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

D2 compared to i1pro - Page 3

post #61 of 90
5/24/12 at 4:13am
Quote:
Originally Posted by HDTVChallenged View Post

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

Completely agreed - the distinction you've been trying to make here is an important one. Achieving a single set of results that agree with conventional wisdom is by no means validation of anything. Good science relies on controls, lots of observation, and repeatability; good statistics to support a conclusion relies on a viable set of data. Attaining both is a time consuming and iterative processe.

None of the above makes the OP's statements incorrect in an absolute sense, however you've already shown how their validity can be picked apart without further data collection.
Reply
Reply

AVS Top Picks

post #62 of 90
5/24/12 at 9:49am
^^^
... As they say, a broken clock still tells the correct time at least once a day.
Reply
Reply
post #63 of 90
5/24/12 at 10:16am
Quote:
Originally Posted by HDTVChallenged View Post

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.

I'll agree that one data point doesn't tell the whole story but that doesn't mean the information provided from it is useless, just that it is one piece of the puzzle.

Quote:
Originally Posted by HDTVChallenged View Post

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 ....

Like I said earlier, those in favor of not recommending the D2 to those getting their feet wet in DIY calibration are only doing so to prevent the new guys from wasting money on a meter which may not work well at all with their specific display/display technology. Since not everyone uses the D2 only for CRTs and LCDs, one cannot assume the D2 will be accurate across all display types (unlike a spectro which can by design, whether it is considered a reference instrument or not).

Quote:
Originally Posted by HogPilot View Post

Completely agreed - the distinction you've been trying to make here is an important one. Achieving a single set of results that agree with conventional wisdom is by no means validation of anything. Good science relies on controls, lots of observation, and repeatability; good statistics to support a conclusion relies on a viable set of data. Attaining both is a time consuming and iterative processe.

None of the above makes the OP's statements incorrect in an absolute sense, however you've already shown how their validity can be picked apart without further data collection.

If several data points were provided, the results would be more conclusive. I'm willing to bet the D2 might have issues on various display types, especially those for which it has no tables for.
Reply
Reply
post #64 of 90
5/24/12 at 10:50am
Quote:
Originally Posted by PlasmaPZ80U View Post


how much closer was the C6?

To me, this is the key piece of info that is missing in this scenario. The fact that the unprofiled C6 was not also checked on the same display. This would have shown how a D2 compared to a more expensive colorimeter for this display type. At least it would have compared two colorimeters, instead of a colorimeter and a spectro. Kinda shows a lack of curiosity.

I've learned from trading PM's with another member here that my D2 is actually closer to a spectro than his C6 (on CCFL LCD display). Only by 1dE. I'm sure that would not be the case on other display types, but I'd sure like to see the numbers for this case.
Reply
Reply
post #65 of 90
5/24/12 at 11:38am
Quote:
Originally Posted by djams View Post

To me, this is the key piece of info that is missing in this scenario. The fact that the unprofiled C6 was not also checked on the same display. This would have shown how a D2 compared to a more expensive colorimeter for this display type. At least it would have compared two colorimeters, instead of a colorimeter and a spectro. Kinda shows a lack of curiosity.

I've learned from trading PM's with another member here that my D2 is actually closer to a spectro than his C6 (on CCFL LCD display). Only by 1dE. I'm sure that would not be the case on other display types, but I'd sure like to see the numbers for this case.

I would be curious to see some more results on how a profiled D2 stacks up to am un-profiled C6. You can get a used i1pro and an unused D2 for about the price of the C6 if you are patient....so it's worth knowing.
Reply
Reply
post #66 of 90
5/24/12 at 11:53am
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by curlyjive View Post

I would be curious to see some more results on how a profiled D2 stacks up to am un-profiled C6. You can get a used i1pro and an unused D2 for about the price of the C6 if you are patient....so it's worth knowing.

