AVS Forum banner

41 - 60 of 315 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
128 Posts
Still I'm currious of how the new Spyder3 with the verry large aperture light sensetive improvement, whould have come out this shootout.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,982 Posts
Discussion Starter #42

Quote:
Originally Posted by Matthieu /forum/post/12789064


Still I'm currious of how the new Spyder3 with the verry large aperture light sensetive improvement, whould have come out this shootout.

The problem with the Spyder2 is unrelated to light sensitivity.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
707 Posts
The mode selection between CRT and LCD for the Display 2/LT is to access two separate calibrations which are 3X3 matrices stored within the eeprom of the device. Each of these calibrations are made on different display types and allow the unit to provide improved performance when measuring a display using that technology. The "mode" selection has nothing whatsoever to do with an offset file as offsets would be different for each and every display made.


Spectroradiometers do not need offset files as they are not filter based instruments and in most cases for video display analysis they measure the wavelength range from 380-780 nanometers. As long as the field of vision of the instrument is small enough it will not have any difficulty measuring LCD flat panels or any other display technology accurately assuming everything else is properly designed in the instrument.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
760 Posts
Ok, no offset used. Doesn't really influence the core in my question:


Why does one software use modes while another doesn't? Which software does it right?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
760 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by jdbimmer /forum/post/12780220


Depending on the display type, I think the mode would affect the results somewhat, but the conclusion regarding the S2's accuracy would be the same. My guess is that the S2 was in LCD mode on the Plasma as it measured Y at +23% (Zoyd measured +24%). In CRT mode, most likely the S2 Y reading would be much closer, but with an overall higher deltaE. At least on the plasma, D2 was probably in LCD mode, as it tends to lock up ColorHCFR in CRT mode.

The test in it self should show each meters consistency/linearity well even if no mode or if the wrong mode was selected. The linearity of a meter wouldn't be affected by mode would it?

But if a mode needs to be selected, then the correct mode surely also must be set to get correct results - right?

And a plasma should be measured using the CRT-mode - right?

So, was LCD-mode selected when measuring the plasma with the D2, Tom?


Again, only talking about colorimeters, not spectrophotometers.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,982 Posts
Discussion Starter #46

Quote:
Originally Posted by arioch /forum/post/12797439


And a plasma should be measured using the CRT-mode - right? So, was LCD-mode selected when measuring the plasma with the D2, Tom?

It is not clear to me that this is true. I used the LCD mode. In any case, the D2 did rather well with the plasma on this test. It was with one of the LCDs it had problems.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,351 Posts
IIRC when you use CRT mode with the D2 it configures the probe to try and lock onto the refresh rate of a traditional CRT.


Since a plasma doesn't work the same way it will get "confused" in CRT mode.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
760 Posts
I'm pretty sure that the HCFR-team states that colorimeters should be in CRT-mode for measuring plasma, but maybe that's not valid for D2, only other colorimeters?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,884 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by arioch /forum/post/12797417


Ok, no offset used. Doesn't really influence the core in my question:


Why does one software use modes while another doesn't? Which software does it right?

How about neither package gets it right for all meters, kind of hard to do a meter shoot out with software packages that don’t support the hardware properly.


ColorFacts uses the Spyder2 only in LCD mode with the diffuser on which on a true CRT will be off. HCFR uses the Display2 in LCD mode for Plasmas because of the scan rate sync issue which again will be off.


Here is how each meter should be supported and is in CalMAN v3.


x-rite DTP94 has support for LCD and CRT modes and does not need a scan rate sync for CRT. So you use CRT for all phosphor based devices and LCD for all the rest.


x-rite Display2 has support for LCD, CRT and diffuser modes but does need a scan rate sync to work in CRT mode unless you know how to disable it. So you use CRT for all phosphor based devices including Plasma with the sync disabled and LCD or diffuser for all the rest. The Display2 can also have issues with fast DLP colorwheels or the new fast scan LCDs unless you know how to set it up.


x-rite i1Pro has support for all display types with two modes with and without a diffuser. But it lacks good low light capabilities unless you have a system for dealing with it and I'm not just taking about averaging multiple readings it needs to be much more than just a simple average. You use it without the diffuser for most display types and with the diffuser for a direct source reading like from a front projector.


x-rite Chroma5 is the big brother to the Display2. Has support for LCD, CRT and user. So you use CRT for all phosphor based and LCD or user for all the rest.


x-rite Hubble or also known as the Sencore OTC1000 has support for Projectors and all others. It is really sensitive to aiming I guess that's why they built in a laser pointer. It also has to deal with ambient light since it is not a contact meter.


ColorVision Spyder2 has support for LCD with the diffuser on and CRT with it off. It does need a scan rate sync to work with CRT's. So you use CRT for all phosphor based devices except Plasma and LCD for all the rest. The Spyder2 can have low light issues unless you extend it's reading time to over 8 seconds.


DataColor Spyder3 only has a single mode for all display types since the diffuser is not removable.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
707 Posts

Quote:
Quote:

Originally Posted by arioch View Post

Ok, no offset used. Doesn't really influence the core in my question:


Why does one software use modes while another doesn't? Which software does it right?

Progressive Labs CA-6X software supports all of the instruments mentioned above and provides support for all modes offered on each of the instruments so that they work correctly with each display type. We have been working with the Chroma 5 for close to two years and with the OTC-1000/Hubble for close to 3 years. We currently support more then eighteen instruments including those from X-Rite (Sequel/GretagMacBeth), Minolta, and PhotoResearch and are happy to sell the software by itself to those that wish to have a feature rich software package for display calibration.



