Projector Calibration Equipment (OpticOne vs Colorfacts)  

The only person qualified to answer this question is someone who has used both. Since they are quite expensive I suspect very few people fall into this category.

I use ColorFacts and I love it, but I've had no experience with OpticOne. If their marketing literature is accurate the sensor is much more responsive at low light levels.

What's the ballpark cost for each of these systems?

OpticOne $2200.00
ColorFacts $2400.00

Watch CES announcements. There will be a new (under $1000.) calibration tool coming.

Who from? Colorfacts?

Gary.

Possibly, or a reasonable facsimile of same :).

To be honest Gary I'm not sure how the label will read, only that it's coming.

Thanks Jimmy,

If it's half as good as CF currently is, it will sell very well at that price I'm sure. :)

Gary.

Hi Friend, as I mentioned before it will be officially announced at CES in Las Vegas. My information comes from a very good source and it's possible more info could get out sooner but at this time I have no idea what it will be called or any other details.

I use ColorFacts now with two probes *EyeOne and Trichromat-1. Guy's system is also very good and as I understand reads much faster in the the lower IRE's with about the same accuracy as ColorFacts.

Also be sure to consider the AccuPel 3000 pattern generator, it is very hi accuracy,will do DVI video and PC black levels. Here is the link. There is a demo on the site for the discontinued 2000 model, the patterns on the 3000 are about the same but it has added some new ones.

http://www.accupel.com/

Good tip. I bought one and its been one of the best investments Ive made.
I use it all the time.

Unfortunately it doesn't do 576i/p though, which have prevented me from getting one. Maybe in a future 4000 model, in which also support for RGBs, 1080p and both RGB and YCbCr over HDMI would be nice.

For those owners, potential owners of the OpticONE/Progressive Labs calibration package I have set up a HT forum neutral forum for us at:

OpticONE Forum

Hopefully it will be a easy place to share and help each other use it best.

Cheers,
Scott

I have owned both. I sold Colorfacts system, since I much prefer Optic One.

I find Optic One more accurate and easier to use, as well as having the more sensitive sensor.

Scott, I joined your forum. Now there are Three of us :)

WooHoo!

I missed the annouce? Were can I get info on that new product?

Well, Cliff has joined too. I asked him to keep an eye on use and chime in when possible. So we have "the man", now I just need mine to arrive to start playing, ahem, I mean working.

So, what was the CES announcement?

I think it fizzled out. IIRC, folks thought Milori was coming out with something but it didn't materialize. Well it did but it wasn't a "calibration tool". I think.

I find Optic One more accurate and easier to use, as well as having the more sensitive sensor.//free
...................What information do you have that Optic-One package has a more sensitive probe Phil ? It's quicker reading but I understand their both about the same regarding sensitivity.

Jimmy, actually, I believe the Optic One is also more sensitve to low light levels.

I can find Opticone with AVIA pro and a hard case way cheaper than Colorfact.

Base on what I have been reading the Opticone sensor is better and faster than the trichromat or eyebeamer.

So why do I only read post of people using Colorfact? Is Colorfact easier to used? Better result? Why should I pay 40% more to get Colorfact with the trichormat sensor than the Opticone?

Thanks!

Bruno

You can ask the developer's opinion himself at the opticone forum on yahoo groups (groups.yahoo.com). The OpticOne is more instrument oriented, no wizards. Colorfacts has wizards.

I've not seen the Opticone system, but I have seen Colorfacts.

I own SMART III, but couldn't believe how quick and simple Colorfacts was to use, and with the wizards, it's quick and simple to get results that can be viewed, saved and compared. Even for a novice it makes things easy to see so that you have a good idea of what is wrong with the image, but of course you then need to know what to do to get things reasonably accurate. I would think that would be the same for most systems though.

I now own the discontinued CF100 which has an older sensor, but is fine for hobbyist use IMHO. It certainly makes finding the correct color correction filter easier and of course makes it simple to calibrate for it. Colorfacts also has a 'training wizard' which allows you to train your sensor to another. I think this is so that you can calibrate any sensor you have to a master sensor which is calibrated. The other sensors are then calibrated to read in a similar way. If this is the case, it may save you haveing to send off all your other sensors for calibration. I tried it recently and it seems to work.

I would love to see the Opticone though and compare them myself.

Gary.

Gary,
As both a Smart III and Colorfacts owner/user you might be able to answer something that I have wondered about Smart III.

With Smart III If I understand correctly you are calibrating towards 6500k which unfortunately there are many different 6500k's , but with Colorfacts you would be going for x,y locations and find the one correct 6500k. Have you ever calibrated something with Smart III and then tested/recalibrated with Colorfacts to see how well Smart III worked? Or is my understanding wrong on Smart III and you can calibrate to an x,y location and not just to 6500k?

I have used the Milori, the Sencore, the Smart III, and the OpticOne. I ended up purchasing the OpticOne at a time when I could have purchased ColorFacts for the same price. Let me say that they are all good systems and will give good results depending on the needs of the user. Smart III is very affordable and gives accurate results, but it takes a lot of time to do a calibration cycle (e.g., to take readings from 10 to 100 IRE). ColorFacts has an extensive web site and user group to provide support, it is very user friendly, and offers lots of options, but it is more expensive.

I like that OpticOne is really the brain-child of Cliff Plavin, and that gives him a lot of flexibility in quickly adding new features to the software. The latest release has an automated grayscale calibration routine that interfaces with the Sencore or Accupel generator. You touch one button, and it automatically steps through the IRE windows and takes readings. If you do a lot of calibrating, this is a great feature. If you don’t have a signal generator, Cliff has also done the same thing using the AviaPro DVD. You connect a cable from the DVD player to your computer and a sound tone automatically takes the reading and steps the DVD to the next IRE window. Cliff also added a new feature that makes it easy to do screen uniformity tests and to calculate contrast ratio. This is very nice and saves a lot of time. I also believe that the OpticOne does a better job at low IREs. In short, I have found Cliff to be very creative in coming up with ways to make calibrations easier, faster, more accurate, and more fun.

I don’t think you will go wrong with any of these systems, but study their particular features and determine which one best suits your needs. I’ve been very happy with the OpticOne and would buy it again in a second.

sisaacs,

I haven't done a direct comparison as the generic Excell file didn't seem to work too well with my NEC, so I stopped trying. I'm not saying that it was necessarily a SMART issue, as I was very new with it so didn't really know enough to get the best results and with it being relatively a slow process, I lost patience with it. I found Colorfacts a lot easier and beause it was real time in showing you how the RGBs were changing, I could see what I was doing.

You're right in what you say about 6500k and not D65, as a colorimiter has filters that allow it see light in much the same way as the human eye (Standard Observer) but SMARTs light meter doesn't. The versions that are developed directly to a particular projector can get very good results though apparently.

HTH

Gary.

Are both of them as easy to use with filters? I would like to maximize my contrast ratio using red, green... filters.

Bruno