spyder 3 elite vs pro

[brian_ellis19]

<p>Patrick - Right, I was talking about using the Spyder 3 sensor with the SpectraView software. Sorry if that wasn't clear.</p>

[nino_loss]

<p>I was directed to this post, a study posted on colorsync-users list ( http://lists.apple.com/archives/colorsync-users/2009/Nov/msg00175.html ) :</p>

<blockquote>

<ul>

<li>From: "J.Raimar Kuhnen-Burger"</li>

<li>Date: Sat, 14 Nov 2009 18:51:53 +0100</li>

</ul>

<p>To reply on the wish about frank opinions from other scientists: We´ve</p>

evaluated at least 20 and up to 100 units of the following devices in the<br />past 18 months to get an idea about the precision, repeatability and inter<br />instrument agreement in real world usage for a scientific research project.<br />The devices have been stock units - not especially selected ones to avoid<br />any manufacturer selection. The Munki is missing because there is no real<br />third party support for it.<br /><br />- Eye One Display 2<br />- Spyder 3 Elite<br />- DTP94b<br />- EyeOne Pro Rev D<br /><br />We´ve used a Minolta CS200, CS1000 and CS2000 to get reference values. The<br />test have been done on stabilized displays with the following base specs:<br /><br />- 72% NTSC display with LG S-IPS and CCFL Backlight<br />- 72% NTSC display with LG S-IPS and pseudo white LED (blue LED + yellow<br />phosphor) Backlight<br />- 92% NTSC display with LG S-IPS and CCFL Backlight (WCG)<br />- 102% NTSC display with LG S-IPS and CCFL Backlight (extended WCG)<br />- 108% NTSC display with LG S-IPS and RGB LED backlight<br /><br />I will summarize the findings we had so far:<br /><br /></blockquote>

[nino_loss]

<blockquote>

<p>1) Inter instrument agreement between at least 20 units:<br>

- EyeOne Display 2 - max 18E, mean 8E<br />- Spyder 3 Elite - max 15 E, mean 7 E<br />- DEP94b - max 3 E, mean 1,5 E<br />- EyeOne Pro Rev D - max 3 E, mean 2 E</p>

<p>As recommended bu others, one should only make use of one (1) EyeOne D2 or SPyder 3 unit for all installed displays, because the tolerance between these devices are much too high to get consistent results. Even the 3E max tolerance of the DTP94b or EyeOne pro can be too high. However, both devices show much better inter instrument agreement.</p>