Regards,


Cliff


Progressive Labs

212-254-3541
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,982 Posts
Discussion Starter #51

Quote:
Originally Posted by derekjsmith /forum/post/12800101


How about neither package gets it right for all meters, kind of hard to do a meter shoot out with software packages that don't support the hardware properly.

I saw no evidence (and I looked) that the software made any difference to the accuracy of the measurements. Software is important for feature set, meter support, ease of use, etc., but I've seen no empirical data that suggests it has any bearing on accuracy.


If you do, I'm sure that we would appreciate a chance to evaluate it.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,884 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by TomHuffman /forum/post/12802465


I saw no evidence (and I looked) that the software made any difference to the accuracy of the measurements. Software is important for feature set, meter support, ease of use, etc., but I've seen no empirical data that suggests it has any bearing on accuracy.


If you do, I'm sure that we would appreciate a chance to evaluate it.


You are right software should not have an effect on accuracy all we do is report what the meter told us it read but it can if the software does not setup the meter correctly in the first place. To get the best accuracy from any meter it comes down to being able to match the internal calibration tables, sync modes and external filters if it has them to the display type.


An example is with the Spyder2 it has 2 tables one for CRT and the other for all other display types. With ColorFacts they only use the second table with the diffuser attached on the Spyder2 for all display types. So if you are calibrating a direct view CRT it won't be as accurate as it would if they allowed you to select the CRT calibration table without the diffuser. Which this is an odd point for ColorVision/DataColor if you are using any of the Spyder2 software packages they do use both calibration tables and have you remove the diffuser when needed. But with SpyderTV, SpyderTVpro or ColorFacts they always leave it in place and only use the second table. It's the same hardware so one of them must be wrong.


Same goes for the Display2 it's a tricky device to support. It also has four modes CRT, all others, with and without the diffuser. But if it is not setup right it can produce inaccurate results on some display types like Plasma, fast colorwheel DLPs and fast scan LCDs.


The i1Pro is some work because you need to have low light handlers for it.


Tom since you are a V2 customer you can upgrade to V3 for free just send me an email and we will get you sorted.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
869 Posts
Hi Derek,


After i have my new cinema fitted, which will include a 50-60" plasma display probably 1080P KURO, i want to get the best calibration tools for the job.


I currently have a DTP-94 and used HCFR to calibrate my old 50PHD8 and as a starter kit to learn display calibration and got excellent results from this.


Now i want to move up to more accurate/advanced calibration, i have decided i will be buying your Calman software but i'm not 100% sure if the i1pro you sell be the best bet for my system and accuracy or should i be looking at some other sensor?


What would you recommend as the best sensor for what i need?


TIA.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,982 Posts
Discussion Starter #54

Quote:
Originally Posted by Neonmod /forum/post/12806915


Now i want to move up to more accurate/advanced calibration, i have decided i will be buying your Calman software but i'm not 100% sure if the i1pro you sell be the best bet for my system and accuracy or should i be looking at some other sensor?

You didn't ask me, but let me chime in anyway. You can obtain devices that are perhaps marginally more accurate, but they are MUCH more expensive. I mean thousands of dollars more expensive. Other affordable probes certainly have better low-light capabilities, but they are not as accurate.


Unless you are willing to invest some really big bucks, the i1Pro is your best bet.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
869 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by TomHuffman /forum/post/12808260


You didn't ask me, but let me chime in anyway. You can obtain devices that are perhaps marginally more accurate, but they are MUCH more expensive. I mean thousands of dollars more expensive. Other affordable probes certainly have better low-light capabilities, but they are not as accurate.


Unless you are willing to invest some really big bucks, the i1Pro is your best bet.

Sorry Tom, thank you indeed!


I thought to ask Derek as i will be using his software but again thanks for the reply!


The i1pro is within my budget but wanted to know what is available around the i1's price range and could i get something more accurate for my needs as the i1 is quite old now and don't know of anything else or prices too besides spider offerings but i think spiders are a step backwards to what i have/want.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,884 Posts
I think with the DTP-94 you already have adding the i1Pro to it would allow for you to profile your DTP-94 to it and get the best of both worlds. We do also have the Chroma5 which is the big brother to the Display2 and the DTP-94.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
869 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by derekjsmith /forum/post/12809724


I think with the DTP-94 you already have adding the i1Pro to it would allow for you to profile your DTP-94 to it and get the best of both worlds. We do also have the Chroma5 which is the big brother to the Display2 and the DTP-94.

Thanks Derek!


What benefits would i get from profiling the DTP to the i1, why not just use the i1 only or would this profiling give a more accurate reading at lower IRE levels (EG i1 for 0-30ire and DTP for 30-100 ire) can you explain and what is mean't by "best of both worlds" (is this lower and higher IRE readings?)?


How is the Chroma5 with regards to the other 2 sensors?


TIA.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,884 Posts
The i1Pro needs some work at low light levels to get it to the published accuracy so it can be slow up to 10-15 seconds for a single reading were it higher levels it's less than a second. So with the DTP-94 it is fast all the time but not as accurate as the i1Pro unless it has been profiled. Profiling is basicly a way to run a transformation matrix on the readings to make the DTP-94 return results as the i1Pro would but for all light levels. The Chroma5 will outperform both the DTP-94 and Display2.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
869 Posts
Thanks again Derek,


i knew it was somewhere along those lines even if i did get it a bit back to front, thought the i1 was good at low end IRE.



With regard to the C5 would i be better getting this or better to stick with 1i/DTP with profiling setup?


How much is the C5?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,884 Posts
We don't have a price set on the Chroma5 yet still working it out with x-rite on our discounts. Since you already have a DTP-94 I would recommend just adding the i1Pro.
 
41 - 60 of 315 Posts
Top