# Which Calibration System?



## Brad Snyder (Jan 25, 2008)

Can we talk hardware based calibration systems ? 

Preferences, favorites, advice, opinions, pros/cons ?

My 'commercial' work is mostly action sports; 'close enough' color fidelity is fine. So, I currently use the monitor vendor's software cal.

I'd like to move up to hardware based, but these are expensive enough to make me want to get it right the first time.  

Maybe even a poll, if there's enough interest?

......brad s


----------



## rcannonp (Jan 25, 2008)

Any hardware calibrator will be better than doing it with software alone. I use a Monaco Optix calibrator. It cost around $4'' when I bought it. I think that Monaco got bought out by X-Rite or someone like that. It works exactly like I would expect it to for calibrating and profiling monitors. I never got results that I was happy with when I tried profiling my scanner and printer. That may be because I lost interest during the process and didn't really give it my best shot. For simply calibrating your monitor, I would think that something in the $4''-5'' range should work out fine. I've used a $12'' X-Rite calibrator before and it didn't seem to do any better of a job.


----------



## billg71 (Jan 25, 2008)

I use the i1 Display 2 for the monitors. I tried the Printfix Pro Suite from Colorvision, it worked fine for the monitors for a while but recently developed a nasty habit of uninstalling the USB driver for the colorimeter randomly and frequently. Colorvision's TS dep't. was, to put it kindly, less than helpful the one time I had any reason to use them so I just went out and bought the i1D2. It works well and reliably(so far).

The PrintFix Pro printer profiles worked adequately as long as you have the time and patience to use the 729-patch target. Profiles made with the  other targets were worse than what I could download from the paper manufacturers.

If business ever picks up, I'll add the i1 Photo package for printer profiling. Until then, I'll stick with manufacturer's profiles.

My experience, YMMV.


----------



## Ian Farlow (Jan 25, 2008)

i1 Display 2 here as well and love it. Highly recommended.


----------



## Mark Sirota (Jan 25, 2008)

I now use the Spyder3Elite.  The other likely choice is the I1D2 (Eye-One Display 2), but unfortunately I've never seen a meaningful comparison of the two.

I like the Spyder3 hardware, though I think the software seems somewhat amateurish.  I can't remember off the top of my head, but there are typos or an odd/inconsistent user interface or something that seemed a little less than well-polished.

Still, it's a nice device, easy to use, effective, and relatively quick.


----------



## RipIt (Jan 25, 2008)

The Monaco Optix Pro was superceded by the i1 Display 2 and is the current offering from X-Rite.
However, the hardware is not considered o be an improvement by experts in the field simply because it came after.
While you will be perfectly happy with the i1 Display2, and I certainly recommend X-Rite products, if you want to get the Monaco Optix Pro, they are still available from Chromix at www.chromix.com.

Personally I use, and have used, X-Rite DTP92, DTP94(optix xr) and Sony Artisan colorimeters.


----------



## topanga (Jan 25, 2008)

I have been using a Monaco Optix Pro for a few years with two different monitors. My printing through CS3 and Lightroom matches the monitors just fine.


----------



## Andrew Hayton (Jan 25, 2008)

I use the Spyder Pro and it works pretty well.


----------



## pats (Jan 26, 2008)

I've tried both Huey Pro, Eye-One Display 2 and Spyder2Express.

I could never get the Huey Pro to work, all it gave me was a terrible green cast. The store took it back.
Then I got to try the Eye-One Display 2, and it was very easy to work with.
After that they gave me a Spyder2Express, and it's not as advanced as Display 2. The profile is slightly different between the two, but my personal feeling is that the Spyder feels more natural.

All 3 work with dual monitors (on a Mac). The Spyder needs a small tweak to work with dual monitors though.


----------



## Victoria Bampton (Jan 26, 2008)

i1 Display here too - but I've combined it with basICColor software for an even more accurate profile.


----------



## Mick Seymour (Jan 28, 2008)

i1D2 here as well. It even does a passable job on my laptop that appears to have a purple light sabre as a backlight!


----------



## Rob Sylvan (Jan 28, 2008)

Had been using Spyder2Pro for years. Just moved up to a Spyder3Elite (anyone in the market for a "previously owned Spyder2?) and both have done well by me.


----------



## Steve Holmes (Jan 29, 2008)

I use an i1 display 2 with my NEC 269', and I love the one button calibration with NEC's Spectraview software.


----------



## Bruce J (Jan 29, 2008)

I've used a Spyder2 for a number of years on CRT, LCD, and laptop screens.  No problems; does the job simply and easily.


----------



## Denis Pagé (Feb 1, 2008)

*Monaco*

The ones you all talk about were not on the market when I buyed mine. It is an old Monaco Sensor (Sequel Imaging device) with the Monaco software.

Those devices were not so popular at that time so it costed me 1'''$CAN!

At least, it does the job fine for the monitor. But as rcanon say, it is a hassle for calibrating scanners and printers so, I also gave up on these too.


----------



## Katherine Mann (Feb 5, 2008)

Spyder Pro2 here, and a somewhat cheap monitor, the Viewsonic 2235wm, Lr 1.31 and a Canon Pro9'''. Works very well. Anyone else have the Canon Pro9'''? Do you like it?


----------



## SloYerRoll (Feb 16, 2008)

Huey Pro here. 
I run dual 21" monitors and both are identical in every regard.                               I've tested the calibration w/ my local print shops [SIZE=-1]spectrophotometer and it's spot on. 

[/SIZE][SIZE=-1] The main things is that you have a color managed work flow. It doesn't matter how perfect your shots look on screen if you don't have a basic understanding of this. [/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1] 
Spyder is a great calibrator. Huey just got a bad rap since they pulled the trigger to early and released all those bad sensors. That's long been replaced though. 
[/SIZE]


----------



## Braders (Feb 19, 2008)

Eye one match 3

and on a 17" LCD i just can't seem to get corrections curves close enough!


----------



## SloYerRoll (Feb 19, 2008)

Braders;84'3 said:
			
		

> Eye one match 3
> 
> and on a 17" LCD i just can't seem to get corrections curves close enough!


Close enough to what?


----------



## HerrB (Feb 27, 2008)

Have used Spyder2. Am happy with it on my Mac (laptop screen). Have tried to calibrate two screens on a dual-head-PC (Win XP Pro) with it and it was hassle. It would not properly recognize the second screen without some jiggery-pokery I dug out on the web somewhere. But I think this device is now out of date and the newer ones might be better.

My point: if you want to use multiple displays on one machine, make sure that is supported.


----------



## SloYerRoll (Feb 27, 2008)

HerrB said:


> My point: if you want to use multiple displays on one machine, make sure that is supported.


That's one of the main things that dileniate between the standard and pro models. 

I know that it works for Huey and I'm sure it will work for any other brand. You can just order an upgrade online and the company will send you the firmware update and you can then switch over to dual monitors w/ no hassles (relatively speaking).


----------



## pats (Feb 27, 2008)

You can use all calibrators for dual monitors, since they are creating an ICC profile.
It's just that the ones that say "supports dual monitors", the software does it for you and you don't have to do anything.

This is how you do it on a Spyder2Express for example.

* Calibrate monitor #1
* Save and exit
* Locate the ICC profile
* Rename it to some appropriate and unique. Don't forget to rename it inside the profile too. On a Mac you double-click it and you will see where the name should be.
* Set monitor #1 to use that profile

Repeat for monitor #2

Easy


----------



## SloYerRoll (Feb 27, 2008)

So you calibrate your monitor in the daytime, then use  your puter at night..
Only one monitor will adjust to the ambient light. 

Sure it will get a monitor closer. But it won't hit the mark. Not to mention your not even calibrating luminosity if your using LCD monitors. 

To go through all those steps to just save 2'-3' bucks and not know htat your screen is calibrated correctly... Just doesn't make sense to me. JMO.


----------



## SiriusDoggy (Apr 6, 2008)

I've had great success with the Pantone HueyPro.
Decent price, easy to use, room light monitoring which is great because I sometimes work near windows and the changing light really effects the screen image. (Never tried any of the others so I don't even know if room light monitoring is a standard feature.)
If you have dual monitors, get the Pro version. If you are working with a single monitor you can save a few bucks and get the standard Huey.


----------



## Yzerguy (Apr 6, 2008)

With time spent since the original posts I've learned a lot and am very happy with the Eye 1 D2, I'm even ignoring the one dead pixel most of the time (progress!).

From everything I've read and heard from other users of the Huey, most everyone is very happy with the HueyPro as well, but the standard Huey has far fewer fans, even on single montiors.  Just my $'.'2.

Sean


----------



## Ian Farlow (Apr 6, 2008)

Excellent news, especially about the pixel. I know how hard that can be...


----------



## SloYerRoll (Apr 7, 2008)

Yzerguy said:


> From everything I've read and heard from other users of the Huey, most everyone is very happy with the HueyPro as well, but the standard Huey has far fewer fans, even on single montiors.  Just my $'.'2.
> 
> Sean


Way to stick w/ the masses.


----------



## chris02 (Apr 8, 2008)

Huey Pro for me, works well with two monitors, both different manufacturers but the colours are identical. Only thing I struggle with is setting the brightness and contrast, as the on screen patterns are not that clear (maybe my eyes).


----------



## SiriusDoggy (Apr 10, 2008)

chris'2 said:


> Only thing I struggle with is setting the brightness and contrast, as the on screen patterns are not that clear (maybe my eyes).