<p>2) Measurement quality<br /><br />We used the "best" set of the evaluated units to perform some quality tests. All selected colorimeters showed an acceptable performance on the 72% NTSC CCFL display. However, on a white LED unit, the readings differ a lot from the reference. The spectra of a white LED unit differs a lot from a standard CCFL it replaces and the colorimeters are trained on a specific panel type and spectra. As soon as the spectra differs too much, the device tends to report wrong readings. The Wide Gamut CCFL and RGB-LED readings showed - as expected- even larger deviations. When the colorimeters are trained on the specific panel/spectra, their readings again reach an acceptable quality. However, the filter set of the DTP94 proofed to be farer away from the CIE standard observer than the ones from the EyeOne Display 2 or the Spyder. It needs therefore a higher correction for wide gamut display. Although, the EyeOne Dispaly 2´s and Spyder 3´s filter may match better to the CIE curves, they are still far off. As a result, all colorimeters need a correction for<br />wide gamut (and white LED according to our test). Some display vendors use specially trained sensors for their wide gamut displays, others use standard ones and implement the training on the specific panel/spectra in the calibration software. The result should be always the same. But, keeping the large deviations from (1) in mind , it´s at least questionable if the single EyeOne Display 2 or Spyder 3 Elite matches the correction curve (either in Hardware or in Software). For the sensors that come bundled with a display, one can only hope that the inter instrument agreement is better than with standard retail units.<br /><br /><br />3) Differences between Colorimeter and Spectro during the tests<br /><br />The only visible deviations that we´ve seen was a quite noticeable difference in the dark tone represenation on the selected displays. The older 72% NTSC unit had a lowest black of 0.5cd/m2. Here, the EyeOne Pro<br />Rev.D performed equal to the colorimeters. On the 72% white LED and 92% NTSC CCFL with only 0.3cd/m2, the EyeOne pro started to created more noise in the darks and had a lot of questionable readings. As far as I know, the Spectro is not able to set individual integration times with different luminance levels (in contrast to the colorimeters). The visible result can be described as drowning dark tones (no matter if they were real blacks or dark colors). This gets even worse with the RGB LED backlighted 108% NTSc unit. This unit had a blackpoint of only 0.1cd/m2 and here we´ve seen even more drowning and colorfull (noisy darks with visible colorshifts and high Kelvins) darks - to be fair, the EyeOne Pro is not specified for dark readings below 0.2cd/m2. However, even the EyeOne Display and the Spyder created more noise on this display than on the thers. The DTP94 created the best results - in terms of details and neutrality - in the darks but is also well known for being the slowest device at all. The dark readings of the DTP94b take even more time as the device adjusts the integration time (like the other colorimeters, too). The EyeOne pro uses - compared to the 1nm reporting of the CS2000 - a wider sampling interval. It has been often discussed, that the relatively small peaks of CCFL displays (discontinous spectral characteristic of CCFLs) may cause interpolations errors with the EyeOne pro, because they can be spectrally located between two 10nm measurement steps. This can be noticed on both, the 92% and 102% unit in comparison to the Minolta Spectroradiometers. However, there is no visible difference between the Colorimeters and the EyeOne pro in real world perception tests. Therefore - according to our tests - there is a limitation of the EyeOne regarding the spectral interval, but is has no or little effect on the color representation on the selected displays.<br /><br />To summarize, the EyeOne Pro Rev D (the A/B Revs performed far less good) is well suited for today´s displays except the extreme dark readings. All Colorimeters need an additional correction matrix on wide gamut and white LED displays. Additionally, 2 of the 3 evaluated colorimeters suffer from poor inter instrument agreement. The DTP94 (not available from Xrite any more) performed close to the EyeOne Pro in regards of inter instrument agreement and with a correction for wide gamut, it showed the best results even on the displays with lower black luminances.<br /><br />I hope this makes the image a bit clearer.</p>

 

Raimar <br /></blockquote>

[chas_frady]

<blockquote>

<p>The spyder3 express is, if it works, the cheapest instrument that I could get with correction.<br /> Therefor I would like to now two things<br /> - Is the instrument itself, I don't need the software, is it the same in all spyder versions, the express, pro, elite and studio?</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>The hardware is identical across the line with one exception-- The Spyder3 Express hardware does not have the ambient light sensor as the other versions do. If you need/want a Spyder3 colorimeter to use with other software, go with the Spyder3 Express. I went through a few Spyder3 sensors until I found a good one and it was, coincidentally, a Spyder3 Express version. I still have and use it.</p>

[nino_loss]

<p>Chas,</p>

<p>If I should get one, what would be the quickest way of testing it?</p>

[brad_smith8]

<blockquote>

<p>The Spyder 3 sensor works fine, I'm getting an excellent match between monitor and print.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>The reason I originally got a Spyder3 was because of a review (I can't find now) that showed a higher gamut was achieved by the Spyder vs. the i1.</p>

<p>I've used mine through many prints, more recently on a high gamut monitor, and I can only describe the results as print-perfect.</p>

[chas_frady]

<blockquote>

 

<p>Chas,<br>

If I should get one, what would be the quickest way of testing it?</p>

 

 

</blockquote>

 

<p>I'm not a technical expert so I really can't answer that question. I went through 3 Spyder3 devices over a period of several months.</p>

 

[tom_thumbnail]

<p>To those that went through more than one Spyder puck, how did you know the one you had was no good?<br>

How do you test them?</p>

[tom_thumbnail]

<p>There is a comparison chart on the manufacturer's website at: <br>

http://spyder.datacolor.com/s3compare.php<br>

 <br>

But I don't know or can't tell what a lot of items mean.   </p>