AVS Forum banner

1 - 20 of 22 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
156 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
How does Spyder 5 compare against i1Display Pro / ColorMunki Display? Spyder 3 was horrible, Spyder 4 was better, but still had problems reading black levels. DataColor states that Spyder 5's black measurement accuracy has improved by some "50%". What is the truth here? It would be nice if someone with i1Pro/i1Pro 2/Klein K-10/JETI 1211 could compare Spyder 5 against i1Display Pro in accuracy. I guess we would need reference-level colorimeter too if we are to compare black level reading accuracy.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,161 Posts
How does Spyder 5 compare against i1Display Pro / ColorMunki Display? Spyder 3 was horrible, Spyder 4 was better, but still had problems reading black levels. DataColor states that Spyder 5's black measurement accuracy has improved by some "50%".
My impression from playing with exactly one Spyder 5, is that it is noticeably more accurate than the Spyder 4 (I would say "40%" more accurate in terms of delta E as a rough estimate from the one comparison I did). Whether all units show this improvement, I can't tell you. From my perspective the underlying tech. doesn't seem to have changed very much - very similar filters and sensors to the Spyder4, so perhaps the calibration during manufacture has improved significantly.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
156 Posts
Discussion Starter #4
My impression from playing with exactly one Spyder 5, is that it is noticeably more accurate than the Spyder 4 (I would say "40%" more accurate in terms of delta E as a rough estimate from the one comparison I did). Whether all units show this improvement, I can't tell you. From my perspective the underlying tech. doesn't seem to have changed very much - very similar filters and sensors to the Spyder4, so perhaps the calibration during manufacture has improved significantly.
So is it safe to assume it is just as accurate as i1Display Pro? I had no personal experiences, but there are reports that ColorMunki Display and Spyder 5 readings to differ, at least on monitors tested. I suggested to trust ColorMunki Display over Spyder 5...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,161 Posts
So is it safe to assume it is just as accurate as i1Display Pro?
I can't tell you that :)

It would need a more serious set of tests on multiple different displays and multiple Spyder5's to safely draw any conclusions about whether the Spyder5 is a match for the i1d3 or not. On speed/sensitivity it certainly isn't.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
16 Posts
I did some testing on the new Spyder5 and published a review on Cameratico (http://cameratico.com/articles/datacolor-spyder-5-review/), including a comparison with the older Spyder4 and the current X-Rite i1 Display Pro and Colormunki Display.

I think Datacolor really did their homework with the new units. It's a much more sensitive sensor, specially on the darker tones, and I'm confident to say that overall results on good quality IPS displays are comparable to the i1 Display Pro, with only slightly harsher transitions in the blues and reds and a tiny bit more banding, if I'm really nitpicking. TN panels, on the other hand, gave me much more inconsistent results, with severe banding and some cases of wacky color gamuts. In those cases, i1 Display Pro and Colormunkinki Display performed better.

I could not test unit to unit variance thoroughly, but the two units I had in use were very close to each other and close to the X-Rite products, except for the white point measurement, where the Datacolor pucks always measured about 200K lower, giving slightly warmer profiles. This difference was noticed by other users and seems to be consistent from unit to unit and not caused by any malfunction.

If you don't mind the super long calibration times, a $129 Spyder5Express with dispcalGUI and Argyll CMS is a killer deal. On higher price points I'd choose the X-Rite products, though.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,281 Posts
Interesting - the tests we performed show little benefit of of Spyer5 over the Spyder4, with the i1D3 still showing real benefit.

The results speak for themselves - the Spyder probes really struggled to read the darker colours.



With the small price difference between the Spyder probes and the i1D3 (especially the new RevB model - see: http://www.lightillusion.com/i1_display_pro.html) the Spyder probes really do struggle to compare.

We are in discussion with DataColor, and have provided them all our findings.

Steve
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
16 Posts
Thank you for sharing your results, Steve.

I approached my tests with an end user perspective. Datacolor claims a 55% improvement in low luminance accuracy. I had no means to measure this difference, but real world results were close enough to i1Display Pro to make me believe it. Using the OEM software, I noticed a good improvement in shadow detail, with less banding than Spyder4. Argyll CMS is not yet optimized for the Spyder5, I assume, so the calibration process takes hours, but the final results are very good. Again, not much to complain when compared to the i1D3.

What threw me off were some wacky results with lower quality TN displays. For example, on a 2011 13" MacBook Air, the OEM software produced a completely unusable profile, with compressed and uneven gamut. This happened when aiming for 6500K or native white point. Super strange. I still haven't contacted them about it.

