Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us
Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network
PhotoKB Home
Discussion Groups
Digital Photography
Digital PhotoDSLR CamerasZLR CamerasPoint & Shoot Cameras
Film Photography
35 mmLarge FormatMedium formatDarkroomFilm and LabsOther Equipment
Photo Technique
Nature PhotographyPeople PhotographyTechnique General
General Photo Topics
General TopicsAustralian PhotographyUK Photography
DirectoryPhoto Clubs

Photo Forum / Digital Photography / DSLR Cameras / August 2005

Tip: Looking for answers? Try searching our database.

ColorVision Spyder2 Plus Review

Thread view: 
Enable EMail Alerts  Start New Thread
Thread rating: 
Vince - 23 Jul 2005 19:10 GMT
Letsgodigital.org
Review of ColorVision Spyder2 Plus
Monitor Calibration Device
http://www.letsgodigital.org/html/review/colorvison/spyder2/colorvision_spyder2_
en.html

Father Kodak - 23 Jul 2005 20:50 GMT
>Letsgodigital.org
>Review of ColorVision Spyder2 Plus
>Monitor Calibration Device
>http://www.letsgodigital.org/html/review/colorvison/spyder2/colorvision_spyder2_
en.html

Review or press release?  or more accurately, "Reviewers' Guide?"
Companies write reviewers' guides for lots of high-tech products to
guide the reviewer in covering all the best features of the product.
The author of this review probably has sore lips from kissing up so
much.

This "review" sure seems like it was written by the company's
marketing people.

I'm really curious as to the reaction of people who already have a
spider-like device.  Does this one sound better?  What about Monaco's
products?  If you spend $1000+ on the system, do you really get better
results than with the $300 systems?

Father Kodak
Andrew Haley - 26 Jul 2005 10:55 GMT
>>Letsgodigital.org
>>Review of ColorVision Spyder2 Plus
>>Monitor Calibration Device
>>http://www.letsgodigital.org/html/review/colorvison/spyder2/colorvision_spyder2_
en.html

> Review or press release?  or more accurately, "Reviewers' Guide?"
> Companies write reviewers' guides for lots of high-tech products to
> guide the reviewer in covering all the best features of the product.
> The author of this review probably has sore lips from kissing up so
> much.

> This "review" sure seems like it was written by the company's
> marketing people.

> I'm really curious as to the reaction of people who already have a
> spider-like device.  Does this one sound better?  What about Monaco's
> products?  If you spend $1000+ on the system, do you really get better
> results than with the $300 systems?

If you spend $1000+ you get a spectrophotometer (rather than a
colorimeter) which puts you into another league.  As well as increased
accuracy, this gets you printer profiling.  But even then, not all
spectrophotometers are equal: some sample every 10nm, some are finer.
Some, however, are more coarse than that, and that's one place where
you have to watch out.  To a large extent you get what you pay for.

Andrew.
Father Kodak - 29 Jul 2005 07:56 GMT
>If you spend $1000+ you get a spectrophotometer (rather than a
>colorimeter) which puts you into another league.  As well as increased
>accuracy, this gets you printer profiling.  But even then, not all

Can't do printer profiling with this product?
http://www.xritephoto.com/product/ezcolor/

Online price with the colorimeter is $498.  From B&H Photo, it is $348
plus shipping:
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?A=details&kw=MOEZCOB&is=REG&Q=&O
=productlist&sku=310555


>spectrophotometers are equal: some sample every 10nm, some are finer.
>Some, however, are more coarse than that, and that's one place where
>you have to watch out.  To a large extent you get what you pay for.
>
>Andrew.

Pere Kodak
Andrew Haley - 30 Jul 2005 11:25 GMT
>>If you spend $1000+ you get a spectrophotometer (rather than a
>>colorimeter) which puts you into another league.  As well as increased
>>accuracy, this gets you printer profiling.  But even then, not all

> Can't do printer profiling with this product?
> http://www.xritephoto.com/product/ezcolor/

I guess it's better than nothing.  How well this works in practice
depends on the colour matching functions of the three primaries in
your scanner (and the illumination it uses) and the spectral
characteristics of the inks you're using.  You might get lucky, or you
might not.  The point of a spectrophotometer is to take away the
guesswork.

Andrew.
Father Kodak - 30 Jul 2005 21:48 GMT
>>>If you spend $1000+ you get a spectrophotometer (rather than a
>>>colorimeter) which puts you into another league.  As well as increased
[quoted text clipped - 11 lines]
>
>Andrew.

Andrew,

Can you translate that into English that even a college graduate can
understand?

What is the difference between a spectrophotometer and a colorimeter?
Is that what you are talking about here?

Also, in the "real world", how much better is the color matching from
using a $1000+ unit instead of a $500 unit?

