2016-09-13 at 11:59 #4098
Dear DisplayCAL community,
I used the Spyder5 and DisplayCAL to calibrate my old IPS monitor and have gotten quite good results – I can not see any banding or any other calibration artifacts. So now I am wondering, if I just got lucky and my monitor was close to calibrated anyways or if the long calibration times enable DisplayCAL to achieve great results even on old consumer panels!
Thanks in advance,
Gelo.2016-09-15 at 17:45 #4132
In my experience DisplayCal is superior to all software that comes free with colorimeters and similar devices for display calibration. Yes it takes longer, but I don’t mind it, since it pays off with excellent results.2016-09-15 at 17:51 #4133
Thank you for the reply – so it is not only my uneducated impression. I just used DisplayCAL, compared the colors to the XRite color checker and checked for gradient artifacts and was very surprised, how good everything looked, considering the age and price of my monitor!2016-09-16 at 4:53 #4134
Hi guys… I’d like to chime in here…
It has become increasingly apparent to me that DisplayCal, properly configured, will always outperform the software that comes with colorimeters… I’ve used the Datacolor Spyder5 with the Spyder Elite software, and I’ve used the X-Rite i1 Display Pro with the iDisplay software. In both cases DisplayCal brings a far Superior result!
I am a Photographer who spends an inordinate amount of time in front of the computer analyzing and maliciously ‘tweaking’ the color (among other things) of my images… Colorimeter software only achieves the bare minimum of ‘acceptable’ results… Which I find it strange since they market it as a ‘professional’ product. But really, it’s not!
DisplayCal is capible of capturing thousands of color patches to create a color profile of your monitor. Other software only captures 50-450 patches… They simply are not comparable. (Finer gradients and differentiated colors are what DisplayCal will do for you…Amazingly life-like, three dimensional photographs are the result.
I wish I could sit people down and show them the difference… But that’s the rub. Since the consumer (and professional) never see a side by side comparison, they are unable to ‘see’ the difference between softwares… But if they did, each would pick DisplayCal’s result… It’s not even a maybe, it’s a fore sure! … I’ve seen it with my own critical eye (which doesn’t even need to be critical in this case) and I can’t believe that they’re getting away with it!
Colorimeter companies rely on this tactic. They know that good enough is sellable because the consumer will usually never compare the result to superior alternatives like DisplayCal.
Sensitive colors such as skin-tones, skies, and other ‘known’ colors seem to pop like never before… They just look more true to real life.
I have done exhaustive experimentation over the past year and am now totally convinced that open source software like DisplayCal produce far superior results. I never launch those other softwares anymore. I just can’t.
Spyder makes me laugh when they state in their software that you have two choices for calibrating. One, you can do a quick run, or two, you can do a slower run which promises to produce a more sophisticated result… I timed each choice: (1) 4 minutes, and (2) 6 minutes. They say that if you’re in a hurry choose number one….. Are you kidding me? 4-6 minutes is your biggest problem of the day?!?
Good calibration takes time…A lot of time… If you want fantastic results you need to let the software run for a while, at least 2-3 hours… It’s just reality…Accept it and be amazed!
- This reply was modified 5 years ago by Steve Smith.
i1Display Pro on Amazon
Disclosure: As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases.2016-09-16 at 16:24 #4136
I always wondered why the Datacolor software is done with the calibration in such a short period of time.
Steve, you say that colors are very important – are you using software or hardware calibration?2016-09-16 at 17:27 #4137
I am currently using XRite’s i1 Display Pro colorimeter with DisplayCal software…So hardware with software to calibrate\profile.2016-09-16 at 17:29 #4138
Ah, so you are not using a monitor with a LUT. Have you ever tried to compare the calibration result of a monitor with a hardware LUT and a monitor calibrated using the GPU LUT?2016-09-16 at 17:42 #4139
No, I have not been fortunate enough yet to have owned a monitor with a hardware LUT… Would love to though… Going to be one of my next purchases…Wide gamut as well.
Apparently they produce even finer calibrations! (Spicific monitor\colorimeter matches)
Are you using one?2016-09-16 at 17:49 #4140
I was thinking of getting one, but for me a propper IPS monitor should be good enough – i am not making a living out of my photography. Now i am very curious to find out if a calibration with DisplayCAL comes close to a hardware calibration.2016-09-16 at 19:34 #4141
A decent Ips monitor is very good right out of the box…Calibration results ‘take’ rather easily because the curves are already close to linear to begin with. (Not a lot of adjustment needed)…Not sure how much better hardware calibration gets…But for most, I’m sure the difference will not be that significant unless you need it. ie. exact matching of product logo colors, etc.
If you get a good quality IPS monitor that advertises 100% RGB coverage (BenQ makes a few lower cost, excellent quality monitors) I’m sure it will calibrate very well using 2000-3000 patches.
I have the BenQ GW2765HT monitor with 1440 resolution and the calibrations are excellent! (About $400 Canadian).2016-09-18 at 13:43 #4156
Just a word of caution, don’t buy a hardware calibratable monitor (i.e. that has internal 1D or 3D LUT support) if your aim is to use DisplayCAL for calibration – there is no standardized interface to their internal LUTs, so DisplayCAL cannot access them directly, and as a result, you’ll still have to rely on the graphics card gamma tables (videoLUT), which may be limited to 8 bits (although see paragraph below). It is usually possible though to use the software that comes with a monitor that has hardware LUTs to calibrate it, and then build a very accurate profile using DisplayCAL on top of the hardware calibration (i.e. set calibration whitepoint and tone curve to “As measured” in DisplayCAL and disable interactive display adjustment). In my case, I use NEC SpectraView to calibrate my old NEC 2690WUXI’s 1D hardware LUTs, and then do a profile only run in DisplayCAL.
Newer monitors/TVs may support higher than 8 bit input even when they don’t have internal hardware LUTs for calibration, depending on the specific monitor, the connection (DisplayPort or HDMI) and the graphics card that’s connected. I’ve had good success with a nVidia GTX 275, 465 and 1070 under Windows when connected over HDMI to a Phillips LCD TV, where the higher bit depth videoLUT allows for smooth calibration results. Results seem to be even more consistent with AMD cards according to user feedback.
Also, keep in mind that the video card gamma tables are not the only source of potential banding: Color managed software ideally should do processing internally in more than 8 bits and then dither down before going to display.