- This topic has 88 replies, 17 voices, and was last updated 3 years, 11 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
a small hint of that since AFAIK it is not supported by ArgyllCMS
The point of the Argyll and DisplayCAL beta is that it supports all the SpyderX measurement modes.
I’ve received mine today, so I’m planning to do a bit of testing (probably won’t find time this week though).
SpyderX Pro on Amazon
Disclosure: As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases.a small hint of that since AFAIK it is not supported by ArgyllCMS
The point of the Argyll and DisplayCAL beta is that it supports all the SpyderX measurement modes.
Good to know it. I wrote that because of:
ArgyllCMS 2.0.2 Beta, 2019-03-25 (adds virtual display support, needed for full field pattern insertion with madTPG/Resolve and DisplayCAL 3.7, adds SpyderX support NOT YET FULLY SUPPORTED BY DISPLAYCAL DUE TO MISSING MEASUREMENT MODES) Windows | macOS
Now the comparison between corrected SpyderX (built in) and Munki (bundled corrections in i1d3.cab) is going to be fairer.
Thanks for the step by step write up Vincent, I am in the process. One question I have, how do I ‘verify a profile’ using DisplayCal?
Furthermore, at some point I saw an ‘RGB’ OSD option in the SpyderX software, but for the life of me I have not been able to invoke it. So the display is currently in factory settings, aside from the Brightness. I’ll keep it like this and will spend some more time exploring the SpyderX software after i get the initial measurements done. Worst case I’ll do it again, but these devices are all pretty fast.
I don’t have a pro level display but it covers 97~98% DCI-P3 so I have been choosing the Wide LED options where available.
LED displays without near to full AdobeRGB coverage but near full DCI-P3 coverage use Quantum Dot or W-LED PFS backlight.
Your choice for SpyderX seems reasonable but since it is a “built-in” matrix-type correction we cannot know.
For i1d3 colorimeters like your Munki one of the suitable corrections is the bundled spectral sample called “Panasonic VVX17P051J00” (it’s a WLED PFS).
If you own a Quantum Dot multimedia P3 display… it may not be as easy to get suitable correction (maybe some QuantumDot Asus gaming displays in displaycal colorimeter correction database).
Some of those QD and WLED PFS can get full AdobeRGB coverage but they may need a different correction, available for i1d3 colormieters (that’s the reason that makes Xrite’s i1d3 approach superior by far in versatility than SpyderX solution which is very limited)
If you have doubts then ask but write model name, otherwise people cannot help you.If you have installed a profile with DisplayCAL and there is a measurement device attached to your computer there shoudl be a “Verification” tab on the right. Use defaults and for a first test 51 patches sample may be big enough.
———
As Florian explained, the task is easier than I wrote because this beta version of DisplayCAL is able to use SpyderX built-in corrections.
You just need steps 2, 6, 7:
-calibrate with SpyderX and suitable correction (you have it AFAIK)
-verify that profile with SpyderX and same correction
-verify that profile with Munki Display and suggested i1d3 correction.With those HTML reports check XYZ/xyY white point coordinates, grey neutrality deviations (a*b*) and maybe dark readings deviations and XYZ/xyY measured RGB primaries.
Once you have those values you can calculate distances (3D: total distance; 2D : “color/tone/a*b*” distance).Vincent, thanks for answering and providing extra information. For the record it is an LG 32UD59-B, a VA panel.
The verification was a bit of a puzzle because DisplayCal would not accept the icc’s coming from Datacolor. They are version 2.4 as far as I understand and opening it manually will result in an error saying “The file does not contain settings”, or using <Current> and starting the report “No current profile detected for display …”. On my Mac the icc’s profiles are also not listed as profiles for my specific display (they would appear above a horizontal line, alas they don’t).
If I set the Datacolor software to generate ‘v4’ icc profile it does generate a file that I can use. The report already indicates problems, though I’m not sure what the impact of the v4 icc is?
I have attached the html files for the spyderx and colormunki. one calibrated by the spyderx software using v4 icc, the other using DisplayCal beta. The display was set to brightness18 and no hardware adjustments were made (RGB OSD settings). In case of the colormunki I selected the correction LCD White LED IPS(WLED AC LG Samsung)
I hope this is of any use :X
Vincent, thanks for answering and providing extra information. For the record it is an LG 32UD59-B, a VA panel.
The verification was a bit of a puzzle because DisplayCal would not accept the icc’s coming from Datacolor. They are version 2.4 as far as I understand and opening it manually will result in an error saying “The file does not contain settings”, or using <Current> and starting the report “No current profile detected for display …”. On my Mac the icc’s profiles are also not listed as profiles for my specific display (they would appear above a horizontal line, alas they don’t).
If I set the Datacolor software to generate ‘v4’ icc profile it does generate a file that I can use. The report already indicates problems, though I’m not sure what the impact of the v4 icc is?
As Florian explained, the task is easier than I wrote because this beta version of DisplayCAL is able to use SpyderX built-in corrections.
