Monitor calibration - Pantone ColorPlus vs. Spyder

[Viken Karaguesian]

Hi all,

I think I'd like to buy a monitor calibration device. I've been looking at
two Pantone products: the ColorPlus (about $100) and the Spyder (about
$160). Price *is* an issue here and the ColorPlus is obviously my most
affordable option.

Does anyone have any experience with one or both of the devices? The
ColorPlus seems to be a bare-bones way of generating a custom ICC profile
for my monitor. I don't think it's compatible with the OptiCAL and PhotoCAL
software. The Spyer calibration tool is more advanced and obviously has more
options. Is it worth the extra money to get the Spyder? How do the ICC
profiles interact with software? I use Jasc Paint Shop Pro 8 most often. I
assume the ICC profile that's created is installed as the default monitor
profile for Windows.

As for the intended application: I'm a somewhat advanced hobby photographer.
I take pictures mostly on slide film (for my "serious" stuff; "snapshot"
type photography is done on print film), and scan them using a Minolta Scan
Dual II scanner. My scans are mostly meant for screen viewing. I have an
Epson Photo 785EPX printer, which I use to occasionally print pictures. Any
pictures that I'm really proud of get sent to a pro to be enlarged. I've
already calibrated my monitor the best I can by using Adobe Gamma and the
advice on Norman Koren's website.

Any input on these devices or any alternative devices would be greatly
appreciated. Thanks in advance.

Viken Karaguesian

P.S. Thanks nikita and Hecate for your input on my last posts!!

 

[Hecate]

Does anyone have any experience with one or both of the devices? The
ColorPlus seems to be a bare-bones way of generating a custom ICC profile
for my monitor. I don't think it's compatible with the OptiCAL and PhotoCAL
software. The Spyer calibration tool is more advanced and obviously has more
options. Is it worth the extra money to get the Spyder? How do the ICC
profiles interact with software? I use Jasc Paint Shop Pro 8 most often. I
assume the ICC profile that's created is installed as the default monitor
profile for Windows.

Personally, I wouldn't touch the ColorPlus and I'd suggest you take a
look at Gretag MacBeth.

P.S. Thanks nikita and Hecate for your input on my last posts!!

Thanks. Here we go again! ;-)

 

[Jimmy]

I believe both ColorPlus and Spyder use the same hardware sensor, with the
difference being in the software and the included Adobe software. Here is a
comparison of their products.
http://www.colorvision.com/profis/profis_view.jsp?id=281 You will notice
the ColorPlus has only preset gamma and whitepoint. I use the SpyderPro
having the ColorCal software, so I can't comment on the ColorPlus. The
created profile is normally saved as the default monitor profile in Windows.

 

[Viken Karaguesian]

Thanks. Here we go again! ;-)

I hope not! :>) Actually, things are getting less frustrating. The original
ICC profile that came with my monitor had 2.9 as the gamma setting! The
funny thing is that 2.9 was actually darker than 2.2! That struck me as
weird. So I changed the gamma to 2.2 and re-did the ICC profile.

Before, I felt like I was resurrecting poor scans of perfectly good slides.
Now that I got my monitor calibrated better, my scans are much better from
the get-go. The preview scan actually looks like the slide! :>) Now all I
need to do in PSP8 is to do a histogram touch-up. What I'm doing now is
scanning the slide using the AdobeRGB color space setting in the Minolta
Scan Dual II's software. I've turned off color management in PSP8 and
Photoshop 6. I'm not sure if this is "right" but it seems to be working.

As you probably already know, adjusting the monitor using the Adobe Gamma
utility is not very exact. I can adjust the R,G, and B gamma sliders a dozen
times and still not end up at the same spot twice. That's why I'm looking
for a monitor calibrator. I'll take a look at Gretag MacBeth and see what
options they have. Thanks again for the advice.

Viken

 

[nikita]

Hi again Viken....

Once upon a time there was a LawnMower....

No, this thread is about harwareprobe and software Not so long ago
when it was an extremely bad weather here I was writing my fingers off
in a thread where false_dimitri asked very much the same question as
you are now. Search for it if you like. A bit confusing explanation
maybe, but a lot of facts in it about different monitorcalibration
solutions.

Like Hecate I would leave the Spyder stuff out today. The Sequelbased
probe is so much better. When the Spyder arrived at the market a few
years back it was the real pioneer in affordable monitorcalibration.
All the credit to Horses and Colorvison. Horses was the company
creating those scannerbased printer profilers Colorvison sells today.
It was bought by Colorvison. The Spyder was making way for the
understanding and spread a lot of knowledge about how important the
"objective" monitorcalibration is. But today the lowcost probes have
developed so much. The tech in the Sequel probe is different and very
exact. It's also one of the very best colorimeters for LCD screens.

The best package today for avarage use is without doubt the EyeOne
Display with EyeOne Match2 software. For those who has special demands
for cocalibration or full auto DDC calibrations for CRTs etc. may look
deeper at other solutions too, as there are packages which are holding
special features. The Optical in itself is good and also one of the
first pioneers for everyones monitorcalibration solution. They were
very much into the hardwarecalibration of a monitor to max out the
best base for a profiling. I've been using this software (and still is
in some places) so much during the years it has existed. The bad thing
is that it doesn't support the new Sequel probe. I use it in combo
with X-rite DTP42 which is an extremely good probe even though it is
getting old now. It's been a "referenceprobe" in the past. But it
doesn't support LCDs.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

As for the old scanproblem and the disconnected CMS in PS........If
that works use it, but it will probably create problems later on as
you're not using an independent workingspace. Your files will be
untagged and if you're going for a colormanagmented printing flow in
the future or anything else that needs source and destination with a
clear specification for it the halfcooked CMS flow will probably add
confusement and moving colors. Even if the Minolta scanningsoftware
would tagg on an ICC profile that says Adobe RGB it would NOT be what
you saw on your monitor while the CMS was OFF. You simply doesn't get
a REAL conversion into your new and perfect monitorprofile that you
payed hard earned cash for. So any output or editing elsewhere would
be off as well where they use an accurate colormanagmentflow. They
will have that conversion into their monitorspaces that you didn't
have when edited the file. It doesn't matter how prefect YOUR monitor
was calibrated and profiled with your new probe. They will see
different colors and think that your editing was lousy.

I won't push you on this, but personally I would start in the other
direction. Choosing an independent workingspace in Photoshop (like
Adobe RGB) and then build the flow outwards from that *known* center
point. I guess that it will not take much time after been buying that
Monitorprobe, when you add an IT8 slide and download the free
LittleCMS calibration application. Then you would have the same
"objective" neutrality for the scanner that would fit in the scanned
picture perfectly into Adobe RGB in Photoshop....that's what I mean
with building the flow from the center and outwards towards the
devices like scanner and printer. It's the same philosophy as you now
are going for while thinking of getting the monitorcalibration tool.
That's also why I bother to wright about it again. Because I know that
the probe itself doesn't solve much more than calibrating your
monitor. The use of that view has to be taken further to be usable and
of any real value.

As for sending the good stuff to a photolab for a printing on a lambda
or a minilab, it may happen that the lab asks for an Adobe RGB or a
Colormatch RGB sent to them. Then they will make a conversion to their
customprofile for their printer. If they don't get a icctagged file
from you they would assume that the file is in that space ( and then
convert to their printerproifle ASSUMING that the source space is
Adobe RGB ). While it actually sits in your own *monitorspace* thanks
to the fact that the CMS was off while you created that flow
earlier....as it was OFF it won't even tagg the file with your
monitorprofile!! So they think the colors are large Adobe RGB while
it's smaller custom Monitor. The ASSUMING of the wrong Sourcespace
will MOVE the colors in a way that YOU neither THEY can controll or
know what will happen until you get the print home with the bill.
Trust me, it will be a problem later on. The only thing that would
solve the problem with a situation like the one above (sending to a
lab) would be if YOU got a profile from them that described their
Lambda printer. The you could Convert from your MONITOR profile into
their printerprofile/space home at you place where YOU have access to
the monitorprofile. That would give the same view at paper as you had
on your profiled monitor. BUT you would have been editing in a smaller
space than Adobe RGB, the montorspace wouldent be perceptually
uniformed and greyballanced as a real workingspace space is. THAT is
one further reason for EDITING in any of the known workingspaces.
Another thing is that You will always create a NEW monitorprofile with
your new probe as your monitor is aging......so you tell me, WHAT
profile was in use when you EDITED THAT particular picture 14 months
ago? Your lost in the wood at that point.

So, as you see, the factors are so many that will make it fall while
using a homecooked flow. Mostly will be solved by using a KNOWN
WORKINGSPACE and controll the devices colors by profiling them.

Again, I don't want to push you I just want to spare you those
sleepless nights.

My simple advice would be to buy a EyeOne Display AND at the same time
buy a Wolf Faust IT8 slide. Then download LittleCMS scanner profiler
for the PC.

Calibrate/profile both the monitor and the scanner. Use Adobe RGB in
Photoshop for the Archive files. Then you've locked in the INPUT, the
MONITORVIEW and the ARCHIVEFILES ( indenpendent of devices). That's
the most important base. Now you can take it easy with the rest. As
long as you have it this way you don't need to redo anything later
like rescanning or re-editing when you get even more controll later.

From that point you only need to get further DESTINATIONS controlled
when that day comes;
- Convert a duplicate to s-RGB and downsample for the web or screen
view.
- Convert to a profile for a printing situation.
- Convert to profile built for a digital projector for a show on the
wall.
- Convert to other workingspaces which are not the same as the
archivefiles
- Convert to any new device that can come up in your sight.

The DESTINATIONS will vary in the future but the fundamental base is
KNOWN and the view is according to neutral standards that is also
known. You can create within controlled frames.

The sun is shining and I'm getting the hell out of here now!! There
YOU are sitting and reading all this crap.......

nikita

http://www.chromix.com/ColorGear/Sh...&-session=tx:F8E023E939DFC96F0B85C92FB951BF8D

http://www.littlecms.com/profilers.htm

http://www.targets.coloraid.de/

 

[David Chien]

Or, simply buy a sRGB calibrated monitor that works right out of the box
w/o tweaking...

Already went through the laborious Spyder hell, and found that it really
doesn't do anything here for me -- just an expensive product that does
'nothing' for my monitor or needs - it simply never got the picture to
look more accurate or colorful as I have it now on default srgb mode....

http://www.silverace.com/dottyspotty/issue13.html

Issue 13
Color Management and Calibration - True color matching ever possible?
4 January 2004

Many programs and tools are sold today which claim to 'calibrate'
and 'manage' your monitor, printer, scanner, and other output devices
more accurately than before. One of the benefits often advertised is
that 'what you print will look like what you see on the monitor'.

To 'calibrate' a device is to measure the output of color when
given a known input value, and to record the difference for future
reference. Thus, if the computer wants to produce a very dark blue, but
the monitor produces a slightly lighter blue, the 'calibration' will
make a note of this difference.

To 'manage' a device is to make sure it produces colors as close as
possible to what is being requested of it. Thus, following the case
above, if the computer knows the monitor produces a lighter blue than it
is told to, the computer will 'adjust' for this difference by sending an
even darker blue to produce, one which will look as close to the correct
value of blue as possible.

Quite sadly, no product on this planet in existence today can
properly match what you see in print vs. what you see on the monitor.
This is not a fault of the products, but instead physical, absolute
reality -- the printer can make colors that no monitor can produce; the
monitor can produce colors that no printer can produce.

This means, quite simply, that if you want a product to help you
match what you see on the screen to the print exactly, you can't.

This does not mean you cannot use a color calibration & management
tool to help you match and edit colors. Rather, you must still use your
judgement to adjust what you see on the screen to what you want to print.

Color calibration does produce the benefit where you can rely on a
stable, consistent output where images viewed on it don't look too pink
one day, then too blue another day. In commerical press applications
where thousands of books and publications must be printed to match in
color, color management and calibration products are a must.

BUT, for the home consumer today, such devices are not necessary,
and the marginal benefits are usually not worth the hundreds of dollars
spent on the products and time required to use them.

Why?

Simple! The introduction of sRGB gamut, LCD monitors, and sRGB
calibrated scanners, printers, and monitors.

The most critical device is the monitor. If you see something with
a slight color cast on a monitor, your eye quickly adjusts for this and
you soon lose awareness of this color cast. (You can try this by looking
at a white piece of paper indoors, then walking outdoors into bright
sunlight and noting the color of the paper with a slight color cast in
the first few moments.)

Luckily, almost all LCD montiors today are calibrated to the sRGB
color gamut, and even without further calibration and management, they
closely match the expected colors (usually with 90-95%+ accuracy, even
for cheap LCD monitors). If you use a LCD monitor, you can expect most
colors to be true and accurate to your images (usually, digital camera
images and scanner scans that also use the sRGB gamut).

Because the print color gamut and monitor color gamut will
physically never match, you won't see significant improvements by using
a 3rd party color calibration and management device, and you could
achieve excellent print results on your own - since in either case, you
still must make the subjective judgement regarding how you must adjust
what you see on the screen to produce the print you would like.

 

[Hecate]

Or, simply buy a sRGB calibrated monitor that works right out of the box
w/o tweaking...

That's fine if you wish to restrict your colour space. sRGB is
narrower than Adobe RGB and at the same time still gives more out of
gamut colours in CMYK. And your printer, even if it's an inkjet that
assumes RGB files, still uses CMYK to print. And that's apart from
the fact that the likelihood of getting a two monitors exactly the
same even from the same maker using sRGB is highly unlikely.

 

[nikita]

David,

the s-RGB isn't a solution – it's a limitation.

The s-RGB allover is just a Microsoft dream that has no real place in
the Colormanagment that today means FREEDOM and QUALITY. The freedom
costs money still. The s-RGB standarization between devices is no more
than a generic concept. You can't be serious about beliveing in that
the "factorycalibration" (!) would be good enough for editing in a
complete flow from input to outputs? Any scanner will show OFFs from a
factorycalibration as it is an individual. No one at that factory is
measureing EACH sample. Put a different paper (non Epson but an
artpaper or any paper not listed in the driver) in that little Epson
which is set to assume s-RGB and you need customprofiling, my friend.
The LCDs are getting better and better and STABILITY colorwise they
much better than the CRTs. However you have to NAIL those colors in a
descriptionfile – the iccprofile. And the backlighting is drifting
with aging quite much which will effect perception even though we will
adapt to a certain level. Photoshop needs to know the exact state of
the monitor at that particular time the editing is done. The generic
profile will never be true. So whether you work in s-RGB or a larger
space Photoshop will not be able to show you the real thing that you
have in front of you.

You've been falling for those arguments that is floating in from
pepole who doesn't know what they're talking about. The s-RGB will of
course be a better thing than nothing for amateuers that don't see
diffrence between pure red and orange. But it's not a colormanagment
solution for any productivity beyond that field of use.

Any device is an individual. If s-RGB was the real gift, then even the
generic profiles the manufactures give us would be doing the same
thing within a accurately set up colormanagmentflow. The s-RGB factory
"calibrated" devices will not be more precise than that. Even Eizos
highend LCD in the Coloredge family which today is the
industrystandard needs PROFILING. They even have their own software
for it....These LCDs are working in internal 10bit and has hardware
gamma-adjustments to get away from banding. Don't give me that shit
about even lowend LCDs shows colors accurately (according to the
standards we use today) right out of the box. You're dead wrong.
You're right in the sense that they are better than a CRT directly
from the box which is defaulting to office use at 9300 K......the LCDs
most often are down at 6500 thanks to the backlighting tubes.

Any limiting to s-RGB or an individual monitorspace for serious
editing is really nuts. Even those who "only" think that they will
scan for web should reconsider that. The scanner (and the cam) is
capable to much larger gamut than that. Grab that for the archive.
Then convert dupes to the destinations. Why limit yourself and your
freedom at the first base...??

You're experinces of the Spyder tool doesn't have to set
standard.....use a better tool and a real workflow where all devices
is profiled to a high standard. Set those in a accurate set up, then
you'll change your mind. An LCD needs one of the Sequel pucks or a
real Spectro to deliver.

I'll be out of town over the weekend and into next week. So, I can't
meet your arguments until later on. No computer nearby whatsoever.
Even the lawnMower will stay home.....>grin>

nikita