Re: LaCie BlueEye vs Spyder/Optical
Re: LaCie BlueEye vs Spyder/Optical
- Subject: Re: LaCie BlueEye vs Spyder/Optical
- From: Terry Wyse <email@hidden>
- Date: Mon, 27 Aug 2001 09:53:55 -0400
on 8/26/01 9:53 AM, Matt Smith wrote:
>
I'm wondering if anyone has compared the LaCie BlueEye calibrator to the
>
Spyder/Optical combo for calibrating the LaCie monitors. I'm interested in
>
the differences between the two, specifically with regards to the quality of
>
the calibration/profiling - do the two approaches give a visually similar
>
calibration? Any info would be helpful - thanks in advance.
Yep, a friend of mine and myself spent the better part of a day testing the
following (system tested was a B&W G3, OS9, ColorSync 3.03, LaCie
electron22blue, Photoshop 6.01):
LaCie BlueEye with their software.
Gretag Eye-One Monitor package.
Spyder/Optical package (also tested Optical w/ Spectrolino).
Gretag Spectrolino/ProfileMaker.
Our "scientific" method (I use this term loosely) of evaluating the quality
of the monitor profile was to display a CMYK reference image in Photoshop
alongside a Kodak Approval of the same image, viewed in a desktop 5K viewer
next to but shielded from the monitor. Profile used for soft-proofing the
image was generated from this same Approval proof using a
SpectroScan/'Lino/ProfileMaker combination.
Here's what we found:
Any combination of Gretag software, using either the Eye-One Monitor or
Spectrolino for measurement, produced a very neutral calibration. The
resulting profile produced reasonably accurate colors but was extremely dark
from the 3/4 tones on with a big loss in shadow detail compared to our proof
of the reference image.
The LaCie BlueEye produced a good calibration (very neutral) but the color
accuracy of the profile was not usable in our opinion. The blues tended to
go very cyan as I recall.
The Spyder/Optical combo tended to do the worst at calibration. We had three
different Spyders at our disposal and all produced a different cast to our
gray desktop background. The color casts ranged from yellow/green to
pronounced magenta cast. The resulting profile however was clearly the best
of the bunch, producing the most accurate colors and gradation.
Just for grins, we hooked up the Spectrolino w/ Optical (it supports the
'Lino) and got the best results of all. The color accuracy of the profile
was great and using the 'lino seemed to take of the color cast/neutral
problem of the Spyder.
Conclusions:
It was clear to us that Optical produced by far the best profile. My own
opinion is that ColorVision has a great piece of software in either
PhotoCal/Optical saddled with a mediocre measuring instrument, the Spyder.
The best combination by far was the Spectrolino used with Optical (they do
have a bug in the way they have you calibrate the 'lino but we were able to
fool the software and get it to work). Yes, I know that the cost of this
combination is prohibitive but we were looking for the absolute BEST
combination with what we had at our disposal and not concerned with cost at
that point. One can only dream that Optical will someday support either the
Eye-One Pro or Eye-One Monitor device(s). Optical with the Eye-One Monitor
device would be a great combo. Cost could be reasonable too if ColorVision
would ease up on their per-seat licensing requirements like Gretag did with
the Eye-One Monitor.
In a perfect world (no budget constraints), I would use the LaCie BlueEye
for performing the hardware calibration on the electron22blue. You just
couldn't beat the ease and accuracy of the BlueEye calibration. After you
calibrate using the BlueEye, use Optical with a decent measuring device to
get the best profile.
Other opinions may follow... ;-)
Now, I really must get back to testing the Epson 5500 that showed up at my
door last week...
Terry
_____________________________
Terence L. Wyse
Color Geek-in-Residence
All Systems Integration, Inc.
http://www.allsystems.com
email@hidden
_____________________________