[argyllcms] Re: Spyder2 Questions
- From: Stephen T <stwebvanuatu@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: "argyllcms@xxxxxxxxxxxxx" <argyllcms@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sat, 10 Sep 2011 19:08:44 -0700 (PDT)
Hmmm,
There are three elements to using Argyll: proficiency (know-how), instrument
(accuracy), and technique (setup).
Now Argyll CMS is a black box and it took me a long time to learn how to use it
confidently.
Automatic calibration and profiling will give substandard results for low-grade
displays. This is also true for the commercial GUI-based calibration software!
Without knowing the native behaviour of your display (white point, neutral
response, gamut) I can't give specific recommendations. In general:
If you're happy with native white point (colour temperature is satisfactory and
delta E to daylight locus is small) then use that. Else, try correcting the
white point.
If you're display has an elevated black level then try experimenting with the
dispcal parameter -f
If you're display has a narrow gamut (less than sRGB) then the result might be
more pleasing with only the calibration loaded (e.g. dispwin) and no colour
management (no profile).
When you get your i1D2 back, I suggest comparing the response of the display
with both instruments.
I have used my Spyder2 to calibrate:
2003 vintage CRT display (now dead) (which was a joy to calibrate and profile)
s-IPS standard gamut LCD (which was well-behaved and easy).
2004 vintage laptop LCD with CCFL backlight (difficult)
2008 vintage glossy WLED netbook LCD (difficult but a considerable improvement
in neutrality)
2011 vintage glossy WLED notebook LCD (getting easier but WLED LCDs still suck)
Stephen.
________________________________
From: Bob Coss <bobcoss@xxxxxxxxx>
To: argyllcms@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Saturday, 10 September 2011 1:58 AM
Subject: [argyllcms] Re: Spyder2 Questions
Thanks Stephen,
I have calibrated an inexpensive TN LCD panel and an older CRT with the Spyder
2 so far. I'm not too impressed with it. I also have an I1-2 which I think
my kids have pilfered which seemed to work better.
I wonder if it's possible to get replacement filters for the Spyder2. It is
an older device, so it probably is not worth the effort, and definitely not
worth having calibrated (if it's even possible).
The device seems to respond to dispcal attempting to read ambient light which
is why I asked my original question about ambient. When I get my i1 display 2
back, I'll get that ability back.
Bob
On Fri, Sep 9, 2011 at 9:12 AM, Stephen T <stwebvanuatu@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>Hello Bob,
>
>
>I also have a Spyder2.
>
>
>
>The Spyder 2 has a bluish plastic filter for LCD measurements (part of the
>baffle). You will find your measurements are rubbish without it.
>
>
>On the other hand, the filter/baffle should be removed for CRT measurements (I
>used to have one but it blew up last year).
>
>
>Another thing: you can pry open the baffle to clean the filter if it's dirty
>(e.g. dust or mould).
>
>
>And, the Spyder 2 does not support ambient light measurements.
>
>
>
>Stephen.
>
>
>
>
>________________________________
> From: Bob Coss <bobcoss@xxxxxxxxx>
>To: argyllcms@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>Sent: Monday, 5 September 2011 12:40 PM
>Subject: [argyllcms] Spyder2 Questions
>
>
>
>Hi All,
>
>I just setup a Spyder2 to do calibration of my Ubuntu box with inexpensive TN
>LCD panels. I also need to calibrate my XP box with old CRT displays.
>
>Questions:
>
>1. For Spyder2 under argyll, do you use the LCD baffle when calibrating like
>you do for the vendor software?
>2. The vendor's software didn't provide an option for calibrating ambient
>light. Should I measure with the LCD baffle on? My I1D2 had a white
>plastic cover that you use when measuring ambient. Should I use something
>like that?
>
>Thank you in advance,
>
>Bob
>
>
>On Fri, Sep 2, 2011 at 8:27 PM, Graeme Gill <graeme@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>Florian Höch wrote:
>>> Graeme, regarding the slower measurement speed of the ColorMunki
>>> Display, do you think this a hardware difference or maybe a difference
>>> in firmware? I'm just curious. I only know from one unofficial source
>>> which previously stated that they should be about the same (in speed)
>>> when used with the same software (ie. when using the ColorMunki with i1
>>> Profiler), but it seems that was just a rumor?
>>
>>My guess is that the firmware adds about a 1 second delay to each
>>reading (or maybe imposes a minimum of 1 second per reading). The
>>instruments otherwise seem to operate identically, including the
>>integration time set, which is a lot less than 1 second.
>>
>>So in terms of differentiating the two products, X-Rite have been
>>smart in making it something that a different driver can't overcome.
>>
>>Graeme Gill.
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>--
>Hay que aprender algo nuevo todos los días
>
>
>
--
Hay que aprender algo nuevo todos los días
Other related posts:
