Your eyeone should be doing a competant job. The deficiencies of a spectro here might be the signal to noise ratio given the small aperture of the i1 compared to the wider aperture of a colorimeter. This could make a difference in darker patches, but then again, the eye is less sensitive to those areas. Also the i1 might benefit more from a warm up period hanging on the monitor to ensure the calibration doesn’t vary as profiling occurs.
The main point of Karl Lang’s article as I recall was that a colorimeter that has a correction table to correlate the filter spectra to the spectra of the monitor itself would have an advantage over a colorimeter that has no correction (either through a hard coded lut or a lut via the software). So if you opted for a colorimeter, particularly for a wide gamut monitor, or an led backlite whose spectra are atypical of the general monitor population, you may want to verify that such a lut exists. This is likely the case with a supported instrument and Eizo colornavigator, but less likely with say i1match or profilemaker. A spectrophotometer does not have this limitation and doesnt necessarily require a correctiion matrix.
I bought a CG241W about 7-8 weeks ago & it was incredible; Using BabelColor PatchTool & Coated1 IT8.7/4 1617 patch target I would get & average dE of 0.4-0.5 & MaxdE of 1.1-1.5dE.
Unfortunately I had to send that screen back as it it didn’t develop a stuck pixel, it had an entire vertical line of stuck blue pixels & another horizontal line of stuck white/grey pixels. Anyway, Eizo, here in Melbourne & Sydney, Australia replaced the screen within 3days & I had a replacement.
Now that one worked well for a week or 2 & then started showing some anomalies with the BP. It often would not go any lower than 1-1.5cdm, when previously, since unpacking it, could reach as low as 0.25-0.3cdm.
So, sent the 2nd CG241W back to Eizo & they confirmed that there was something wrong with that one too. Evil or Very Mad <http://www.colorforums.comimages/smiles/icon_evil.gif>
So finally, 2 days ago they replaced it with a yet to be released CG242W. Apparently it’s the very 1st one in Australia that’s been given to a customer, as opposed to testers, sponsored people, etc. Cool huh. Very Happy <http://www.colorforums.comimages/smiles/icon_biggrin.gif> Apparently it’s starting to ship in Dec 08 & should be on sale in Jan 09. BUT, the model I received is a “Commercial Sample”. Evil or Very Mad <http://www.colorforums.comimages/smiles/icon_evil.gif>
Anyway, what I want to know is this: I have no problems whatsoever making excellent printer profiles for my SP3800 using ProfileMaker 5.05b & the i1Pro & so far with the CG242W it has been making excellent profiles with it i1Pro, BPmin 0.15cdm & my chosen settings, 03-105cdm, 6500K, 2.2, GreyBalance are working quite well.
Would I be better off purchaing a Monaco XR or i1Display 2 or Spyder3 colorimeter as opposed to my i1 Spectro? I’ve been reading quite a bit about how even extremely inexpensive US$200-300 colorimeters can calibrate/measure/profile a screen as well as a US$40,000-60,000 Spectroradiometer. And this is in a White Paper from XRite, written by the “god-father” of display technology, Karl Lang, so he should know if any one would.
What do you think - worth buying a colorimeter, especially with the large-gamut 97% Adobe 1998 CG242W screen or will I not notice much difference.
One last note, most of the major errors are in the dark colours, in the dark navy & blue colours & sometimes dark red/maroon patches.
Also, should I be demanding to receive a FULL production model once they are on sale, as opposed to the Commercial Sample? It has a mark on the base & also, when I spoke to the lady at Eizo she said they’d only just received their 1st 10 screens to test for themselves, and that’s pone of the one’s I was given.
Hope I haven’t confused you guys (or put you to sleep Razz <http://www.colorforums.comimages/smiles/icon_razz.gif> ).
Please help. Sad <http://www.colorforums.comimages/smiles/icon_sad.gif>
Post generated from email list