You just needed steps 2, 6, 7.I have attached the html files for the spyderx and colormunki. one calibrated by the spyderx software using v4 icc, the other using DisplayCal beta. The display was set to brightness18 and no hardware adjustments were made (RGB OSD settings). In case of the colormunki I selected the correction LCD White LED IPS(WLED AC LG Samsung)
I hope this is of any use :X
LED displays without near to full AdobeRGB coverage but near full DCI-P3 coverage use Quantum Dot or W-LED PFS backlight.
Your choice for SpyderX seems reasonable but since it is a “built-in” matrix-type correction we cannot know.
For i1d3 colorimeters like your Munki one of the suitable corrections is the bundled spectral sample called “Panasonic VVX17P051J00” (it’s a WLED PFS).<hr />
You just need to regenerate 4th HTML report. We want to compare 2nd and 4th.
Hi Florian, sorry to derail the thread, but you mentioned you have access to the Argyll development source code.
Is this available on some public repository? And if so, could you share where? I did not find any mention of it on the official Argyll website. Would love to have a play with it.
As Florian explained, the task is easier than I wrote because this beta version of DisplayCAL is able to use SpyderX built-in corrections.
You just needed steps 2, 6, 7.
You just need to regenerate 4th HTML report. We want to compare 2nd and 4th.Thanks Vincent, I am new to the whole color calibration, so was unable to draw those conclusions based on that text 🙂
I redid the verification, this time with the spectral correction you suggested. So this verification is done by the Colormunki and uses the icc that was created by DisplayCal using the SpiderX.
Maybe I did wrong some calculations but if we scale normalized XYZ to actual measured value in cd/m2:
Munki XYZ : XYZ [X=114.86335999999999, Y=121.6, Z=132.04544]
Munki L*a*b* (our reference) : L*a*b* [L=100.0, a=0.0, b=0.0]Spyder XYZ : XYZ [X=117.99743000000001, Y=123.70000000000002, Z=135.59994]
Spyder L*a*b* (munki ref) : L*a*b* [L=100.6639555880333, a=1.6449118099032267, b=-0.6339671463798435]From Munki:
dE00 : 2.4872761014748295 (error, distance)
dL : +0.6639555880333035 (brightness)
dA : +1.6449118099032267 (-green , +red/magenta)
dB : -0.6339671463798435 (-blue, +yellow)White point in Spyder seems +- OK, although SpyderX seems to see that backlight a little more redish than it is (than Munki sees it, since we are using it as reference in this limited test) so your actual white point from SpyderX calibration is a bit green. Looks like when using a slightly innacurate spectral correction with an i1d3 compared to what it should look like with the one you know is closer to a specific display model (like the inaccurate spectral corrections in Benq or LG HW calibration software).
White brightness seems OK.SpyderX’s measured contrast is a bit unreal, VA are about 2500:1/3000:1 unless there is some kind of autodimming that you should have disabled before the test (otherwise it would cause a lot of errors even for SpyderX to verify its own calibration and we do not see it in your reports).
It seems an improvement over older Spyders for newer WLED PFS P3 displays like yours, some newer P3 gamer monitors or newer iMac/Macbooks since this backlight supported in its non updatable set of corrections. The lack of updatable spectral corrections would be a handicap with other backlight types but seems ok for your display.
Since AdobeRGB WLED PFS displays have a litle different spectral power distribution for green channel, diffrent from WLED PFS 9x% P3 like yours, I wonder how bad it would be SpyderX’s measurements in than situations.Let’s see what finds Florian when he test his SpyderX.
I’ve gotten around to do my own limited testing. I’ve focused on comparing the SpyderX to the i1Display Pro (i1D3). I’m including Spyder5 results mainly to show the (huge) difference in measurement speed to the other two instruments and some other notable observations. Ideally I would have included a test of absolute accuracy using a spectrometer, but I only have an old i1 Pro that I could use as reference, so the usefulness of such a test seems limited. I have thus restricted myself to looking at relative accuracy and precision.
Testing setup:
- Philips 46PFL5605H LCD TV, White LED backlight, roughly 4000:1 native contrast, 93% Rec. 709 gamut with roughly 2.3 gamma characteristic, whitepoint adjusted to D65 equivalent using i1 Pro spectrometer
- Windows 10, nVidia graphics, videoLUT bit depth 8
- SpyderX Pro (purchased March 2019), Spyder5 Express (purchased June 2015), i1 Display Pro (purchased December 2011)
- DisplayCAL with default settings (whitepoint as measured, “fast” calibration gamma 2.2, 175 patches for profiling)
- White LED measurement mode used for SpyderX and Spyder5
- White LED spectral sample correction (X-Rite, WLED AC LG Samsung) used for i1D3
The TV was then calibrated and profiled with both SpyderX and i1 Display Pro, and both profiles cross-verified using the default extended verification chart in the same way, back-to-back. A calibration and profile using the Spyder5 was also created, but not cross-verified using the other two instruments as this was not the main focus of the test.
