series seemed good on ebay according to some for a spectro, so I guess that combined with the d3 or c6 is the best cheap combination.
post #42 of 90
Quote:
Originally Posted by HDTVChallenged View Post

I made a $130 bet that my D2 would produce better results than trying to evaluate a 10 point greyscale by unaided human eyeball (on my LCD.) Airscapes et. al. made a $600 to $700 bet that his i1Pro would produce better results than a D2 (and by extension unaided human eyeball.) Both are pretty good bets.

Still doesn't change the fact that the only way to know the "truth" is to check *both* results against a $8000+ reference spectro. Otherwise, you're just kicking the can of uncertainty further down the road.

The i1Pro is a spectro and it reads very close to a reference spectro across all display types. It doesn't read too low so it must be paired with a colorimeter for best results.

However, it's absolute color accuracy is close enough to a reference instrument (extremely close) that it can be even used by pro calibrators just starting out not wanting to invest too much on calibration gear initially (which it often is, BTW).
post #43 of 90
Quote:
Originally Posted by Phase700B View Post

LOL Hash and rehash. . . corned beef hash anyone?

And the real kicker "people can be very defensive of their purchases/choices" . . . does that include owners of C6 meters too?


Nope it's not just you. . . I found this mildly entertaining, revealing, and somewhat humorous. I had a D2 and a Spyder 3. Maybe someday another meter . . . that won't drift. . . or cause me to make calibration run after calibration run through endless hours. Or maybe call in another calibrator . . . or two . . . and verify my meter and charts and numbers are ok! Naw. . . I'll just enjoy my TVs with the settings I have. Which are still better than 98% of what I see in other peoples homes.

And the myth of the cheap/free DIY optical comparator continues...

Regarding that bit on the C6, I'm well aware it's not perfect on its own and should be profiled against a spectro for best results. However, it's much more accurate than the standard D2 on average/in general. So, I'm not in denial about its limitations. Can you say the same about your approach to calibrating grayscale?
post #44 of 90
Quote:
Originally Posted by coderguy View Post

It's dangerous to give opinions in the calibration threads, as people love turning up their flame torches to high in here.

Nothing can be worse than by eye, because it's YOUR eye, so even if it is worse than your EYE, your eye will tell you it was worse and then you can change it back, so it won't matter... It's not like we have 1-calibration preset on our devices and once we begin to change it we can never compare or go back. So IMHO, the worst case scenario is that a meter is equally deficient to the eye (but if it is worse to the eye, then just use your eyes to make it better again). However, even if equally deficient to the eye, it is unlikely to be as equally deficient at all points to the eye when mixing the best of two calibrations together (so it can still benefit). If you cannot tell the difference by eye between two calibrations after numerous comparisons (such as vs. an unaltered MFR preset), then it probably won't matter anyways if you are calibrating for yourself, because your eyes are what is interpreting the picture (unless you care what your friends think).

Plus the cheap meters can give you accurate overall gamma reads (even if inaccurate RGB points) for perceived contrast as well as number references, so they can have some benefit in knowing what numbers looked better to your eye, even is those numbers were off. It's like drawing a point of reference map, the map will suck, but at least you have some point of reference to find your way home even if you end up 20 miles off course. That doesn't mean because your map is not accurate that you get no benefit from the map, in which case without it there is at least some probability of ending up 100 miles off course.

The argument of exactly what MONEY point needs to be spent to have any reasonable meter is going to be different for every individual. The D3 or C6 is probably a good starting point for those that can afford it, but more expensive ones will of course be better to varying degrees (depending on your luck and your drift). The iPro Rev D (uv-cut) series seemed good on ebay according to some for a spectro, so I guess that combined with the d3 or c6 is the best cheap combination.

if you have a meter has poor color accuracy, you can still get the gamma correct and flat and also get the RGB tracking flat (but off in terms of absolute color accuracy)... but why not just get a meter that has better color accuracy in the first place?

also, I agree with the bolded portion of your quote, that is the best DIY setup you can have right now
post #45 of 90
That's what I meant by RGB inaccurate (absolute accuracy), but perceived contrast is still important in relation to the overall gamma curve.

