Hardware Calibration SpyderX Pro vs i1 Dispay Studio

Home Forums General Discussion Hardware Calibration SpyderX Pro vs i1 Dispay Studio

Viewing 3 posts - 1 through 3 (of 3 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #27556

    Kobern
    Participant
    • Offline

    Following a few days of reading it seems the X-rite i1 Display is often considered a tad more accurate and believed to use higher-grade longer-lasting colour filters compared to the SpyderX Pro. Is this true?

    My budget is <£150, so my choice is either SpyderX Pro or i1 Display Studio. Most people say find the extra cash and go for the i1 Display Pro as it allows hardware calibration so better for the future, is that and the unlocked speed the only difference?

    I edit within sRGB for Web publishing on an sRGB monitor, mostly using capture one pro, I need to keep things fairly accurate and use a DSLR and x-rite passport as part of the workflow,  but hypercritical professional colour accuracy is not needed. Calibration speed not important, only one monitor attached to the same P.C. I don’t think I will have funds or want a monitor with inbuilt hardware calibration LUT. I’d rather have one with good sRGB colour accuracy but also ok to play games on!

    Does the lack of hardware calibration support from the i1 Display Studio (compared to the Pro) refer to the lack of compatibility with monitors that support full colour hardware calibration within their own LUT chips (like a colour edge) or does it mean I can’t even use the R,G,B channels on the monitor to get a rough starting point?

    I would like to be able to manually adjust the RGB channels before software calibration, so can that be done on both the spyder and i1?

    Also, if the i1 Display is considered the better and longer-lasting accuracy, why do Eizo use a rebranded SpyderX Pro and not the i1 Display?

    i1Display Studio on Amazon   i1Display Pro on Amazon   SpyderX Pro on Amazon  
    Disclosure: As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases.

    #27560

    MW
    Participant
    • Offline

    Also, if the i1 Display is considered the better and longer-lasting accuracy, why do Eizo use a rebranded SpyderX Pro and not the i1 Display?

    Because the bundled Spyder X will include spectral corrections specific to their displays.

    Does the lack of hardware calibration support from the i1 Display Studio (compared to the Pro) refer to the lack of compatibility with monitors that support full colour hardware calibration within their own LUT chips (like a colour edge) or does it mean I can’t even use the R,G,B channels on the monitor to get a rough starting point?

    No, all colorimeters can be used to adjust RGB channels. Whether the adjustment is accurate depends on how well the spectral correction matches your display. With the retail Spyder X you’re stuck with generic corrections.

    #27589

    Vincent
    Participant
    • Offline

    Also, if the i1 Display is considered the better and longer-lasting accuracy, why do Eizo use a rebranded SpyderX Pro and not the i1 Display?

    Because:

    -they are less accurate low light

    -you may want to measure other displays and SpderX set of correction is very limited and you cannot use community ones, you’ll ned an spectrophotometer (400 low end 1000 euro graphic arts like i1pro2, and thousands of euros for something able to see very narrow spectral peaks in new P3 backlights)

    -you may want to create a software LUT3D with thounsands of measurements fro Resolve or soemthing like that. DisplayCAL is helpful here… but since you cannot export Eizo propetary bundled corrections (if they exist) you are limited to a few corrections bundled inside SPyderx colorimeter

    -Eizo may have not provided any custom correction fro their displys, just using generic ones inside SPyderx => innacurate

    -Eizo may have suppied matrix corrections for their displays in Color Navigator software. Matrix corrections are not very “portable” if you want to use them as “generic”, hence they may be innacurate. i1d3 spectral corrections, vendor or community, are “portable” since  actual matrix correction applied is computed on device initialization by spectral sample and individual colorimeter data in firmware.

    If you need HW calibration ( calibrate grey inside monitor, or simple gamut emulation operations), save money and get an i1DisplayPro.

    Also HW cal for EV line in Eizo is a joke since it forces you to use the Eizo easypix garbage (SPyder). WHen we talk about HW cal I mean CS or CG line.

Viewing 3 posts - 1 through 3 (of 3 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.

Log in or Register

Display Calibration and Characterization powered by ArgyllCMS