Re: Colorvision Spyder& photocal vs Lacie Blue eye
Re: Colorvision Spyder& photocal vs Lacie Blue eye
- Subject: Re: Colorvision Spyder& photocal vs Lacie Blue eye
- From: email@hidden
- Date: Fri, 9 Mar 2001 09:09:27 EST
In a message dated 3/8/01 11:20:12 PM, email@hidden writes:
>
I work with a color management savvy partner who uses the Blue Eye
>
Colorimeter and we have tested it against ProfileMaker, Monaco,
>
ColorSynergy, Printopen etc. We find that the LaCie solution works
>
just fine and creates an accurate view of the monitor. It sounds
>
like there was some other computer problem when Andrew tested it.
Andrew is seldom in error... but its not the software we are comparing here
as much as that Cracker-Jack-prize sensor that LaCie now uses, and which is
used by many of the other companies you note as well. If you find that the
Chroma4 gets superior readings to a DTP92 or a Monitor Spyder, or other
advanced sensor, let me know; I'd love to hear about it!
In my side by side testing, using the same software with the Spyder, DTP41,
and Chroma4, there were two devices that were hard to tell apart, and one
that was clearly inferior... and it was the Chroma4's results that were easy
to pick out from the other two. Don't get me wrong; I believe that any
hardware calibration is better than visual calibration... but for the money
LaCie is charging, you could be getting a much higher quality device.
C. David Tobie
Design Cooperative
email@hidden