Michael Chen has done extensive testing of the C6 and posted the info, it needs to be profiled just like the D2 on most displays.
http://www.tlvexp.ca/2012/04/do-cali...-stim-devices/
Reply
Reply
post #67 of 90
5/24/12 at 12:57pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by airscapes View Post

Michael Chen has done extensive testing of the C6 and posted the info, it needs to be profiled just like the D2 on most displays.
http://www.tlvexp.ca/2012/04/do-cali...-stim-devices/

Well then, I guess it is fair to say that unless you have a spectro, you really don't know what your getting. Paying more will likely get you a more accurate meter with less drift over time. I have no doubt the C6 is a better piece of hardware than the d2, but mostly because it is sealed and can read lower more reliably. Like you said, it needs to be profiled. So at that point, needing to have 2 meters, how good does your colorimeter need to be?

Seems to me, if you are serious about getting accurate results, you need a spectro....period. You could do pretty well with just a spectro if your graycale is pretty linear. If you can get a good reading a 30% and 40%, then you can hope that 20 and below will follow.....and if you don't have any other controls (ie multipoint gamma) it really doesn't matter as you couldn't do much to fix it anyway. A spectro might even be good enough for gamma, as it can read luminance better than RGB at darker levels.

I guess we could beat this to death over what qualifies as good enough, which is why I chose the word accurate..... after all what's the point if you're not aiming for accuracy. You might as well do it by eye if good enough is all your after.

At this point, for me, I wouldn't want to use any colorimeter without a spectro. to profile it with. So then, again, it becomes a matter of how good the colorimeter needs to be.
Reply
Reply
post #68 of 90
5/24/12 at 12:58pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by airscapes View Post

Michael Chen has done extensive testing of the C6 and posted the info, it needs to be profiled just like the D2 on most displays.
http://www.tlvexp.ca/2012/04/do-cali...-stim-devices/

I'd say in the future it wouldn't hurt to include the unprofiled C6 data/dE's when making such comparisons. It would be info I'm sure at least some posters would like to have.
Reply
Reply
post #69 of 90
5/24/12 at 1:09pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by curlyjive View Post

Well then, I guess it is fair to say that unless you have a spectro, you really don't know what your getting. Paying more will likely get you a more accurate meter with less drift over time. I have no doubt the C6 is a better piece of hardware than the d2, but mostly because it is sealed and can read lower more reliably. Like you said, it needs to be profiled. So at that point, needing to have 2 meters, how good does your colorimeter need to be?

Seems to me, if you are serious about getting accurate results, you need a spectro....period. You could do pretty well with just a spectro if your graycale is pretty linear. If you can get a good reading a 30% and 40%, then you can hope that 20 and below will follow.....and if you don't have any other controls (ie multipoint gamma) it really doesn't matter as you couldn't do much to fix it anyway. A spectro might even be good enough for gamma, as it can read luminance better than RGB at darker levels.

I guess we could beat this to death over what qualifies as good enough, which is why I chose the word accurate..... after all what's the point if you're not aiming for accuracy. You might as well do it by eye if good enough is all your after.

At this point, for me, I wouldn't want to use any colorimeter without a spectro. to profile it with. So then, again, it becomes a matter of how good the colorimeter needs to be.

Yes, whether you have D2 or a C6 or a Klein K-10, they all need to be profiled against a spectro on the actual display being calibrated. The more expensive colorimeters might have lower errors on average across all display types (and that's an assumption of course), but if you're interested in absolute color accuracy you must own or at least have access to a spectro.
Reply
Reply
post #70 of 90
5/24/12 at 1:38pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by HDTVChallenged View Post

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 ...


On black Friday I picked my Mitsubishi 73" for $780! I couldn't resist. Sure it doesn't hang on the wall but you can't touch DLP in the price per inch dept. You can usually pick this one up for around $1300 year round.
Reply
Reply
post #71 of 90
5/24/12 at 1:38pm
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by PlasmaPZ80U View Post

I'd say in the future it wouldn't hurt to include the unprofiled C6 data/dE's when making such comparisons. It would be info I'm sure at least some posters would like to have.