In any case, I wouldn't recommend anything other than the Express version. On the higher price points, the X-Rite units deliver better results for a lower price.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,161 Posts
I approached my tests with an end user perspective. Datacolor claims a 55% improvement in low luminance accuracy. I had no means to measure this difference, but real world results were close enough to i1Display Pro to make me believe it.
That's not really a test of accuracy then. You need to compare to an instrument of known better accuracy than both (i.e. a JETI).
Argyll CMS is not yet optimized for the Spyder5, I assume, so the calibration process takes hours, but the final results are very good. Again, not much to complain when compared to the i1D3.
ArgyllCMS is as optimized as it is ever going to be for the Spyder - i.e., not at all :- it treats each instrument equally, and the Spyder5 is highly similar to the Spyder4. The Spyder is much slower than the i1d3 because it doesn't have the light gathering optics that the i1d3 has. DataColor had the opportunity to improve the quality of their product with the Spyder5, but doesn't seem to have taken full advantage of it. They needed to do three things: 1) make it faster by gathering more light into the sensors, 2) Improve the filters to be closer to the 1931 standard observer, and 3) Characterize the filters of each unit more accurately. My impression is that they have done some of 3) but neglected both the others.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,983 Posts
Spyder 5 Test

I thought it would be useful to provide some hard numbers to this discussion. This test compares a Spyder 5 with and i1D3 using a JETI 1211 as a reference. Here's the results.

Test Conditions
dE values: CIE94
Speed test: 6^3 color matrix (215 colors)
Display Type: Plasma

Maximum Low light Sensitivity

Spyder 5: 0.005 cd/m2
i1D3: 0.003 cd/m2

Color accuracy @ 100% video
Spyder 5
W 2.99
R 1.69
G 1.52
B 3.11

i1D3
W 2.15
R 1.01
G 0.67
B 0.63

Color accuracy @ 25% video
Spyder 5
W 2.99
R 1.69
G 1.39
B 3.34

i1D3
W 2.70
R 1.32
G 0.58
B 0.33

Speed
Spyder 5: 570 seconds to completion
i1D3: 330 seconds to completion

Conclusions

The i1D3 reads lower, faster, and with better color accuracy. Low light levels had little effect on the color accuracy of either meters. Although the Spyder 5 could not match the color accuracy of the i1D3, it is significantly better in the regard than the Spyder 4. The biggest downside to the Spyder 5 is its speed. It takes nearly twice as long to take measurements as the i1D3. The color errors trouble me less because those can be significantly reduced with profiling and the errors are fairly small in any case. However, the speed and low-light limitations are inherent to the design and cannot be improved upon.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,163 Posts
Tom are your low light Sensitivity measurements repeatable?
And would all D3 have the same light Sensitivity measurements

ss
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,983 Posts
Tom are your low light Sensitivity measurements repeatable?
And would all D3 have the same light Sensitivity measurements
I have measured this with the i1D3 several times. I always get about the same number. I don't have enough long term experience with the Spyder 5 to say, but I have no reason to believe that it wouldn't be repeatable.

There is always some unit-to-unit variation, but I wouldn't expect it to be large when reading luminance only.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
16 Posts
I just wanted to thank you all for your replies. I'm not a color scientist, but a very involved user who has been using color management products for the past 15 years. I've leaned a lot from this thread.

Couple of questions:

Measurement times using the Spyder5 OEM software are pretty fast. I didn't count the number of patches - granted - but overall it takes less than 6 minutes for a full calibration. Is the measurement time for each patch equal for both OEM and third party software, only limited by hardware? Or the OEM software has access to speedier reading methods?

When we talk about sensor accuracy, I have a feeling that the profiling process is optimized to avoid bad measurements and to make the best use of the data provided by a less than stellar calibrator. Could this explain why my practical results with the Spyder5 were closer to the i1D3 than synthetic tests show?

Keep in mind that I don't have vested interests in any product. I'm not defending the Spyder5 or anything like that. Just trying to get a deeper understanding of how monitor profiling software works behind the scenes.

I think the Spyder5 is a good buy on the cheaper Express version and preferably if used with dispcalGUI and Argyll CMS (if you can wait for the long measurement times). Above that price point, the i1D3 and Colormunki Display are better choices.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,056 Posts
Perfomance at the low intensity levels is one of the most important parts of a calibration, and where the spyder 5 performs the worst.