What someone needs to self-calibrate is really a personal preference, as opposed to calibrating other devices for money is different obviously. For one, when you go to someone's house, you have a limited amount of time, and I mean that is stress in itself.

I don't care what someone buys to calibrate their own devices, I'll be happy for them regardless, the point is just to fool around mostly, unless they are looking to become a PRO one day. Sure the point is also to get your display looking better, but considering you have 100000000 hours to do so, vs. 4-7 hours at someone's house as a PRO, I think there is a little more room for error on your own devices.

That said, if you can buy the D3 or C6, go for it, if you can buy the UV-Cut i1Pro + D3/C6, I say go for it. If you can only afford the $100 eye-one LT, hey why not, it's better than nothing (see the by eye argument). Don't waste money on lesser meters if you can afford to, but if you cannot buy something good now, then mise well have something to play around with.

Quote:
Originally Posted by PlasmaPZ80U View Post

if you have a meter has poor color accuracy, you can still get the gamma correct and flat and also get the RGB tracking flat (but off in terms of absolute color accuracy)... but why not just get a meter that has better color accuracy in the first place?

also, I agree with the bolded portion of your quote, that is the best DIY setup you can have right now

Because for some people they gotta pay their mortgage...

I agree, buy the D3/C6 combination with the i1Pro if you can afford it, and don't waste money on the lower meters if possible. But if you cannot afford anything like this for 1-2 years, mise well have something to play with now.
post #46 of 90
I have the C6, but still dealing with repeatibility issues. I have an eye-one LT which is off, haven't yet bothered to get the UV cut iPro, maybe will.

I mostly only calibrate front projectors (my own and a few others for free), don't mess with TV's too often. There are just a lot of "I must concede this for that" issues, so it's partly an art-form no matter how many people want to consider it pure science. I agree it's much closer to pure science when calibrating a reference-level device with reference-level equipment, but for most of us it's at best 80% science, and 20% art.

Before people claim to be an expert calibrator they have to be able to produce good results across many devices in a short amount of time (say under 8 hours). Also, for people that have never done so, it really helps to setup a WHOLE lot of different devices in one room and split screen to interpret the numbers in a real-world manner (much easier with better meters obviously). I guess rent a reference level monitor or device if possible (but too expensive for most of us). For anyone that has never done the latter for at least 500+ hours, and considers themselves an expert at calibration, I question it.

I have done so for about 1000 hours, and it does improve your abilities for sure, but I am still NOT an expert because I don't put enough effort into this hobby (not right now anyways). There are many people with far more expertise than me (especially on the theory), but some of the so-called experts are still rookies in my books, now some of the so-called experts are REALLY experts. It's also much easier to split-screen projectors than TV's, considering you can use lens-shift and do 3-way or even 4-way split screens.
post #47 of 90
Quote:
Originally Posted by coderguy View Post

I have the C6, but still dealing with repeatibility issues. I have an eye-one LT which is off, haven't yet bothered to get the UV cut iPro, maybe will.

I mostly only calibrate front projectors (my own and a few others for free), don't mess with TV's too often. There are just a lot of "I must concede this for that" issues, so it's partly an art-form no matter how many people want to consider it pure science. I agree it's much closer to pure science when calibrating a reference-level device with reference-level equipment, but for most of us it's at best 80% science, and 20% art.

Before people claim to be an expert calibrator they have to be able to produce good results across many devices in a short amount of time (say under 8 hours). Also, for people that have never done so, it really helps to setup a WHOLE lot of different devices in one room and split screen to interpret the numbers in a real-world manner (much easier with better meters obviously). I guess rent a reference level monitor or device if possible (but too expensive for most of us). For anyone that has never done the latter for at least 500+ hours, and considers themselves an expert at calibration, I question it, because they may be surprised what they will find. I have done so for about 1000 hours, and it does improve your abilities for sure. It's also much easier to split-screen projectors than TV's, considering you can use lens-shift and do 3-way or even 4-way split screens.