Ditto, but it still works great.


----------



## JohnnyV (Apr 11, 2008)

HerrB said:


> Have used Spyder2. Am happy with it on my Mac (laptop screen). Have tried to calibrate two screens on a dual-head-PC (Win XP Pro) with it and it was hassle. It would not properly recognize the second screen without some jiggery-pokery I dug out on the web somewhere. But I think this device is now out of date and the newer ones might be better.
> 
> My point: if you want to use multiple displays on one machine, make sure that is supported.



I also use the Spyder2 with no problems with dual monitors...but I'm on a Mac.

Regarding the problems with calibrating multiple displays. Not the problem of the Spyder.... usually a limitation of the OS and/or video card, especially on Windows.


----------



## Brad Snyder (Apr 11, 2008)

JohnnyV said:


> Regarding the problems with calibrating multiple displays. Not the problem of the Spyder.... usually a limitation of the OS and/or video card, especially on Windows.



It's been my understanding that calibrating multiple monitors correctly on Windows requires

a) 1 video card per monitor, or:
b) a high end video card with muliple LUTs (look-up tables)

Is that still correct? I understand that the Mac is different in this regard.


----------



## JohnnyV (Apr 11, 2008)

Correct and also running XP Color Control Applet for good measure.

I'm a Mac guy so don't know much about Windows but enough to get me into trouble.


----------



## Denis Pagé (Apr 12, 2008)

Brad Snyder said:


> It's been my understanding that calibrating multiple monitors correctly on Windows requires
> 
> a) 1 video card per monitor, or:
> b) a high end video card with muliple LUTs (look-up tables)
> ...


I just buyed the "From Camera to Print" video series two days ago in case I can learn some more. I new that my video card's fan was broken but that never impacted anyhow on Lightroom and general use. But decoding the videos!? WOW! The computer started to smell _burned circuits_ for after each half hour of video decoding "numbercrunching"! After three power downs _(because of unreadable screens)_, I decided to watch on another computer of my LAN until I change that card.

To make a long story short, as I am on Windows _(Starting to "Think Different")_, I wonder now what video cards can handle multiple LUTs? And by the way, my monitor is equiped with not only the standard D-sub connector but also five BNC connectors to input separately the R, G, B, VD and COMP.HD components. I actually use the D-sub but is there an advantage to go to BNC? Which card with also dual LUTs?

Well, it may be less expensive to _"Think Different"_ than to find such a card. The last one I found was 8'''$ :shock:

Toughts?


----------



## Brad Snyder (Apr 12, 2008)

Denis, I've never seen anything besides the fact that such expensive video cards exist. I've never seen an actual reference or specifications for one.
Since I don't game very much (a little golf, and casual flight sim) I don't chase high-end graphics, so I'm usually happy to run two (or more) lower end cards for multiple monitors.

Since my photography practice is not dependent on absolute color fidelity, I'm currently still using software/visual calibration. A colorimeter is next on my shopping list, hence this thread.


----------



## achrysos (May 23, 2008)

pats said:


> All 3 work with dual monitors (on a Mac). The Spyder needs a small tweak to work with dual monitors though.



Hi Pats,

I'm about to go dual monitor and also have the Spyder2Express - so I'm interested to know what tweaks you have to go through to get it to work on an iMac.

Thanks for any help!


----------



## nixphoto (Sep 15, 2008)

*problem with Spyder2 and OS 10.5?*

I noticed that most posters use Spyder2. Datacolor representatives told me Spyder2 was old technology and was "not supported" by OS 1'.5. Wonder if folks have had problem with the combination of Spyder2 and OS 1'.5?


----------



## Gene McCullagh (Sep 15, 2008)

Works fine for me. No issues on 1'.5.4.


----------



## Andrew Hayton (Sep 15, 2008)

I guess they are trying to push the new Spyder Elite


----------



## billg71 (Sep 16, 2008)

Brad Snyder said:


> It's been my understanding that calibrating multiple monitors correctly on Windows requires
> 
> a) 1 video card per monitor, or:
> b) a high end video card with muliple LUTs (look-up tables)
> ...



Brad,

I don't know about "high-end" video cards but I've been running dual monitors on regular ATI cards for two computers now. Old one was a Radeon 13'' series AGP card w/512m RAM, latest computer has a Radeon X195' Pro with 256M RAM. Both load two profiles for two different monitors at the same time so I suppose they have dual LUT's since the monitors have totally different looks before the profiles are loaded and look the same after. Both cost somewhere around $15' at Microcenter and Best Buy so I definitely wouldn't call them "high-end" cards.

I do run the Windows Color Control Powertoy, it's free and a big help when sorting out profiles.

