Re: Colorimeters and third-party developer support (Tom Lianza)
From: Rich Wagner
I don't want one custom $350 colorimeter for every monitor I ever own, with its own custom software, and with variable >compatibility with other software I choose to use. I will no longer buy into a closed system.
But I thought that a custom colorimeter is the only way to go if you want the best results (apart from an exotic spectroradiometer or something like Basiccolor Discus). You can buy cheaper general purpose colorimeters, but they won't give the same results as one designed for a particular type of monitor. My old Sony Artisan (that was highly thought of) had a custom colorimeter. The new Eizo's have built-in custom colorimeters that apparently outperform GP colorimeters and spectrophotometers. You have the choice of a GP device (with variable results) or a custom device (with good, consistent results). If you bought the wrong one, then tough! Or complain to HP or NEC that they didn't make it clear that they were selling custom devices. I don't really see that it is Xrite's fault for selling HP or NEC custom devices that are better for their monitors than the GP devices they sell for anyone's monitors. Bob Frost
On Aug 20, 2011, at 7:40 AM, Bob Frost wrote:
But I thought that a custom colorimeter is the only way to go if you want the best results (apart from an exotic spectroradiometer or something like Basiccolor Discus). You can buy cheaper general purpose colorimeters, but they won't give the same results as one designed for a particular type of monitor.
Correct.
My old Sony Artisan (that was highly thought of) had a custom colorimeter.
Yup, and it only worked on that display. Wonderfully too I’ll add. On Aug 20, 2011, at 5:16 AM, Rich Wagner wrote:
When I bought the HP DreamColor monitor, I certainly never expected (nor was I informed) that the $350 HP-XRite DreamColor colorimeter would *only* function with the bundled HP-XRite software, or that the software would not support the Eye-One Pro, or that the software would be so poor and feature-deprived, or that other software would not have DDC access to the monitor controls.
And when you took this up with HP, their response was?
As for the NEC-XRite colorimeter - the so-called "MDSVSENSOR2" that has matched filters for the wide-gamut monitors like the NEC PA271w I recently purchased. There is significant debate in the "user world" as to whether this device functions in "wide-gamut mode" using the "wide-gamut" matched filters/matrix *only* with "U.S. SpectraView" software, and reverts to a "retail" iOne Display 2 if used with other (non-US SpectraView) software, or whether it provides accurate data for wide-gamut monitors regardless of the software driving it.
Where would we find this significant debate of users and what’s the matrix for the term significant? I know of two such end users who so far, haven’t provided very good descriptions of how they came to this conclustion despite being asked.
This particularly plays out with the "BasICColor vs SpectraView" debate, as there are some who claim SpectraView profiles are vastly superior, even though re-branded BasICColor Display software ships with NEC monitors in Europe.
Oh, are we going to go through this silly LUT vs Matrix non-scientific tested debate here too? The “significant“ debate of two end users with zero empirically defined testing procedures who came up with this idea on the LuLa forums are not going to find their ‘theories’ hold much water in this fourm, assuming they can even describe the processes they used to come up with this idea. Andrew Rodney http://www.digitaldog.net/
But I thought that a custom colorimeter is the only way to go if you want the best results (apart from an exotic spectroradiometer or something like Basiccolor Discus). You can buy cheaper general purpose colorimeters, but they won't give the same results as one designed for a particular type of monitor
Really. How much better result will you get with custom device that you can use with only one monitor? 5%? 10%? 50%? Or how many delta e? Maybe it is just a marketing hype from NEC or HP? Do you have a scientific results that your custom device is way better than retail device with basiccolor or coloreyes? Derek Lambert
On Aug 20, 2011, at 8:59 AM, Derek Lambert wrote:
Do you have a scientific results that your custom device is way better than retail device with basiccolor or coloreyes?
For those specific products, I don’t. But the theory behind why custom mated devices are preferable, start here: http://www.lumita.com/site_media/work/whitepapers/files/xrite-wp-3a.pdf And http://www.babelcolor.com/download/AN-9%20How%20to%20derive%20and%20use%20a%... Andrew Rodney http://www.digitaldog.net/
Here are Karl Lang's thoughts on that subject - http://www.lumita.com/site_media/work/whitepapers/files/xrite-wp-3a.pdf "In all the cases above we have been discussing expensive instruments that are designed to measure "any" light source. In the unique case of display calibration we often know exactly what kinds of spectra we are going to measure. As an example, let's say we know we are going to measure a Sony CRT. All Sony CRTs use the same three phosphors (one red, one green and one blue) known collectively as the P-22 phosphor set. Variation of the spectra from these phosphors is slight. If we use these spectra at the factory when we calibrate our colorimeter, the colorimeter will have incredible accuracy measuring a Sony display, far better than any spectroradiometer at 10X the price. An interesting advantage of this kind of "purpose built" colorimeter is it does not need to have filters that are near perfect XYZ simulators. All you need are simple RGB filters that can discriminate very well between the three primary phosphors. If you know the source primaries you are going to measure, you can build a very accurate device for an extremely small amount of money. I have worked with colorimeters that cost less than $100 to build that rival the accuracy of a $20,000 spectroradiometer when used on the display they were designed for. When a colorimeter is calibrated to the source primaries of a display with a calibration matrix. The accuracy of the colorimeter on that type of display is greatly increased. The worst case accuracy of this type of purpose built colorimeter can not be matched with a spectroradiometer anywhere near the price. In fact you would have to spend 100 times as much to achieve this accuracy with a spectroradiometer." Eizo actually give some figures in their comparison of their built-in colorimeter with two unnamed colorimeters and a spectrophotometer. - http://www.eizo.co.uk/accuracy_and_advantages_of_the_coloredge_cg245w tables and graphs on pages 6,7, and 8. Bob Frost -------------------------------------------------- From: "Derek Lambert" <csync@colorforest.net>
Really. How much better result will you get with custom device that you can use with only one monitor? 5%? 10%? 50%?