Couple that with the fact that their exposed sensors are likely to age and drift compared to the Xrite meters and I can't imagine a good reason to go with the spyder. Any money saved wouldn't be worth it in the long run.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
95 Posts
I could not test unit to unit variance thoroughly, but the two units I had in use were very close to each other and close to the X-Rite products, except for the white point measurement, where the Datacolor pucks always measured about 200K lower, giving slightly warmer profiles. This difference was noticed by other users and seems to be consistent from unit to unit and not caused by any malfunction.
I have been trying both the Spyder5Pro and ColorMunki Display. I need to pick one to return and one to keep. I do photo editing in Lightroom and want the most realistic display and best match for prints. I have built profiles with Spyder software, ColorMunki software and dispcalGUI. I have noticed a consistent difference in the profiles between the two devices. The Spyder profiles seem to have more "color" or "warmth" when comparing test images in Lightroom and switching windows color profiles manually... I am a novice, and hope I am using those terms properly...

But, my main question is... which of the two is more accurate and closer to reality? I can always adjust in LR to get a picture to look like I want... but which of the two is more likely accurate and a better match for photo lab printing?

Thank you very much for any advice.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,059 Posts
but which of the two is more likely accurate and a better match for photo lab printing?
I think the better question would be: Which photo lab can give reasonably consistent and accurate results? Because that is the prime prerequisite for actually getting a good match. The color measurement device that is used to measure your screen and ultimately create a profile isn't as important (although a good instrument is still a better choice than a worse one) - the software and settings on the other hand definitely make a difference. Even the most accurate instrument you use to profile your display isn't going to help you achieve a good match if what you get out of the photo lab is all over the place. You also need consistent lighting under which to view the printed photos.
Re the two instruments, the ColorMunki Display has the better low-light sensitivity, better filters, and probably still the faster measurement times despite the firmware restrictions (although I have no data on it, as I have the i1 DisplayPro - you could run a comparison in dispcalGUI with the same settings to get an idea) than the Spyder5.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
71 Posts
Well, spyder have a rather poor track record, where i1d3 is pretty much established as a good meter.
But like fhoech said, you can run some verification report using the one meter vs a profile made by the other meter. It may happen the number is identical, but their driver approach aim different target (wild guess.)

Sent from my 306SH
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
16 Posts
I have noticed a consistent difference in the profiles between the two devices. The Spyder profiles seem to have more "color" or "warmth" when comparing test images in Lightroom and switching windows color profiles manually...
In all my tests Spyder5 consistently measured white point about 200K lower (warmer) than i1. I tried multiple units and this difference was consistent. I must assume this is some kind of methodology difference or a deliberate decision by Datacolor to make "more pleasing" profiles, but I don't have access to a reference grade spectophotometer to make any claim of which unit is closer to a standard measurement.

The i1D3 and Colormunki Display fared better in all independent tests I found. Real world difference with high quality IPS displays is much less visible than what the number show, though.

In any case, I'd choose the Colormunki Display and use it with dispcalGUI + Argyll CMS. This is a killer combo and works great.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
20 Posts
I am in no way associated with B&H - I came to this thread because I have been considering a Spyder 5 but today, 12/15, B&H has a great deal on the i1. $120 after rebate.
Just saying. :cool:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1 Posts
First, sorry for bad english :)


Im using spyder5express with dispcalgui+argyll and found this:

In all my tests Spyder5 consistently measured white point about 200K lower (warmer) than i1. I tried multiple units and this difference was consistent.
Does that means that i should deliberately change white point temperature in dispcal when calibrating to something other than 6500 kelvin (my target) to get "real" 6500?
If yes, do i need to set temperature to 6300, or 6700?

This is my results after calibration (6500kelvin was chosen):

09:26:19,907 Black level = 0.1663 cd/m^2
09:26:19,907 50% level = 25.82 cd/m^2
09:26:19,907 White level = 119.50 cd/m^2
09:26:19,907 Aprox. gamma = 2.21
09:26:19,907 Contrast ratio = 719:1
09:26:19,907 White chromaticity coordinates 0.3133, 0.3309
09:26:19,907 White Correlated Color Temperature = 6460K, DE 2K to locus = 5.5
09:26:19,907 White Correlated Daylight Temperature = 6462K, DE 2K to locus = 1.0
09:26:19,907 White Visual Color Temperature = 6268K, DE 2K to locus = 5.2
09:26:19,907 White Visual Daylight Temperature = 6431K, DE 2K to locus = 0.9
 
1 - 20 of 22 Posts
Top