Thanks, John and Zappahead. Actually, had read Northlight review previously but discounted it as unspecific. Guy at Shoot Smarter certainly is adamant on Spyder, doesn't explain, but probably disdains accuracy of colorimenter vs spectrophotometer. However, Spyder2 did come off pretty well in some comparative testing by Dry Creek (strictly for monitor calibration) against EyeOne and others when it first came out. The verdict was excellent in shadow discrimination, not so hot for highlights, overall good.
I am wondering about Spyder 3 also, I have spyder 2 and I am not that happy with it. Right now I need something that will handle a laptop connected with a cinema display, so I can calibrate both monitors. The thing about spyder 2 is that every time I calibrate no matter if it's a 2 months or a day later, it shows the so called "before after" and it's the same thing every time. I feel like I am getting cheated when using it. I read the Spyder 3 article John thanks for that, but I am still wondering if this is the right product or should I be looking at something else? Anyone?
SLgdfella wrote:
The thing about spyder 2 is that every time I calibrate no matter if it's a 2 months or a day later, it shows the so called "before after" and it's the same thing every time. I feel like I am getting cheated when using it.
When I calibrate with the Spyder2, one of the first instructions is to reset my monitor to factory default settings. After calibration, I see a before and after comparison -- the "before" being determined by those factor default settings.
It seems to me that if the "before/after" is the same every time, then the Spyder is consistently re-adjusting your factory default settings each time you calibrate. Isn't that what you'd expect a reliable calibrator to do? Give consistent results?
I do the same as Peano wehn I calibrate. On a Mac, open the ColorSync utility--Devices tab-- Displays and click on the arrow next to 'Current Profile' to get option to Reset to Factory.
I have been using the Spyder3 Elite for about two weeks now to calibrate my Apple Cinema Display. Previously I used the Spyder2 Pro. The Spyder3 Elite has been completely redesigned with a larger sensor (the largest of all the current models) resulting in a more accurate sample. It now has an ambient light sensor built in and can be used as a full time monitor of both ambient light and calibration, warning you if either falls out of spec.
A colorimeter is preferred over a spectrophotometer for calibrating lcd monitors. (I learned this from Andrew Rodney)
The only adjustment that should be made on an LCD monitor (with the exception being higher end monitors that have a separate LUT from the video card) is backlight. All the other adjustments that look like they come from your monitor are actually adjusting your video card. That is why all the manufactures recommend resetting to factory default prior to calibration.
I think if you read the fine print somewhere, they say the before/after bit is just an example, not actual. Sorry, but marketing BS in my book.
I wasted a lot of time and frustration with Spyder1 back when, and frisbeed it for the Xrite Monaco Optix XR Pro which did a great job until I installed Vista 64-bit for which there were no USB drivers for the Xrite DTP94 puck. So like a silly fool I bought a Spyder2 Pro kit because it has Vista 64 drivers. At first I thought the calibrations were ok, but slowly found that they weren't. What really clinched it was when I got my Eizo CG241 monitors for which the CE Color Navigation software supports the DTP94 puck. Just to get at the truth, I did side-by-side calibrations with the Spyder2 puck and the Xrite DTP94 puck, and you guessed it, the DTP94 calibrations were way better, both monitors are exactly matched and the calibration runs much faster with the DTP94. According to ShootSmarter, all the Spyders are a waste of time, and I'm afraid I have to agree.
That said, on some less expensive monitors and less critical applications, any calibration kit is better than nothing, and maybe even sufficient.
John Topham wrote:
I think if you read the fine print somewhere, they say the before/after bit is just an example, not actual. Sorry, but marketing BS in my book.
John Topham wrote:
According to ShootSmarter, all the Spyders are a waste of time, and I'm afraid I have to agree.
That said, on some less expensive monitors and less critical applications, any calibration kit is better than nothing, and maybe even sufficient.
My 2centavos
I would not give an opinion on a product I did not own. (centavos or pesos)
Since none of the other posters have used both the Spyder2 and the Spyder3 you can consider their opinions assumptions.
I do prefer the Spyder3 over the Spyder2 because of the reasons mentioned in my earlier post. It is the most advanced calibrator currently on the market and is optimized for wide gamut monitors, CRT, LCD, Laptop and Projectors.
Funny, I was about 99% certain you would pop up in this thread in support of Datacolor, which of course makes me wonder if you work for them. I happen to know some people at Datacolor HQ in Dietlikon and I have told them the same things I have written here. Should I give them a call and tell them to give you a raise for your one-sided promotion and dogged loyalty to Spyder? Have you tried anything else?
Now, after enquiring of Eizo and Datacolor whether the Spyder3 puck was 100% compatible with Eizo ColorNavigator calibration software, the answer from Eizo was no and the answer from Datacolor was "Uh, we don't know." Spyder3 is cheap enough to buy and throw away if it doesn't fill the bill, however it is a total waste of time and frustration if the puck is not 100% useable with high end hardware calibrated monitors. There is nothing to "like" about any calibration kit, it is either on the money for the user set parameters and can calibrate two or more identical professional monitors within 0.01 cd/m2 of each other, or it can't. The DTP94 can and Spyder3 is unknown, end of story until there is further information. Testimonials and marketing quips don't calibrate monitors.