Or how many delta e?
Maybe it is just a marketing hype from NEC or HP? Do you have a scientific results that your custom device is way better than retail device with basiccolor or coloreyes?
Bob, I don't deny everyone's point of view on what works and what's best. My question is why attaining "absolute accuracy" is so important when even the most expensive instruments will never yield, to my experience, a visual match to any proofs viewed in a "D50" light booth, "out-of-the box"? Roger -----Original Message----- From: colorsync-users-bounces+graxx=videotron.ca@lists.apple.com [mailto:colorsync-users-bounces+graxx=videotron.ca@lists.apple.com] On Behalf Of Bob Frost Sent: August-20-11 1:24 PM To: Derek Lambert; colorsync-users@lists.apple.com Subject: Re: Colorimeters and third-party developer support (Tom Lianza) Here are Karl Lang's thoughts on that subject - http://www.lumita.com/site_media/work/whitepapers/files/xrite-wp-3a.pdf "In all the cases above we have been discussing expensive instruments that are designed to measure "any" light source. In the unique case of display calibration we often know exactly what kinds of spectra we are going to measure. As an example, let's say we know we are going to measure a Sony CRT. All Sony CRTs use the same three phosphors (one red, one green and one blue) known collectively as the P-22 phosphor set. Variation of the spectra from these phosphors is slight. If we use these spectra at the factory when we calibrate our colorimeter, the colorimeter will have incredible accuracy measuring a Sony display, far better than any spectroradiometer at 10X the price. An interesting advantage of this kind of "purpose built" colorimeter is it does not need to have filters that are near perfect XYZ simulators. All you need are simple RGB filters that can discriminate very well between the three primary phosphors. If you know the source primaries you are going to measure, you can build a very accurate device for an extremely small amount of money. I have worked with colorimeters that cost less than $100 to build that rival the accuracy of a $20,000 spectroradiometer when used on the display they were designed for. When a colorimeter is calibrated to the source primaries of a display with a calibration matrix. The accuracy of the colorimeter on that type of display is greatly increased. The worst case accuracy of this type of purpose built colorimeter can not be matched with a spectroradiometer anywhere near the price. In fact you would have to spend 100 times as much to achieve this accuracy with a spectroradiometer." Eizo actually give some figures in their comparison of their built-in colorimeter with two unnamed colorimeters and a spectrophotometer. - http://www.eizo.co.uk/accuracy_and_advantages_of_the_coloredge_cg245w tables and graphs on pages 6,7, and 8. Bob Frost -------------------------------------------------- From: "Derek Lambert" <csync@colorforest.net>
Really. How much better result will you get with custom device that you can use with only one monitor? 5%? 10%? 50%?
Or how many delta e?
Maybe it is just a marketing hype from NEC or HP? Do you have a scientific results that your custom device is way better than retail device with basiccolor or coloreyes?
_______________________________________________ Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored. Colorsync-users mailing list (Colorsync-users@lists.apple.com) Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription: http://lists.apple.com/mailman/options/colorsync-users/graxx%40videotron.ca This email sent to graxx@videotron.ca
On Aug 20, 2011, at 1:01 PM, Roger Breton wrote:
My question is why attaining "absolute accuracy" is so important when even the most expensive instruments will never yield, to my experience, a visual match to any proofs viewed in a "D50" light booth, "out-of-the box"?
Well for one, neither produce D50... But after averaging data from a source 93 million miles away, you could. Andrew Rodney http://www.digitaldog.net/
You think users are after matching a source 93 million miles away? Not my experience, but you know I'm a pluralist, I use what works. / Roger -----Original Message----- From: colorsync-users-bounces+graxx=videotron.ca@lists.apple.com [mailto:colorsync-users-bounces+graxx=videotron.ca@lists.apple.com] On Behalf Of Andrew Rodney Sent: August-20-11 3:57 PM To: ColorSync Users Mailing List Subject: Re: Colorimeters and third-party developer support (Tom Lianza) On Aug 20, 2011, at 1:01 PM, Roger Breton wrote:
My question is why attaining "absolute accuracy" is so important when even the most expensive instruments will never yield, to my experience, a visual match to any proofs viewed in a "D50" light booth, "out-of-the box"?
Well for one, neither produce D50... But after averaging data from a source 93 million miles away, you could. Andrew Rodney http://www.digitaldog.net/ _______________________________________________
participants (5)
-
Andrew Rodney
-
Bob Frost
-
Derek Lambert
-
edmund ronald
-
Roger Breton