You make a valid point and I understand what you're trying to say, but calibration is still more science than art (like you say 80% science and 20% art) and as such, a line needs to be drawn at some point to keep the process as objective as possible and minimize subjectivity whenever possible. Otherwise, we end up 'calibrating' to a preference instead of the reference standard(s).
post #48 of 90
Yah, more science than ART is true, but it also depends on the problem and the device and the amount of time you have to face the issue.
post #49 of 90
Quote:
Originally Posted by HDTVChallenged View Post

Again, all of this has been hashed out numerous times over the years and yes, at this point I automatically assume that these types of threads are less about the informational than they are about the promotional. But that's just me ...

The OP and other posters who believe the D2 isn't worth the money have no financial interest in whether you buy a $150 meter or a $700-1000 one. No one is trying to sell or promote anything here, just to help someone new to calibration from wasting money on a meter that might give wildly inaccurate results.
post #50 of 90
I'm not convinced my C6 was worth it either, still playing around though. I should have just bought the iPro and profiled the LT against the iPro instead of buying the C6.
Now I have to buy the C6 and the iPro, but maybe I'll change my mind once I get the software working better (still thinking I might have a defective C6).
post #51 of 90
Quote:
Originally Posted by coderguy View Post

I'm not convinced my C6 was worth it either, still playing around though. I should have just bought the iPro and profiled the LT against the iPro instead of buying the C6.
Now I have to buy the C6 and the iPro, but maybe I'll change my mind once I get the software working better (still thinking I might have a defective C6).

If you end up with a c6 i1pro combo you should be in very good shape. I can get the d2 to be pretty close to the i1pro after profiling it and it is pretty constant. However I would bet the c6 will hold up longer and read much lower. Plus it is much easier to tripod mount.....ok not worth it for that alone! I'll still upgrade to a c6 or d3 this winter. I'll just have to decide if the c6 is worth it over the price of the d3 especially after factoring calman licensing with the Spector add on for my i1 pro. Honestly I winding most people would be better of with just a Spectro as their real limitation is speed a and low readings. Speed is not a huge issue for those of us not making slicing on this and I really wonder how accurate the c6 or d3 are below 30% for RGB anyway. Fine for gamma, but the specto is probably not much worse for that.
post #52 of 90
I would have been better off buying the i1Pro straight off and worrying about a second meter later, that's for sure. Maybe my combo will work, if I can get the C6 to work consistently in the first place. I just think I could have spent my money wiser, I didn't really want to spend over $1000 on calibration equipment, I would have been better off buying a Lumagen since my RS-45 doesn't have a 6-point CMS. It only has individual gamma and gray scale, color, and tint.
post #53 of 90
Quote:
Originally Posted by coderguy View Post

I would have been better off buying the i1Pro straight off and worrying about a second meter later, that's for sure. Maybe my combo will work, if I can get the C6 to work consistently in the first place. I just think I could have spent my money wiser, I didn't really want to spend over $1000 on calibration equipment, I would have been better off buying a Lumagen since my RS-45 doesn't have a 6-point CMS. It only has individual gamma and gray scale, color, and tint.

I hear ya. I have an rs40. Though gamut looks pretty good via the i1 pro. Btw how does the c6 seem to you below 30% given how dark the jvc's can get.
post #54 of 90
Quote:
Originally Posted by PlasmaPZ80U View Post

this is about a/v science, not beliefs

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...8#post22050938

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...5#post22051935

Science? Only when it suits I expect. Not much "science" in posts #23 and #24.

Plus.. you are off topic once again.
post #55 of 90
Quote:
Originally Posted by Phase700B View Post


you are off topic once again.

you're the only one in this thread promoting a DIY optical comparator approach, which is also off-topic

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...6#post22050186
post #56 of 90
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by curlyjive View Post

I hear ya. I have an rs40. Though gamut looks pretty good via the i1 pro. Btw how does the c6 seem to you below 30% given how dark the jvc's can get.