Comparison of relative accuracy using profiling measurements:
CIE DELTA E 2000 SpyderX vs i1D3 Spyder5 vs SpyderX Spyder5 vs i1D3 Total peak = 2.009, avg = 0.717 peak = 6.851, avg = 1.301 peak = 8.147, avg = 1.378 Worst 10% peak = 2.009, avg = 1.418 peak = 6.851, avg = 3.315 peak = 8.147, avg = 3.938 Best 90% peak = 1.196, avg = 0.641 peak = 2.135, avg = 1.077 peak = 2.466, avg = 1.094 Overall relative accuracy using the built-in white LED measurement mode of my particular SpyderX seems pretty good, although precision is not quite on the level of an i1D3 (see attached measurement reports). The locations of the colors in the CIE a* b* plane look reasonably close to my i1 Display Pro measurements using its white LED spectral correction.
My Spyder5’s white LED measurement mode seemed off in several regards, not only in the a* b* plane, but also in terms of relative luminance, leading to a distinctly different gamma value being reported when testing the TV in its uncalibrated state (the test was repeated several times to exclude measurement or user error).
SpyderX Spyder5 i1 Display Pro Uncalibrated gamma at 50% input 2.3 2.22 2.28 Black level precision of the SpyderX seems limited in terms of repeatability, with reported contrast ratios between 2300:1 (warm) and 3100:1 (cold), compared to the stable 4100:1 reported by the i1 Display Pro. The Spyder5 reported contrast ratio was between 2100: 1 and 2200:1. Meaningful contrast measurements on displays with above 2000:1 contrast ratio are thus still not possible with the SpyderX.
Measured white level for both SpyderX (around 128 cd/m2) and Spyder5 (around 130 cd/m2) was distinctly higher than for the i1 Display Pro (121 cd/m2).
Interestingly, the SpyderX was overall even faster than the i1 Display Pro by roughly 20%, which is mainly due to it only being able to use a fixed integration time of slightly below one second per read, but also means its dark readings are not as accurate. The Spyder5 is as expected just painfully slow (around five to six times slower than the other two overall), especially during calibration.
hours:minutes:seconds SpyderX Spyder5 i1 Display Pro Calibration 5:43 52:46 9:17 Characterization 4:53 11:44 3:14 Total 10:36 1:04:30 12:31 My conclusions so far, based on the limited testing done:
- i1D3 (especially ColorMunki Display as direct competitor to the SpyderX) is still the best “bang for the buck” colorimeter at the current price point ($ 150-170 for ColorMunki Display, $ 170 for SpyderX). The SpyderX may become a choice, only for people on a tight budget, if and when its price falls considerably below that of the ColorMunki Display (or the latter increases in price).
- The SpyderX looks to be superior to its predecessor, the Spyder5, in both overall relative accuracy (on the display tested) and especially speed. It doesn’t threaten the i1D3’s accuracy and precision though.
- The Spyder5 may still have an edge over the SpyderX in terms of precision, but its other drawbacks (accuracy out of the box and despite support for spectral sample correction, speed) make it not very appealing out of the available choices even considering its lower price (for the Express version).
My word, I’m trying to take this all in but it is a bit of a crash course for me. I can certainly appreciate the ‘simple’ summaries and conclusion you guys have added. Thank you Vincent and Florian.
I understand the Spyderx does relatively well, especially compared to the Spyder5, but it still has no advantage over the Colormunki.
For my own situation I understand the Colormunki is also the best, though it would be (even) better if I had a Spectral Correction that fitted my display better?
I will be returning the SpyderX and sticking with the Colormunki. The speed of the calibration is not that important to me.
For my own situation I understand the Colormunki is also the best, though it would be (even) better if I had a Spectral Correction that fitted my display better?
If your display is just a WLED with 9x% P3 support (WLED PFS phosphor) that “PanasonicVVX*****” CCSS correction is extremely close to what you need.
It’s unlikely that your LG P3 display is a Quantum Dot LED and not a WLED PFS but try to google it, I would say it is not.I’ve gotten around to do my own limited testing. […]
Interesting results for a beta driver. Do you think there will be a difference once the SpyderX has proper support as in Stable drivers? I really like the speed. The one thing I hate about these meters is waiting for them to finish, I really hate waiting.
If your display is just a WLED with 9x% P3 support (WLED PFS phosphor) that “PanasonicVVX*****” CCSS correction is extremely close to what you need.<br>
It’s unlikely that your LG P3 display is a Quantum Dot LED and not a WLED PFS but try to google it, I would say it is not.It’s a WLED as far as I know, so I’ll keep using that correction. To confirm from your earlier post, yes it’s a 3000:1 contrast ratio. No dynamic contrast or stuff like that. The only two ‘OSD’ things I didn’t touch are “Black Stabilizer” which is on 50 (on 0~100 scale) per default. I just left it there, it does something to grey levels – aimed at gaming, but it is static. The other is the “Sharpness” which I also left on default (50 on a 0~100 scale).
Again, thanks for helping to find out which works best.
