Difference Between Optix XR and Pro versions

[ron_ebenstein1]

I am about to buy the Optix XR bundled with EzColor. I think I read

somewhere (drycreek?) that, the Optix Pro version is much better and

needed to calibrate properly. When I spoke to Monaco systems the

tech on the phone told me that, if I did not need to calibrate many

monitors, the pro version was not needed. Can anyone shed some

light on the differences and whether and individual user needs the

pro version? Thanks....

[glenn_kroeger]

Ron:

 

Pro version can generate both matrix based and LUT (lookup table) based profiles. Apparently, LUT approach can be more accurate, particularly for LCDs, although sometimes the result is less "smooth" than the matrix approach. I understand LUTs but don't know enough about video driver implementation to know where the matrix approach is implemented.

[kirk_thompson]

Addendum to Glen's answer: Are you sure you want the bundled version? EZColor is

scanner-based & isn't (IMO) a 'competent' printer profiler.

[ethan hansen]

<p>Ron,</p>

<p>I second Kirk's opinion on EZColor. <a href="http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1003&message=9868663">Here are the results</a> of my tests of EZColor on scanners ranging from a Canon LIDE 80 on sale for fifty bucks to a $40K Creo. Disclaimer: my company makes custom ICC profiles for printers. For those who think this makes me biased, fee free to read something else.</p>

<p>The main difference between the Pro and non-Pro versions of XR are the display matching and trending software Monaco mentions. Those are dandy, but unimportant for most folks. The differences that do matter are things that leave me puzzled as to why they are not in the basic version. The first is, as mentioned above, LUT profiles. These profiles use tables of data to describe how your monitor behaves rather than a simple matrix containing white point, primary colors, and gamma curves. Matrix profiles are smoother and typically are the best option on CRT monitors. Monaco's matrix profiles are smoother than most, which creates problems with displays whose response in neither predictable nor smooth. That pretty much describes a LCD. I see color banding and inaccuracy in saturated cyan, magenta, and yellows (i.e. mixtures of the monitor primaries) that with Monaco's matrix profiles that do not appear with LUT profiles on LCD screens. This gets worse on poor quality (e.g. laptop) monitors.</p>

<p>The second feature of the Pro version that is sorely lacking in the basic suite is the ability to specify what luminance (white level) and black level you want your monitor to have. The basic version contains recommended settings (nothing numerical - just "OK" or "not OK"). The problem is that these values are often too dim or too bright. The software give some room for adjustmnet, but only if it detects clipping. I much prefer being able to specify how much light blasts out of my monitor so I can either see what is going on or not have my eyeballs fried. Why this simple step is not in the basic Optix version is beyond me.</p>

[vietnam photo]

Ethan, I am faced with similar question. I have XR version and am contemplating to upgrade to either XR PRO or Gretag Version 2.0. Is XR PRO worth 2x the price of Gretag which can set the luminance (and LUT, I assume)?

 

BTW, EZColor works fine for my set up which is Canon I960 and the scanner is HP G85. I scanned with Hamrick's scanning software. Thanks.

[ethan hansen]

<p>Cuong,</p>

<p>Unless you can write off the XR on your taxes, the new Eye-One has a lot to recommend it. In almost all cases, the i1 gets you 95% of the way to where the XR Pro will. Are you on a Mac? If so, look into <a href="http://www.chromix.com/ColorGear/Shop/productdetail.cxsa?toolid=1122&num=37&refcode=cmmeasure&PID=11713">ColorEyes Display 3</a> (<a href="http://www.integrated-color.com/">more here</a>). It can use the XR sensor and offers exceptional calibration and profiling. If you use Windows, ColorEyes works pretty well, although I would wait a few weeks for the quirks to be ironed out. So far, CE ranks among the best I have seen. We are running it through its paces on a series of monitors and will have a full report next week.</p>

[vietnam photo]

Thanks Ethan. You are saying that it is worthwhile to wait for ColorEye rather than buying the Gretag v2. now?

 

I have another question about profiling for printer. I will post it in another thread and appreciate if you could answer. I know you know because DryCreek Photo works with Costco print-shops :-). Thanks.

[sune_pedersen]

So the only difference between the basic and Pro version is the software???