- This topic has 1 reply, 2 voices, and was last updated 7 years ago by
.
-
Posts
-
Hi there!
I have a Macbook Pro Retina display (Mid-2014) and a Spyder5Express. Datacolor software took less than 10 minutes to complete, whereas DisplayCal took over an hour (all on default settings). I was interested in comparing both results after reading numerous reports of DisplayCal’s superior software calibration. However, I was disappointed because the results were nearly identical (I ran DisplayCal twice just to be sure). When I say “nearly” identical, what I mean is…they were very, very, very, very close. 😀
I know all monitors all different, and so are all calibrator software, so mileage may vary in a case-by-case basis. Someone who has a different monitor, with a different calibrator, might experience a greater difference. But in this case, I was wondering if it’s possible I was doing something wrong with running DisplayCal, or if my results were to be expected? Any other MBP retina users out there who had a different experience?
Hi,
However, I was disappointed because the results were nearly identical
have you run a measurement report (verification) on the Spyder software profile vs the DisplayCAL profile? That’s usually where the differences become apparent.
But in this case, I was wondering if it’s possible I was doing something wrong with running DisplayCal, or if my results were to be expected?
Nothing wrong at all. If a display is reasonably good quality and has decent linearity (which is certainly the case for the MBP Retina display, as it has an IPS panel), even a more simple profile will relatively accurately describe the device behavior. In that case, you can move the patches amount slider in DisplayCAL all the way to the left, which will produce a simpler profile from fewer measurements.
