On 26 Dec 2005 at 11:19, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > But somehow with the Spyder it is having me set the red channel higher than > the > others. Or it felt that way -- actually it seemed that way, when the bars were > on screen. I tried it twice in the dark with this monitor. I bought the > Pantone > Spyder and PhotoCal on sale. I can't return it. They have newer ones now and > maybe it wasn't as good.
Hopefully it's still under warranty? If so why not return it as faulty at least then you could then sell it with a clean bill of health. > I really don't know, Rob. But to me it did end up having a red color cast, a > slight one to be sure, but one. I debated whether my eyes were off. :-) > Whether > there should be more red channel than I feel that I normally see. But I don't > think so. What colour temperature were you calibrating to? Anything below 6500k is going to look quite warm. > I have compared visually between the settings that Adobe Gamma gave me and > between what the Spyder gave me, and they actually weren't that different, > pretty close. I thought maybe there might be a big difference with contrast or > something and there really wasn't. I do have a cheaper CRT. But I tried it on > my > last CRT too before it developed problems. This CRT already has problems > (Godfrey was probably right about that). Maybe someday I'll try a Spyder on a > LCD. But for now, I am happier using Adobe Gamma. I'm still not sure that I understand what you are saying here, Adobe gamma and the Spyder do vastly different things. Adobe gamma can only allow rough setting of gamma (with some colour liniearization it appears), it can't help with colour temperature, gamma across the full brightness range or absolute luminance levels. The Spyder is target based, it can check and adjust linearity and absolute levels and provides a LUT preset to linearize the video card to monitor output (like Adobe Gamma) but it also produces a colour profile for the monitor which can be used by most colour aware applications. The problem is that if you pick the wrong calibration target or ask more form your monitor than it's capable of the Spyder will try to compensate, sometimes the output is less then satisfactory. Most packages provide some form of reporting to indicate the quality of the calibration, my ColorVision software provides both graphs and written report (with yet unresolved program errors). See the results from a recent calibration of my main CRT monitor: http://home.swiftdsl.com.au/~distudio/temp/2070SB.pdf (~9kB) > Sorry, I ended up feeling the Spyder was vastly, vastly overrated. I'm sorry that it didn't work out for you too, as I've mentioned before I believe it's been one of my best value purchases. The fact that with it I can make two vastly different monitors render the same image virtually identically is validation enough for me. > But then I have a very good internal color sense. I always have. Not quite as > good as when I was younger, but still not bad. When I was a girl I used to be > able to go out shopping and buy a sweater to match a skirt at home. I could > remember the color. Good "color pitch" or something like that. Mine has much improved since using the Spyder to calibrate all my monitors (4 TFT LCD and 2 CRT) > So I am going with what I am comfortable with. And I think Adobe Gamma, if one > sets all three color channels with it, is probably good enough for most > people. Sure you do what works best for you but that what works best for most people is a standard that I aspire to exceed. Cheers, Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications/ Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998
