Re: Barco vs Eizo
Re: Barco vs Eizo
- Subject: Re: Barco vs Eizo
- From: Busher Jr Richard C <email@hidden>
- Date: Mon, 12 Sep 2005 14:50:27 -0700
On Sep 11, 2005, at 7:01 PM, bruce fraser wrote:
If you can get me a loan of a 2-nm spectroradiometer, I'll be happy to
get you numbers, but measuring on-screen color with the same
instrument used to calibrate and profile the display is akin to
pulling yourself off the ground by your shoelaces.
Of course I don't have such an instrument either. What I do have is the
built-in Barco colorimeter. I am creating the colors in PS. I am
reading the colors via the Barco software/hardware which doesn't know
the source of the color. The measured results are remarkably close to
the PS numbers for most colors.
And I fail to understand your shoelace analogy. If the device can be
trusted to calibrate and profile the monitor (measuring a wide range of
colors in order to do so) can it not be trusted to provide reasonable
results as a measuring device?
BTW, I do have an Eye One which I use to measure targets for profiling
printers and proofers. It can be used for profiling a monitor, which I
don't do because I have the Barco instrument. Is it possible to measure
spectral colors directly on the face of the monitor with it? I've not
looked into that as yet, but that would be a reasonable experiment
IMHO. I also have a DTP22 Digital Swatchbook, but I believe that it can
only be used for reflective readings.
Rather than going by numbers that would have to be larded with so many
caveats to be meaningful that they wind up telling you nothing, you'd
be better off looking at the displays in question and trusting the
evidence of your senses (unless you do in fact have something at least
as accurate as a Minolta CA-1000, and preferably something a lot more
accurate).
Ultimately I do use my senses, i.e. my eyes. What I hope is that the
proofs I get from my offset printing vendors (for whom I have created
profiles) are a good match for what I see on the screen. In most cases,
>90%, I am quite satisfied, i.e. >90% of the time the first round of
proofs is what I expect. That is a heck of a lot better than what I
used to get when I sent transparencies to the printers and they did the
separations. In fact I recently had a new client tell me that they
often go through up to 4 rounds of loose color proofs working directly
with printers. Before investing in the Barcos I would often go through
2 or more rounds myself. For me they have been an excellent investment.
Dick Busher
At 5:19 PM -0700 9/11/05, Busher Jr Richard C wrote:
Well! So far the commentary is what I thought it might be. No
quantitative data to contradict my comments.
Listen! I'm happy to spend the money if it will improve my business,
i.e. improve the accuracy of my contract proofs. I don't own stock in
Barco, and, in fact, they have stopped manufacturing crts. Those of
you out there who know me know that all I care about is producing the
best quality product for my clients that I possibly can. Is there a
flat screen display available that is more accurate than a Barco?
Numbers please! If it exists I will buy it.
To date I have read a lot of opinions, but no opinions backed up by
data.
Dick Busher
Cosgrove Editions
email@hidden
888-507-7373
_______________________________________________
Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored.
Colorsync-users mailing list (email@hidden)
Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription:
This email sent to email@hidden