I probably should have used a different title.. something like D2 unprofiled and profiled.. which was really what this WAS about..

Never Fear PlasmaPZ80U, I will never post anything else like this. If I see the would be D2er I will PM them and pass on data rather than post anything.
I did no not waste time running a post cal on the unprofiled C6, I had just driven 2 hours and I was not there to gather data for the this post, I was there to help out a AVS member that needed his D2 profiled and his display calibrated with more accurate equipment. He wanted to know how different his meter read than the i1pro so I did the precal reading to show him. After the fact I figured this would be good info since more than one AVSer that I have personally helped out would have gone down the single meter D2 path had I not offered to help.

Unfortunately this thread will be no help to anyone one new at this point, they will just be completely confused..
Reply
Reply
post #72 of 90
5/24/12 at 1:56pm
Doug,

I appreciate the help, and info that you provide to these boards. The interwebs can be rough sometimes, keep on posting.
Reply
Reply
post #73 of 90
5/24/12 at 2:37pm
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by ElectronicTonic View Post

Doug,

I appreciate the help, and info that you provide to these boards. The interwebs can be rough sometimes, keep on posting.

Thanks, and don't worry, I will post, just not this sort of thing.. should have known better!
Reply
Reply
post #74 of 90
5/25/12 at 1:02am
Quote:
Originally Posted by PlasmaPZ80U View Post

Like I said earlier, those in favor of not recommending the D2 to those getting their feet wet in DIY calibration are only doing so to prevent the new guys from wasting money on a meter which may not work well at all with their specific display/display technology. Since not everyone uses the D2 only for CRTs and LCDs, one cannot assume the D2 will be accurate across all display types (unlike a spectro which can by design, whether it is considered a reference instrument or not).

LOL .. well considering that the last "new" D2 came off of the production line at least 1 (or 1.5) years ago, I think we can safely assume that the scourge and horror of the beast will soon be over. Which is reason number 5001 why this was a bit of a silly, pointless sideshow in the first place.

And for the record, if "the usual suspects" had had their ducks in a row 8 or 9 months ago, things might have played out differently personally ... But at the time I bought my D2, the "newer generation devices" were a complete cypher. And from monitoring the reports here, apparently there are still a few "kinks." IOW, my D2 was a stopgap measure ... and I was fully aware of all the (potential) warts before hand.

So I guess: Thanks for trying to protecting me from myself ???? .... Maybe I could have bought ten more pizzas for the price of my D2.
Reply
Reply
post #75 of 90
5/25/12 at 1:06am
Quote:
Originally Posted by mfish123 View Post

On black Friday I picked my Mitsubishi 73" for $780! I couldn't resist. Sure it doesn't hang on the wall but you can't touch DLP in the price per inch dept. You can usually pick this one up for around $1300 year round.

Yes it was tempting, but ultimately I have "bigger" plans ... and I just don't want to deal with another huge box ... or lack of a working "native" 24p mode ... and halos ... et al. ... Nevertheless, enjoy! That sounds like a pretty good score.
Reply
Reply
post #76 of 90
5/25/12 at 1:09am
Quote:
Originally Posted by airscapes View Post

I probably should have used a different title.. something like D2 unprofiled and profiled.. which was really what this WAS about..

Yes ... that's most likely what triggered my "rage."

I know you meant well, but sometimes you just wind up adding to the noise and confusion level, which is why I refuse to share or post any calibration results ... or comparisons between instruments ... because unless you reference everything to *one* designated NIST certification level instrument, your results, sadly, are pretty much meaningless. Worse, if you're only comparing two consumer grade instruments, you're just going to be forever wondering which one is right.

PS: Preferably, you would actually have at least three NIST level reference instruments reading in agreement as your "reference." ... If you're really serious about accuracy.
Reply
Reply
post #77 of 90
5/25/12 at 2:12am
Quote:
Originally Posted by PlasmaPZ80U View Post

I'll agree that one data point doesn't tell the whole story but that doesn't mean the information provided from it is useless, just that it is one piece of the puzzle.

I had an entire post typed out, but I think HDTVChallenged summed everything up nicely above.
Reply
Reply
post #78 of 90
5/25/12 at 8:59am
I've been following this thread with fascination and horror. Watching it go up and down, left and right, and taking no prisoners. I'm a little apprehensive about posting this question but here goes:

If a professional calibrator comes out to your house, is it to be assumed that the instruments that they use are currently calibrated (and currently is the operative word) to an NIST standard or reference material. And if so, should they have said calibration certificate or sticker (with instrument serial number affixed) with them so that the customer can check and be assured that the instruments used are reference checked. It seems to me that even with the high end instrumentation, there may be some variability and the only way to assure that the readings are as accurate as they can be for that instrument and time frame is to have the documentation handy. Or is that just fantasy thinking on my part and I missed the basic point of the original question about consumer-grade meters which could be applicable to the higher end meters as well? Be gentle. It's just a question and not a statement or allegation.
Reply
Reply
post #79 of 90
5/25/12 at 9:38am
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Otto Pylot View Post

I've been following this thread with fascination and horror. Watching it go up and down, left and right, and taking no prisoners. I'm a little apprehensive about posting this question but here goes:

If a professional calibrator comes out to your house, is it to be assumed that the instruments that they use are currently calibrated (and currently is the operative word) to an NIST standard or reference material. And if so, should they have said calibration certificate or sticker (with instrument serial number affixed) with them so that the customer can check and be assured that the instruments used are reference checked. It seems to me that even with the high end instrumentation, there may be some variability and the only way to assure that the readings are as accurate as they can be for that instrument and time frame is to have the documentation handy. Or is that just fantasy thinking on my part and I missed the basic point of the original question about consumer-grade meters which could be applicable to the higher end meters as well? Be gentle. It's just a question and not a statement or allegation.

Nope. You would need to ask. Do not assume anything from anyone. Do not assume I know what I am talking about or anyone else for that matter, I could be a 12 year old. This business is no different than IT consultant, auto repair, construction worker, baby sitter.. it is a service provided by a suposid expert to the client. The client must do the background check on what they will get from said contractor. No regulation here, beside how much of the population do you really think knows what TV Calibration is.
To Quote my cousins when I asked if they would like their new Sony Calibrated they said "Why? It is brand new! It look great!"
Just because someone has a website and charges $400 does not make them good at what they do.. And yes, I think we should be very afraid of where we are going now.
Reply
Reply
post #80 of 90
5/25/12 at 9:59am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Otto Pylot View Post

I've been following this thread with fascination and horror. Watching it go up and down, left and right, and taking no prisoners. I'm a little apprehensive about posting this question but here goes:

If a professional calibrator comes out to your house, is it to be assumed that the instruments that they use are currently calibrated (and currently is the operative word) to an NIST standard or reference material. And if so, should they have said calibration certificate or sticker (with instrument serial number affixed) with them so that the customer can check and be assured that the instruments used are reference checked. It seems to me that even with the high end instrumentation, there may be some variability and the only way to assure that the readings are as accurate as they can be for that instrument and time frame is to have the documentation handy. Or is that just fantasy thinking on my part and I missed the basic point of the original question about consumer-grade meters which could be applicable to the higher end meters as well? Be gentle. It's just a question and not a statement or allegation.

Yes if you are paying for a service then asking for proof the equipment being used is certified and has not expired is not out of the question. Same goes for the calibrator they should also be able to show they have been trained. Any calibrator worth hiring should be able to produce the NIST cert for their meters or a copy of it and would not be offended. In fact they should be touting the fact that the equipment they used is certified and they have been through proper training.
Reply
Reply
post #81 of 90
5/25/12 at 10:04am
Quote:
Originally Posted by airscapes View Post

And yes, I think we should be very afraid of where we are going now.

