Re: iOne Monitor issues
Re: iOne Monitor issues
- Subject: Re: iOne Monitor issues
- From: Roger Breton <email@hidden>
- Date: Fri, 08 Feb 2002 21:07:33 -0500
>
Just got the iOne Monitor package to evaluate as a replacement for an aging
>
X-Rite DTP92 and ColorBlind's ProveIt software. When going through the
>
steps in the Gretag software, I noticed that the sliders for brightness and
>
RGB seem to jump around a lot. I mean...a lot. I had to make a guess as to
>
where to set the RGB guns and brightness based on where the sliders hovered
>
most of the time. Is this normal behavior or have I maybe got a bunk
>
instrument? The profiles created with the iOne don't seem to be as accurate
>
as those made with the X-Rite/ProveIt combo...at least as far as matching
>
or SWOP proofs. They seem dark, contrasty, and red. This is interesting as
>
I've heard such good things regarding the iOne package.
>
>
As a related question, is there any reason for the far fewer number of
>
patches the iOne reads when creating a monitor profile? The ProveIt
>
software takes 93 different readings (I didn't bother to count the number
>
that the Gretag iOne software uses). I've noticed a similar discrepancy
>
with Profile City's ICC Display (fewer patches). Is reading 93 patches
>
overkill? The one thing I like about both the iOne and the ICC Display
>
software is the method used to set brightnes levels (other software
>
probably does this as well). Those ridiculous squares in ProveIt
>
are...well, ridiculous! I'm looking forward to evaluating Colorvision's
>
products.
>
>
Eric G Bullock
Eric,
There are, as you know, as many opinions -- and experiences -- on the list
about the relative merits and weakness of various hardware/software packages
for monitor profiling as there are participants. Some swear by Gretag's
products while others swear by ColorVision's products. While others, still,
once in a while, burst in endless admirations for ProfileCity's ICC Display
coupled to a SpectroCam hook to Apple's Cinema display.
Personnally, I have begun my humble monitor profiling experiences by using
Gretag's SpectroLino with ProfileMaker Monitor Calibrator. Later, when I had
the chance, I moved to an OptiCal/DTP92 tandem. I really liked OptiCal,
then. Especially the ability to set the absolute Brightness and Contrast
levels numerically -- makes for great "eye opening" experiences and building
confidence that ColorVision knows their stuff. I was realy pleased with this
combination ... until one day I returned from Seybold Boston with a
SpectroCam under my arms. That's when I bitterly discovered that OptiCal did
not support the SpectroCam. I start looking and soon found that ColorBlind's
Prove It! v2.0.2 did support the SpectroCam. So I bought it : I litterally
fell off my chair after completing my first calibration / profiling with
Prove It! All of a sudden, the colors on my Mitsu900u turned awesome : I was
able for the first time to see colors in my images I had never seen before
on my CRT using OptiCal and the DTP-92? Later on, about a month after, I
decided to return the SpectroCam for a full refund to SpectroStart because I
fell it was not accurate enough for my needs in reflective mode. I came back
to my DTP-92 but abondoned OptiCal in favor of Prove It! which has remained,
until today, my CRT profiling solution of choice. As you may already know,
there is this never ending debate, in one form or another, here, on the list
and elsewhere on Usenet, about the relative merits of spectrophotometers
(i.e. the Spectrolino or the EyeOne) versus colorimeters (i.e. the DTP92 or
the Spyder or the Chroma V) for calibrating CRTs. I respect everyone's
opinions in this area but, for my money, I tend to buy into Tom Lianza's
arguments, to date, that colorimeters are, by design, better suited to the
task. That's just me. And one of of these days, I would very much like to
compare the Chroma V to the DTP-92 because I suspect that the Chroma V is as
good if not better than the DTP92. But I don't have any hard evidence to
support it. Mind you, this discussion will soon become academic as Xrite is
said to introduce a successor to the DTP-92, an instrument like the EyeOne
that will serve the purpose of profiling both CRTs and LCDs -- thank you
Steve jobs for moving the world of Desktop puplishing on to LCDs!
As far as Prove It! seemingly annoying insistance of having us set the
brightness and contrast levels visually is concerned, I guess we're stuck
with that for a while unless someone can persuade Joe Holmes to change his
mind about it. I have tried reading his Guidance about it (which I would
hope he would put into a PDF type of documentation for everyone's mental
health sake, sone day) and I believe he has a point although, on some
monitors, this method is confusing or simplu not conducive (read the 17"
StudioDisplay). But I would rather have him discuss it here openly than me
awkwardly try to present it. Which would be interesting.
And as far as the number of patches Prove It! uses (93) compared to Gretag's
(49), I have not arrived in my testing to a clear conclusion about that. I
once ran into a huge hue shift on the blue using Prove It! as opposed to
ProfileMaker Monitor Calibrator. But that was that one time only. What I can
tell you is that, in my color management classes, people tend to like Prove
It! profiling.
I am looking forward to a Mac OSX version of Prove It!
--
Roger Breton
_______________________________________________
colorsync-users mailing list | email@hidden
Help/Unsubscribe/Archives:
http://www.lists.apple.com/mailman/listinfo/colorsync-users
Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored.