Display Calibration System - Spyder3Elite vs X-Rite i1Display Pro

Hey guy's

I'm looking for a very good Display Calibration System and i found these two on B&H.

Which one would be the better choice ? Or is there something better ?

The choices are the X-Rite i1Display Pro or the Datacolor Spyder3Elite .

Please, any help is welcome.

Thanx

--
© Helio Phoeli

http://www.drycreekphoto.com/Learn/Calibration/MonitorCalibrationHardware.html

The comparative show that the Discuss is the best(too expensive) and the i1 Display Pro is the second option and also excellent and not the price of an eye...

Pictus said:

The comparative show that the Discuss is the best(too expensive) and the i1 Display Pro is the second option and also excellent and not the price of an eye...

Click to expand...

Ha! Based on your avatar here, I'm thinking you could have bought tons of eyeballs for the cost of your borg replacement!
Tom

I guess you are right... LoL!

Pictus said:

I guess you are right... LoL!

Click to expand...

isn;'t that terminator and not borg?

bronxbombers said:

Pictus said:

I guess you are right... LoL!

Click to expand...

isn;'t that terminator and not borg?

Click to expand...

Yep, but the PictusNator

bronxbombers said:

http://www.drycreekphoto.com/Learn/Calibration/MonitorCalibrationHardware.html

Click to expand...

but what comparitive today uses a pre 2009 spyder for testing when they (drycreek) know as does most of the industry that datacolor pretty much revamped their manufacturing procedures and seem to have done it well. their version 4.02 of software works good and coloreyes recomends that package of spyder 3 and coloreyes software.

unfortunetly this is just about all we have to go by and drycreek has been given the throne so to speak (or pulpit) as no one else has done extensive testing.

how extensive is it if we are using new monitors both lcd and led and old calibrators to test with?

too many loose ends for me and frankly after working for 3 years with an i1displaypro2 and switching to spyder 3 elite in mid 2010 and 4.02 of the software i saw a great difference everyones mileage will vary of course.

most of us here aren't forking over the cash for discus as i'd rather put it into camera that said i am going spyder 4 route and trying it on my samsung led tv as it is said to do both.

--

D700 paired with 24-70 f2.8 and 70-200vr f2.8 along with an SB900 to brighten things up a bit....

chevysales said:

unfortunetly this is just about all we have to go by and drycreek has been given the throne so to speak (or pulpit) as no one else has done extensive testing.

Click to expand...

If I am not mistaken someone in the Argyll(or was colorsync) list did and there also some other tests in the thread http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=53825.140
and a friend also did one from Spyder3 vs the new X-rite.

My main CON against Spyder3 is that it is not much sensible to the darker parts, the DTP-94 and the new i1 Display Pro/Munki are better.

chevysales said:

bronxbombers said:

http://www.drycreekphoto.com/Learn/Calibration/MonitorCalibrationHardware.html

Click to expand...

but what comparitive today uses a pre 2009 spyder for testing when they (drycreek) know as does most of the industry that datacolor pretty much revamped their manufacturing procedures and seem to have done it well. their version 4.02 of software works good and coloreyes recomends that package of spyder 3 and coloreyes software.

unfortunetly this is just about all we have to go by and drycreek has been given the throne so to speak (or pulpit) as no one else has done extensive testing.

how extensive is it if we are using new monitors both lcd and led and old calibrators to test with?

too many loose ends for me and frankly after working for 3 years with an i1displaypro2 and switching to spyder 3 elite in mid 2010 and 4.02 of the software i saw a great difference everyones mileage will vary of course.

most of us here aren't forking over the cash for discus as i'd rather put it into camera that said i am going spyder 4 route and trying it on my samsung led tv as it is said to do both.

--

D700 paired with 24-70 f2.8 and 70-200vr f2.8 along with an SB900 to brighten things up a bit....

Click to expand...

well someone here was posting up gamuts measured with spyder3 of a nec pa241w and it looked pretty far off in measuring the green primary to me

and I thought the dry creek result where the spyder3 had less variance than stock i1D2 WAS done with the new spyder 3 copies

bronxbombers said:

chevysales said:

bronxbombers said:

http://www.drycreekphoto.com/Learn/Calibration/MonitorCalibrationHardware.html

Click to expand...

but what comparitive today uses a pre 2009 spyder for testing when they (drycreek) know as does most of the industry that datacolor pretty much revamped their manufacturing procedures and seem to have done it well. their version 4.02 of software works good and coloreyes recomends that package of spyder 3 and coloreyes software.

unfortunetly this is just about all we have to go by and drycreek has been given the throne so to speak (or pulpit) as no one else has done extensive testing.

how extensive is it if we are using new monitors both lcd and led and old calibrators to test with?

too many loose ends for me and frankly after working for 3 years with an i1displaypro2 and switching to spyder 3 elite in mid 2010 and 4.02 of the software i saw a great difference everyones mileage will vary of course.

most of us here aren't forking over the cash for discus as i'd rather put it into camera that said i am going spyder 4 route and trying it on my samsung led tv as it is said to do both.

--

D700 paired with 24-70 f2.8 and 70-200vr f2.8 along with an SB900 to brighten things up a bit....

Click to expand...

well someone here was posting up gamuts measured with spyder3 of a nec pa241w and it looked pretty far off in measuring the green primary to me

and I thought the dry creek result where the spyder3 had less variance than stock i1D2 WAS done with the new spyder 3 copies

Click to expand...

methods page shows mid 2009 and later ones. doesn't really say new or old yet implies a few years back
--

D700 paired with 24-70 f2.8 and 70-200vr f2.8 along with an SB900 to brighten things up a bit....

chevysales said:

bronxbombers said:

and I thought the dry creek result where the spyder3 had less variance than stock i1D2 WAS done with the new spyder 3 copies

Click to expand...

methods page shows mid 2009 and later ones. doesn't really say new or old yet implies a few years back
--

Click to expand...

i'd have to check again but I thought mid-2009 was when they switched to much better QC

anyway they just released the syder 4 now and they say it is 26% more accurate and 19% more precise on average

I sent drycreek an email as throughout the web users are taking their test since it is the most recent as the gospel when in fact i bet the majority of i1Pro users never even read what they said about dark room or layinmg flat. Although the videos at xrite from last model told you to tilt monitor upwards slightly to get tooll to lay flat on screen.

I also asked why they didn't use recent Spyder3's as from my understanding both companies had issues with the plastic filters discoloring or yellowing over time... hence me trying to keep new clean plastic baggies over top of spyder3 elite trying to keep it dust free and clean for ambient measurements.

They have had 3 updates and they surely knew of spyder4 in the works as others did and my questions is why not test that or at the least use a recent vintage spyder.

I just read via the photo web sites of more wide gamut users getting better results via newer spyders 3's and the 4.02 software. I also am not using this website as a complete sampling. Yes it's un scientific but you along with one or two others here know more about monitors that anyone on most of the sites put together.

--

D700 paired with 24-70 f2.8 and 70-200vr f2.8 along with an SB900 to brighten things up a bit....

one question I do have is why are they using 150 for white balance when most are 120, ect?

i will see what answers come forth.
--

D700 paired with 24-70 f2.8 and 70-200vr f2.8 along with an SB900 to brighten things up a bit....

chevysales said:

one question I do have is why are they using 150 for white balance when most are 120, ect?

i will see what answers come forth.
--

D700 paired with 24-70 f2.8 and 70-200vr f2.8 along with an SB900 to brighten things up a bit....

Click to expand...

I'm not sure 150 vs 120 makes too much difference, either one is bright enough to be far out of dark value zone for probes.

I do wonder why they appear to only test dark gray white point, full white bright point and full white luminance and why they skip testing how they measures primary chromaticities.

Hopefully they will test Spyder 4 soon. I don't think they would have had time yet since it only JUST came out.

thanx bronxbombers... and i was totally serious about you, newsyl, and another user whose name slips my mind but the 3 of you now more about monitors and related info than anyone else i have read on this site.
--

D700 paired with 24-70 f2.8 and 70-200vr f2.8 along with an SB900 to brighten things up a bit....

We received a few emails pointing to this thread, so I'll do my best to clear up some of the questions.

• Were the Spyder 3 units we tested recent? Answer: Yes. This is relevant because early Spyder 3 pucks were all over the place in terms of accuracy. We do not have the exact date when Datacolor improved their manufacturing line. We tested something over 60 Spyder 3 units. Most were 2008 or earlier vintage. Unit-to-unit variability improved significantly for pucks made after early 2009. We only used ones made from mib-2009 on in our evaluations.

• Why didn't we test the Spyder 4? Answer: It did not exist. Our initial tests were made early last year, prior to the release of the i1Display Pro (aka i1D3) and BasICColor Discus. Those two sensors proved groundbreaking, making all earlier models obsolete for wide-gamut or LED backlight panels. We went through several iterations of testing, in communication with the device manufacturers before we published results on the Discus and i1D3.

• OK, are you going to test the Spyder 4? Answer: Yes, but I cannot promise a definite timeframe. The only Spyder 4 we have is one we purchased. One of the weaknesses of earlier Spyder versions was that they could not be individually calibrated (a main reason why monitor OEMs used the i1D2 for their custom solutions). None of the literature we have seen indicates that the Spyder 4 is different in this regard. Therefore, results from a single unit, be they good or bad, may not be meaningful. Being a new product, the distributors do not have a stash of Spyder 4 units they are willing to loan out for an extended time. We have also not yet heard back from Datacolor about loaning a batch of pucks.

• Why were our white point measurements made at 150 cd/m2 rather than a lower value such as 120? Answer: Several reasons. First, the color gamut, output linearity, and shadow rendering performance of most monitors takes a hit at luminance values below the 130-140 cd/m2 range. Among the features that drive the price of really good graphics monitors into the many thousands of dollars range is the ability to maintain output quality at lower backlight luminance levels. Dropping the white point to 120 on more pedestrian screens limits their performance and creates enough artifacts that determining whether a problem is inherent in the screen or the fault of the calibration system used is difficult at best. Also, the ISO standard for non-critical appraisal calls for a screen luminance level of 160cd/m2. (Non-critical because no monitor can reach the full appraisal spec. levels for print viewing). We run the majority of our screens at 145-150 because it gives the best balance between visual comfort, panel longevity, and screen to print matching. (Prints too dark? One solution is to dim your monitor. The other is to use a brighter viewing light).

• Are you going to update your reviews of monitor calibration systems? Answer: Yes. That has always been the end goal of our science experiment. Initially, we set out to determine which sensors gave the best performance, independent of the software used. Once the Discus and i1D3 arrived, it became apparent that monitor calibration systems either needed to support them or, no matter how good the underlying software, be relegated to second-rate status. So far, the only vendors of monitor calibration software aside from X0-Rite and BasICColor to support either the Discus or i1D3 are manufacturers such as Eizo and NEC with their product-specific solutions. BasICColor has a beta version of their Display calibration product that drives both the Discus and i1D3, but we will only publish reviews of actual shipping product. ColorEyes was late to the party but has promised that the i1D3 will be supported eventually. SpectraCal supports both pucks for home theatre calibration, but that doesn't do much for photo monitors. Once Integrated Color/ColorEyes and/or BasICColor ship software supporting the new sensors, we'll have reviews up shortly. The new Datacolor software will also appear, but we may not be able to make firm conclusions about the capability of the Spyder 4.

--
Ethan Hansen
http://www.drycreekphoto.com/

Ethan,

Thank you for the informative answers and the response to my email was great.

Looking forward to any future information as this has been the bane of photgs everywhere. And frankly marketing wins out over testing most of the time as many don't test.

chevysales
--

D700 paired with 24-70 f2.8 and 70-200vr f2.8 along with an SB900 to brighten things up a bit....

chevysales said:

thanx bronxbombers... and i was totally serious about you, newsyl, and another user whose name slips my mind but the 3 of you now more about monitors and related info than anyone else i have read on this site.
--

D700 paired with 24-70 f2.8 and 70-200vr f2.8 along with an SB900 to brighten things up a bit....

Click to expand...

thanks

looking over i1 Display Pro a bit tonight and tentatively it appears to perform exceptionally well when paired with NEC PA monitors. To be honest, I'd need someone to lend me an extra copy or two of each of my probes to be sure but doing the best guessing I can based upon results for three probes and factory measured settings I will say (and do take it with a bit of a grain of salt, I really need to try to get a couple extra probe samples, somehow, to test):

It seems like a stock off the shelf $250 i1 Display Pro does better than the $900 i1 Pro which itself does better than the $200 custom NEC i1D2 when used in SV II software on a NEC PA wide gamut monitor.

Whether it will do better than the i1pro on other monitors types I don't know yet. Apparently xrite tuned their wide gamut performance to the exact monitor I have, so perhaps when used on more random monitors and different technology the i1 pro would pull ahead again? I don't know yet.

Again take it all with a grain of salt, only tried it on one monitor with three probes, not enough sample sizes there, but taking educated guesses that is what I say for now.

bronxbombers said:

It seems like a stock off the shelf $250 i1 Display Pro does better than the $900 i1 Pro which itself does better than the $200 custom NEC i1D2 when used in SV II software on a NEC PA wide gamut monitor.

Click to expand...

The i1 Display Pro should handily beat the i1Pro in any measurement criteria: white, dark, colors, etc. I'm somewhat surprised that you find the i1Pro superior to NEC's i1D2, but we have seen enough OEM-tuned lemons that it is not impossible.

bronxbombers said:

Whether it will do better than the i1pro on other monitors types I don't know yet. Apparently xrite tuned their wide gamut performance to the exact monitor I have, so perhaps when used on more random monitors and different technology the i1 pro would pull ahead again? I don't know yet.

Click to expand...

The i1 Display Pro comes pre-loaded with correction matrices for all normal monitor types. Choosing the correct one is critical. For a given monitor technology, e.g. wide-gamut CCFL LCD or standard gamut W-LED, there is not a huge range of variability in the spectral nature of the backlight between different panels. We did not measure statistically significant differences in either absolute accuracy or variability between units depending on the brand or version of monitor for a particular technology. Also, there aren't that many manufacturers of the panels themselves, no matter whose name appears on the front. A nice feature of both the i1D3 and Discus is that because they are individually spectrally calibrated, if and when a new display technology arrives, it only requires using a new set of correction matrices to get accurate values.

It is certainly possible that a manufacturer's custom branded and tuned i1 Display Pro version may utilize correction values more precisely suited to a given monitor. As for the i1Pro, its inherent lack of sensitivity for darker values and overall lower accuracy make it unlikely to pull ahead.

bronxbombers said:

Again take it all with a grain of salt, only tried it on one monitor with three probes, not enough sample sizes there, but taking educated guesses that is what I say for now.

Click to expand...

After characterizing 13 i1D3 pucks on over a dozen monitors, I'd say you are right on the money. BTW, what are the three probes?

--
Ethan Hansen
http://www.drycreekphoto.com/