Re: Barco vs Eizo
Re: Barco vs Eizo
- Subject: Re: Barco vs Eizo
- From: Graeme Gill <email@hidden>
- Date: Thu, 15 Sep 2005 11:09:09 +1000
Michael Fox Photography News Account wrote:
That's an o.k. solution for one display. But how many of us are using two
displays - one from one manufacturer and one from the other? So we end up
with two software products and, possibly, two instruments. Shouldn't we, as
an industry, be pressing the instrument guys for solutions that are more
universal? That's gotta be cheaper, in both instrument/software cost and
our time, than these individual, specialized solutions.
But it's not cheaper, that's why they don't do it. For the instrument
to work on different types of monitors, it needs to be a true colorimeter
or spectrometer. If it's only used on one colorant set, it can have
pretty loose filters, and be compensated in software for being non-colorimetric,
making it extremely cheap to manufacture, and yet pretty accurate.
To make an instrument more universal, it must be better quality, or
much more sophisticated (== higher price), or it will have poorer accuracy
than in instrument tuned to one particular display. The difference
in cost may be a factor of 2 - 10, so you need to be doing more than
a couple of displays to justify a more expensive instrument. It's
easy to understand why the display manufacturer can't make this
decision for you.
Graeme Gill.
_______________________________________________
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
| References: | |
| | >RE: Barco vs Eizo (From: "Michael Fox Photography News Account" <email@hidden>) |