HTH,


----------



## Brad Snyder (Sep 16, 2008)

I'm guessing when I read that, probably two-three years ago (maybe more, well before LR came out anyway) the bar was a good deal higher for 'high end'. That GPU technology moves fast.

Good to know that I won't have to spend a fortune next time.  

Thanks for the update.


----------



## DaveFinton (Dec 31, 2008)

I noticed this thread about calibrators, and thought I should add my 2-cent's worth about my experiences with X-rite's ColorMunki.  

A friend of mine was having difficulty getting prints with "correct" colors, and trying to match his final print with what he viewed on his monitor. After wasting many sheets of paper and lots of ink, he still was not able to accurately get the finished product he was after. He finally got tired of experimenting, and recently bought Colormunki, and immediately resolved the problems he had been having. He uses a PC, with Vista Home Premium.

Since I had the same problem with my Intel MacPro, 3'" Cinema display, and Epson R18'', I decided to try the same approach. After installing the software and calibrating my monitor, I then profiled the R18'' with the paper I normally use: INSTANT SUCCESS! After wasting lots of ink and many sheets of photo paper in an effort to try and get the printed output to look like my screen image, I now can get correct results the first time. Although ColorMunki is an expensive alternative for amateurs like me (street price about $4''), my monitor is now correctly calibrated, and I can calibrate my printer to produce color profiles for any paper that I am using. With LR I can then select whatever of these profiles I need, to match any paper I might have in the printer.

I have read reviews from some who have not had good results with ColorMunki; however, my friend and I are two examples of "happy campers". And, the results do not appear to be associated with operating systems - he uses a PC with Vista, and I use a MacPro with OS 1'.5.6 (Leopard). Our results both produce WYSIWYG (What You See Is What You Get) prints!


----------



## Denis Pagé (Dec 31, 2008)

Thanks for your input Dave! ...As I was about to buy the ColorMunki.


----------



## DaveFinton (Dec 31, 2008)

Denis Pagé said:


> Thanks for your input Dave! ...As I was about to buy the ColorMunki.



Glad to help!

I initially was turned off by some of the negative reviews I had read.  If I had known how easy and how successful my ColorMunki experience would be, I would have bought it months earlier.

(Another BootCamp user, too!)


----------



## Brad Snyder (Dec 31, 2008)

Add me to the list, Santa brought me a ColorMunki as well. And I'm quite satisfied. It's trivially easy to use, and my low-end HP all in one, produces prints exactly as shown in Lr. (Or close enough for my amateur eyes). The only problems I experienced at all were getting the HP driver settings 'sticky' enough to stay exactly the same when switching between Lr and ColorMunki.

I'd recommend using the 'Advanced' mode for the display calibration, as that helps get both the monitor hardware brightness and contrast settings in the 'ball-park' first.

BTW, B&H (probably others as well) has $1'' rebate offer for a competive 'trade-in', date of purchase deadline expires tonite (12-31-'8 ).


----------



## Denis Pagé (Dec 31, 2008)

Brad Snyder said:


> Add me to the list, Santa brought me a ColorMunki as well. And I'm quite satisfied...


Nice!  I guess that you will now print more than ever! 8)


----------



## Sid-EOS (Dec 31, 2008)

*ColorMunki*

I have also seen a few reviews that did not rate the ColorMunki.
Personal experience with it has been good (mine arrived pre Santa), it certainly gets my 24" Apple display and laptop screen closer to reality than the standard profiles.
The thing I liked was the print profiling, I expected the task to take ages on the Canon 95'', nope, sorted in about 15 minutes.

Have I used it for projector profiling, no not yet, that happens when I get back to the office.

Downsides to the CM. it looks like a tape measure designed by Neil Poulton.
Upsides, it works, the price is not an issue when you compare features with competing products.


----------



## DonRicklin (Dec 31, 2008)

Sid-EOS said:


> I have also seen a few reviews that did not rate the ColorMunki.
> Personal experience with it has been good (mine arrived pre Santa), it certainly gets my 24" Apple display and laptop screen closer to reality than the standard profiles.
> The thing I liked was the print profiling, I expected the task to take ages on the Canon 95'', nope, sorted in about 15 minutes.
> 
> ...


Thanks for chiming in, Sid. Welcome aboard!

:cheesy:

Don


----------



## Brad Snyder (Jan 1, 2009)

I guess, continuing the review, I too, at first found the case design a teensy bit awkward, particularly rotating the setting dial, and accidentally pressing the huge operation button at the wrong time. But, just like the cropping paradigm in Lr, it's easy enough to get used to. 

As Sid notes, the printer profiling took just a few minutes,
a) most of that was patiently waiting for the ink to 'dry'.
b) the patch scanning was dead easy, except for one strip out of dozens that gave me a fit. I fiddled with my grip, and alignment and timing a little, and never had another problem.


----------