LOL ... I could share my suspicions ... about .... ..... .... must .... control .... fingers ... of ... wrath .... but I won't.

.... OK, I can't stand it anymore so I'll just say it once and be done with it. A large part of my rage about all of the issues we've covered above is this:

It always seems like the latest "instrument you really, really need to buy to get a good result" is priced just low enough to temp smart-ass DIY'ers like myself (who by the way has been dabbling at this calibration thing for 7 years longer than this forum has existed***,) but at the same time priced just "high enough" to discourage droves of people from abandoning their "pro-calibrators," who are willing to pay even more for the extra-special, NIST-labled instrument with the kung-fu grip. Then suddenly the previous "instrument that you really, really needed to buy" becomes "obsolete and completely worthless."

I'm not trying to imply that anyone is evil here, I'm just providing a little long-term historical perspective so folks might better understand the recent "Lewis Blackness" of my posts. Nor, would I imply that this is solely a calibration business thing ... there's always the auto industry, which probably invented the model.

***PS: This is also how I know that the "homemade optical comparator contraption thingy" and "eyeballing it" methods really are a complete waste of time.
Reply
Reply
post #82 of 90
5/25/12 at 11:00am
@HDTVChallenged

Forgot to mention that I liked your broken clock analogy
Reply
Reply
post #83 of 90
5/25/12 at 12:27pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by HDTVChallenged View Post

***PS: This is also how I know that the "homemade optical comparator contraption thingy" and "eyeballing it" methods really are a complete waste of time.

Please do hang around, those types tend to drop through here on a regular basis. Having been down that road and realized its futility, maybe you can communicate that in a way they'll understand rather than taking it as the big-bad calibration people beating up on them because they have a "different" idea!
Reply
Reply
post #84 of 90
5/25/12 at 1:48pm
Here we go again...

It's a sad display here in the Calibration area, so much petty arguing and bickering from obviously intelligent adults.

Jason
Reply
Reply
post #85 of 90
5/25/12 at 4:17pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Otto Pylot View Post

@HDTVChallenged

Forgot to mention that I liked your broken clock analogy

HogPilot's "binary" joke had me chuckling for awhile too .... the things you miss when you turn off the signature/tag lines.

... still waiting to see if any other "geezers" out there pick up on the 'kung-fu grip' reference.
Reply
Reply
post #86 of 90
5/25/12 at 7:56pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by HDTVChallenged View Post

HogPilot's "binary" joke had me chuckling for awhile too .... the things you miss when you turn off the signature/tag lines.

... still waiting to see if any other "geezers" out there pick up on the 'kung-fu grip' reference.

Guess I don't qualify as a "geezer" (even tho I feel like one at times) cause I don't get it
Reply
Reply
post #87 of 90
5/25/12 at 10:06pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Otto Pylot View Post

Guess I don't qualify as a "geezer" (even tho I feel like one at times) cause I don't get it

In the most bizarre coincidence I've seen in awhile, the movie (from 1983) that it comes from is showing on Cinemax tonight/early AM: Stars Dan Ackroyd and Eddie Murphy ... as a matter of fact, it's on right now.
Reply
Reply
post #88 of 90
5/26/12 at 10:04am
^^^ obviously I missed that one, which is surprising because I like DA and EM. Time to fire up the Netflix queue.
Reply
Reply
post #89 of 90
5/26/12 at 10:20am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Otto Pylot View Post

^^^ obviously I missed that one, which is surprising because I like DA and EM. Time to fire up the Netflix queue.

"Trading Spaces" ... I caught just in time to hit the record button on the DVR ... It'll be the first time I've seen it in HD and WS (if not OAR.)

... I mean "Trading Places" ... TLC et. al. clearly got the inspiration for their title from this movie.
Reply
Reply
post #90 of 90
6/13/12 at 11:31pm
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 › D2 compared to i1pro