RE: Barco vs Eizo
RE: Barco vs Eizo
- Subject: RE: Barco vs Eizo
- From: "Michael Fox Photography News Account" <email@hidden>
- Date: Wed, 14 Sep 2005 17:23:27 -0700
- Organization: Michael Fox Photography
Steve,
> At 1:56 AM -0700 9/14/05, Marco Ugolini wrote:
> >
> >I'm not knocking the Eizos and NECs. I'm sure they are great. But it
> feels
> >like something is still missing in this picture. Is there really, as
> Michael
> >says, a risk of the new displays' quality rapidly surpassing that of the
> >measuring devices?
>
> I think that what we are coming up against is purpose-build/calibrated
> colorimeters being used for things they were not intended.
Actually, the situation I'm concerned about is the reverse. Assume a two
monitor situation, where each monitor is from a different vendor. Assume at
least one of the monitor vendors supplies their own pre-/re-calibrated
colorimeter which is optimized for their particular display's attributes.
It seems that the options are:
1) Use a separate application and optimized colorimeter for each monitor.
So that's probably two instruments and definitely two software packages
(vendor A's software won't deal with vendor B's monitor) to maintain and two
applications to run. And let's hope that the two applications are
well-behaved enough that they don't step on each other's video card LUTs
when loading at boot-up time
2) Use a single spectro with a single application that knows how to access
the on-board monitor LUTs and other features of each different monitor.
Nice, right? But, what if the spectro is not as accurate as the "tuned"
colorimeter for that particular monitor?
What I'm trying to understand is how to tell before buying? Sure, AFTER I
buy both instruments and both software packages, I can profile with both and
examine some on-screen test targets. But that's time and money spent.
That's like saying, first buy both the BMW and the Toyota and then, after
you drive them you can see which has better acceleration. No one does that.
We just look at the published 0 to 60 stats for both. Or maybe we're
concerned about gas mileage. We don't buy both cars and drive them until
the tank is dry to see which one goes farther. We look at the published
numbers. So where are there some stats that can be used to compare
instruments? And we should be able to compare across technology types. For
cars, one car may have a V-6 engine and one may have a rotary engine and one
may have batteries, but we can still compare acceleration and gas mileage
for all. So, too, we should be able to compare monitor
calibration/profiling performance regardless of or across underlying
technology types(colorimeter or spectro).
Am I being ridiculous or just plain crazy? :-)
Michael
_______________________________________________
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