The C6 worked great with the RS40, it was the freaking multipoint of the RS40 that didn't work worth a carp..
post #57 of 90
Quote:
Originally Posted by PlasmaPZ80U View Post

you're the only one in this thread promoting a DIY optical comparator approach, which is also off-topic

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...6#post22050186

Since when does commenting about another posters material amount to "promoting"? And yet you say "no one is promoting or selling anything here"? Does that mean you do not promote use of a meter for calibration?

Really, this is and has gotten ridiculous. You can deny it all you want, but you do have your beliefs. Or do you not believe in the science of meter calibration you adhere to? Everything is a belief, including science. I am not discrediting anyone's use of a meter. I have agreed with other posters on their experience with the D2 as mine has been similarly disappointing. So have others made their comments about good and bad D2 experiences. The optical comparison was an incidental reference. Just because you choose to ridicule and find it unacceptable does not mean it lacks any merits. I never resorted to name juvenile name calling such as " Cheap Myth" as you and another negative poster have.

Once again, I am fine with anyone who chooses to spend whatever amount of money they wish on equipment for calibration. I have used a few meters and also find that alternative means still results in natural , detailed, and accurate enough display. Use of a meter is still also a mater of degree of accuracy as is any other method or choices. You yourself admit the C6 has limitations. As do other methods. But you seem to have a problem with anyone accepting possibly less performance from their methods and equipment than yours. I only wish that someone like me were around when I went through the process of buying two meters and found it was largely not worth it. In fact. . . . as I remember, you went through 2 D2 meters . . . . and we don't hear much about that or why.

So , if anything, I am here to voice my comments to those who do not wish to spend a pile of cash on meters and point out alternative ways of getting a good display on their TV and help them do it. A meter is not necessary to get good picture quality on a TV. If they find they are not satisfied and wish further refinement, of course a couple of meters can help them do that. As a few have pointed out on this thread, not everyone wishes to spend that kind of money and experience the uncertainty of meter performance.

But I'm sure you will still maintain your rigid and narrow view that anyone that does not make the choices you do for TV calibration is unacceptable.

That is all. Pardon to all other observers here in the thread.
post #58 of 90
Quote:
Originally Posted by PlasmaPZ80U View Post

The i1Pro is a spectro and it reads very close to a reference spectro across all display types.

Assuming that it isn't defective (as opposed to the D2.)

I'm not arguing the results of the original post ... just the shaky "scientific" method and unjustified sweeping conclusion.

All the OP really "knows" is that he has two versions of a possible truth, one of which is slightly more probable than the other. This is *not* conclusive evidence to say 'Device X was completely worthless.'

Furthermore, *if* you're going to assume/assert that a D2 (or other colorimeter) "needs" to be profiled to be accurate on a particular device, then I would argue that it probably needs to be re-profiled upon every use/session. You can't have it both ways ... either it's trustworthy enough on it's own or it isn't. Your choice, your money.
post #59 of 90
Quote:
Originally Posted by PlasmaPZ80U View Post

The OP and other posters who believe the D2 isn't worth the money have no financial interest in whether you buy a $150 meter or a $700-1000 one. No one is trying to sell or promote anything here, just to help someone new to calibration from wasting money on a meter that might give wildly inaccurate results.

Again ... just another unjustified assumption (AFAIK). It's the interwebs after all ... LOL.

But seriously, there was a time when things got pretty out of hand around here with all the claims and counter-claims ... that's about the same time I checked out for quite a while (years.) Are we happy about enticing me back into the fray now??? .... LOL ....
post #60 of 90
Come on guys, neither is going to convince the other so please let it go, it's truly not worth all the bickering.

Jason
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Display Calibration
AVS › AVS Forum › Display Devices › Display Calibration › D2 compared to i1pro