John: Personally I don't think it to be very professional to accuse people of things unless you have specific knowledge of this. If jerryrock responds that he is associated with Datacolor then perhaps your criticisms may be appropriate - and perhaps jerryrock should have noted this.
If jerryrock responds that he is not associated with Datacolor but is simply a user who is pleased with his personal use of the Spider3 - then I think you owe jerryrock an apology here on this forum.
In rereading jerryrock's posts, I thing he was only stating his own personal opinion that the Spider3 is better than the Spider2 for him. I have not seen any information to refute this. I did not see that jerryrock stated the Spider3 to be better than other brands. He noted the Spider3 is "the most advanced calibrator" on the market. I believe this is a comment from the Datacolor web site, so if you have a problem with this you could take it up directly with Datacolor.
I thought the ShootSmarter link left a lot to the imagination. I could not tell why they felt the way they did about the Spider, and could not tell if they were talking only based on their previous experiences with the Spider and Spider2, or if they had actually used the new Spider3.
JimR
For your information - I am NOT associated in any way with any company related to computers, color management, photography, or anything related to this in any way.
For Mr. Topham:
Although I do not feel I have to justify anything to you personally, no I do not work for, nor am I related in any way to Datacolor or any of it's affiliates.
I am answering the OP's question which was about comparing the Spyder2 and Spyder3.
The question has nothing to do with any other brand of calibrator, specific monitor type or third party software.
I am presenting my personal experience with both of these products, which is something no one else has done here.
Perhaps you are right Jim, that I overreacted. It's just that it seemed for the past few weeks that Jerry has stalked every thread on calibration, plugging Spyder as the best calibration tool, seemingly contradicting anything to the contrary. I can understand being an enthusiast, however promotional plugging a product is something else. Datacolor and Xrite/Gretag are all a stones throw from me and through people I have gotten to know in each, I know that while calibration tools actually are a small but growing part of their businesses, Xrite/Gretag concentrate on the professional end of the market and Datacolor on the consumer end with their Spyder line. While Xrite/Gretag promote over seminars, courses and professional support to the imaging industry, Datacolor do work the internet which has annoyed a few people. If Jerry is indeed an enthusiast just trying to be helpful, I apologize, however he might want to take a more balanced view of calibration because the palette of users and applications is huge and there is no single tool that will satisfy all.
Peano wrote:
Let us know when you locate this fine print.
This is what I found:
Before/After Calibration
Usual Setting
Click the Change button to see the effect of calibration on the image.
The Purpose of This Step
Demonstrates the effect of monitor calibration on the display of an image file.
The Long Answer
The Before step applies a linear correction (null correction) to the video card. This setting is not necessarily how your monitor looked before calibration, as some other Look Up Table may have been in use previously, such as one that accompanied a vendor supplied profile for your monitor.
The After step applies the calibration to the video card that adjusts the monitor to the settings you specified for Gamma and White Point.
The smaller the change between the Before and the After states, the smaller the correction being used to calibrate your monitor.
John: Based on the new information in your latest post, I did a search on FM of everything jerryrock has posted. I tried to read everything he wrote in reference to monitor calibration - of course I may have missed something.
Essentially everything I read from jerryrock was an answer to someone's specific question about the Spider. At no point did I see jerryrock stating that any of the Spiders were any better than the competition. I did not see jerryrock as plugging the Datacolor - only giving his perspective (and helpful ones - in my opinion) on various Spider products. My guess is that jerryrock does not have personal experience with other calibrators - so he appropriately did not comment on them. Go back and re-read his posts and see who you feel about them now.
Why do I care about this? Because I think we as members of the FM community should be able to freely express our opinions based on our experiences without others questioning our motives. I believe 99.9% of the people on FM are truly trying to help oneanother. This is what I think jerryrock is doing - and personally I want jerryrock to continue doing so and to feel appreciated for his effort.
I appreciate you appologizing to jerryrock. I think that was appropriate.
JimR
PS: Back onto the technical side of this subject, if anyone actually has experience with BOTH the Spider3 and the Xrite i1 Display2 (Eye-One Display 2) I would appreciating hearing about it!
That's what I was looking for, jerryrock.Thank you. Didn't know that about the Colorimeter and LCD monitors. Did Rodney explain the technicalities? I have just been reading the ColorSync digest for the last couple of days' posts and there was an interesting exchange about Spyder3 Elite between C. David Tobie of DataColor and another forum member, who was saluting DataColor for highly successful marketing of a mediocre product, Spyder. Tobie signed out by suggesting be buy the new Spyder and try it. I'm hoping there is improved accuracy over Spyder2. I seem to have a problem, more pronounced using ImagePrint than Photoshop color control, of yellow going slightly peachy. Very frustrating. (Epson R2400).
