- This topic has 88 replies, 17 voices, and was last updated 4 years, 3 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
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.
If you do that you are going to use a WRONG one.
“WLEDFamily_07Feb11” CCSS is a WLED sRGB backlight, a blue led with yellow phosphor that once RGB filtered get you near sRGB primaries. Use ArgyllCMS specplot.exe if you have doubts.
“WLEDs” with P3 coverage are WLED PFS phosphor backlights (P3 flavor, there is another WLED PFS with near full AdobeRGB coverage with a slight diferent green spectral power distribution). WLED PFS phosphor with ~95% P3 coverage is “Panasonic VVX17P051J00”. Again if you do not believe me, use ArgyllCMS specplot and check by yourself.
While measuring P3 displays with an i1d3 users SHOULD NOT use generic “WLEDFamily_07Feb11”. That correction is meant for normal sRGB IPS/VA displays (“common LED monitors”).
SpyderX Pro on Amazon
Disclosure: As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases.Do you think this is a firmware/software (tuning) issue that the SpyX isn’t performant?
The SpyderX performs just fine.
or do you think it’s a Hardware issue, where the Lens is just not big enough to read Lower/ more accurately.
A bigger lens alone probably wouldn’t help as the sensor is already being driven at max gain and integration time (see AVSforum thread I linked).
Do you think there will be a difference once the SpyderX has proper support as in Stable drivers?
I don’t expect any.
I really like the speed. The one thing I hate about these meters is waiting for them to finish, I really hate waiting.
Then avoid the Spyder5 and its predecessors, as well as spectrometers in general. The other colorimeters are all fast.
Thx for the Incite Florian.
I don’t understand how Datacolor could undershoot the performance this far.
The i1d3 has been out since 2011, it’s been 8 years. They knew the competition, how is it that they couldn’t surpass this old ass engineering, given all that time ?
This can’t be a fumble of chasing the lowest BOM, could it ?, because it couldn’t cost more than $20-50 to produce one of these probes, and to retail at $170. Very disappointing.
how is it that they couldn’t surpass this old ass engineering, given all that time ?
It’s not like just because it’s been around some years that the i1D3 has somehow become outdated. The Colorimetry Research CR-100 or Klein K-10a are the next step up from there (at a mere $ 4800-6800 more), the latter has been released roughly at the same time as the i1D3, and still is a top-of-the line colorimeter for professionals in the video world.
Building accurate color instruments is hard. It’s not just about assembling good components. Accuracy depends on how close to the standard observer the filters are, how consistent the manufacturing and QA is, and how good the production calibration process is. It looks like DataColor have definitely improved on all of that with the SpyderX over prior Spyders, although with the built-in matrices they have obviously limited themselves to the most common desktop computer monitor display technologies.
K10-A on Amazon
Disclosure: As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases.It’s not like just because it’s been around some years that the i1D3 has somehow become outdated. The Colorimetry Research CR-100 or Klein K-10a are the next step up from there (at a mere $ 4800-6800 more), the latter has been released roughly at the same time as the i1D3, and still is a top-of-the line colorimeter for professionals in the video world.
Yeah you can’t beat the proper meters, blows these cheapie units(spyder,xrite) out of the water. But man they are pricey.
The ColorMunki Display costs less than the SpyderX. As to how the i1D3 compares to a K-10A, some testing has been done a few years ago.
Interesting comparison thread. Just reading a post from one of the users there and he reported that he had two i1D3 units and one of those units wasn’t that accurate as the other. Is it really that hard to do quality control on these cheapie units? If the high end like the K-10 or CR-100 can have good quality control, I don’t see a reason the cheapie units can do the same?? It really makes me question now if I should buy a high end?
Just reading a post from one of the users there and he reported that he had two i1D3 units and one of those units wasn’t that accurate as the other.
All colorimeters, even high-end ones like the K-10A, need to be tuned for different display types and technologies (i.e. by creating a correction using a spectrometer). The main takeaway of the thread I linked above is that the i1D3 when corrected tracks the K-10A quite well.
Is it really that hard to do quality control on these cheapie units? If the high end like the K-10 or CR-100 can have good quality control, I don’t see a reason the cheapie units can do the same?
It is costly. The reason devices like the K-10 cost so much more than consumer devices is not just components (and market size).
It really makes me question now if I should buy a high end?
What did you have in mind? K-10A? Probably overkill unless you really want or need the precision and speed (and have the cash to spare!).
ArgyllCMS 2.1.0 has been released, and there has been a small change for the SpyderX: It now asks for mandatory, unskippable sensor dark calibration before each measurement segment. While slightly annoying*, this helps low light repeatability quite a bit (making the SpyderX suitable for up to 3000:1 contrast displays as long as their black level does not go below roughly 0.04 cd/m2) and improves overall relative accuracy slightly:
CIE DELTA E 2000 SpyderX vs i1D3 Total peak = 1.759, avg = 0.634 Worst 10% peak = 1.759, avg = 1.283 Best 90% peak = 0.964, avg = 0.562 My earlier conclusion remains unchanged though.
(*) Instead of taking the SpyderX off the screen and placing the cap on it to do the dark calibration, you can also temporarily insert a dark, matte piece of cardboard between instrument and screen surface. You can also avoid having to do two dark calibrations in rapid succession at the start of measurements by setting the output levels to the correct value manually instead of having them detected automatically.
(making the SpyderX suitable for up to 3000:1 contrast displays as long as their black level does not go below roughly 0.04 cd/m2) and improves overall relative accuracy slightly:
Are the numbers in the table Multiples of the DE of i1d3 ?
Also, what brightness can i1d3 reliably measure down to ?
Are the numbers in the table Multiples of the DE of i1d3 ?
Relative difference between i1D3 and SpyderX measurements (i.e. not including white point difference).
Also, what brightness can i1d3 reliably measure down to ?
Around 0.003 cd/m2 (luminance)
If the spyderX can measure down to 0.04cd, why can it not go higher than 3000:1 contrast ratio ?
It can, when peak white is above 120 cd/m2.
Ok, I see what you’re saying, so when you said you could not properly measure your philips tv, it’s because @ 121cd, the black is ~0.3cd
So, if you set it for 165cd , the spyder would be able to read the full 4100 ?
So, if you set it for 165cd , the spyder would be able to read the full 4100 ?
I tested it just now (TV brightness cranked to max, this is a white LED backlit TV without local dimming, so black level rises with peak luminance), and the luminance error in the SpyderX seems to be systemic, i.e. it doesn’t go away as peak luminance rises.
Uncalibrated response (SpyderX):
Black level = 0.1262 cd/m^2
50% level = 84.89 cd/m^2
White level = 401.99 cd/m^2
Aprox. gamma = 2.24
Contrast ratio = 3186:1Uncalibrated response (i1D3):
Black level = 0.0945 cd/m^2
50% level = 81.29 cd/m^2
White level = 379.61 cd/m^2
Aprox. gamma = 2.22
Contrast ratio = 4017:1