Father Kodak
DoN. Nichols - 31 Jul 2005 04:47 GMT
    [ ... ]

>>I guess it's better than nothing.  How well this works in practice
>>depends on the colour matching functions of the three primaries in
>>your scanner (and the illumination it uses) and the spectral
>>characteristics of the inks you're using.  You might get lucky, or you
>>might not.  The point of a spectrophotometer is to take away the
>>guesswork.

    [ ... ]

>Can you translate that into English that even a college graduate can
>understand?
>
>What is the difference between a spectrophotometer and a colorimeter?
>Is that what you are talking about here?

    Well ... I've only seen research type spectrophotometers, but
I'll have a try.

1)    A colorimeter, I would expect, would have photocells measuring
    the amount of light through three fairly broad filters,
    typically red, green, and blue.  All three are measured (and
    displayed) at the same time.  This can give an approximation of
    what is being produced by a screen (or other light source), but
    lacks a lot of the details.  It's advantages would be that it is
    quick to use and inexpensive.

2)    A spectrophotometer, however, has a very narrow band filter,
    which color is continuously adjustable.  A "monochromator" is an
    example -- though you don't usually see these outside of R&D
    labs, either. You feed light in one end, and take light out the
    other end.  There is a big knob calibrated in wavelength, and
    the wavelength (color) allowed through is selected by internal
    diffraction gratings or prisms.  (I never got a chance to dig
    into one at the lab. :-)

    The filter is slowly adjusted through its range, and the amount
    of light getting through at each wavelength is either stored for
    later display (in a computerized model), or is plotted on a
    graph with a drum plotter (in the older examples which I have
    observed being used).  Note that this must be done slowly,
    because the narrow bandwidth of the filter allows very little
    light through to the sensor, so it takes time to accumulate
    enough information (clear of the noise).

    This gives you very fine detail about what is happening to the
    light.  You will see bright lines from certain emission sources,
    or dark lines from absorption by certain things in the optical
    path.

    They are available in various spectral ranges.  I've seen some
    which work in the far infrared and in the ultraviolet (both of
    those need to have the optical path pumped down to a good vacuum
    before running the test, as air absorbs some wavelengths of far
    IR and of UV, and may also glow under irradiation with some UV
    wavelengths, giving false readings.

    The ones for the standard visible range don't have to be run in
    a vacuum.

    I'm not at all sure how one would build a spectrophotometer to
    monitor the output from a CRT or a LCD display.

    I would be interested in seeing the spectrum from each of the
    "colors" on my LCD display.

>Also, in the "real world", how much better is the color matching from
>using a $1000+ unit instead of a $500 unit?

    As both of these are at least an order of magnitude less
expensive than the spectrophotometers which I have seen, I'll not
attempt to answer here.  IIRC, they were made by Nicolet.

    Enjoy,
        DoN.
Signature

Email:   <dnichols@d-and-d.com>   | Voice (all times): (703) 938-4564
    (too) near Washington D.C. | http://www.d-and-d.com/dnichols/DoN.html
          --- Black Holes are where God is dividing by zero ---

Andrew Haley - 02 Aug 2005 11:25 GMT
>     [ ... ]

>>>I guess it's better than nothing.  How well this works in practice
>>>depends on the colour matching functions of the three primaries in
>>>your scanner (and the illumination it uses) and the spectral
>>>characteristics of the inks you're using.  You might get lucky, or
>>>you might not.  The point of a spectrophotometer is to take away
>>>the guesswork.

>     [ ... ]

>>Can you translate that into English that even a college graduate can
>>understand?

I guess that depends on the major, but I'll try!

>>What is the difference between a spectrophotometer and a colorimeter?
>>Is that what you are talking about here?

>     Well ... I've only seen research type spectrophotometers, but
> I'll have a try.

> 1)    A colorimeter, I would expect, would have photocells measuring
>     the amount of light through three fairly broad filters,
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
>     lacks a lot of the details.  It's advantages would be that it is
>     quick to use and inexpensive.

Right.  The problem with a colorimeter is that to be accurate it has
to have precisely the same spectral sensitivities as the eye.  This
isn't impossible, but it is hard.  Flatbed scanners don't have the
same RGB sensitivities as the eye.  This means that when you scan two
colours, they might measure the same but they look different to you.
Or, two colours that look the same to you measure different on the
scanner.  The other problem with a flatbed scanner is that their
illuminants are often nothing like daylight, and that can cause a
colour shift too.

This is the set of spectral sensitivities for a "typical" observer:
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/vision/colcon.html#c1

If you have the full spectrogram, you can match the spectral
sensitivity curves of the eye accurately, and calculate from the
entire set of readings the _true_ RGB values of a sample.  If, as with
a scanner, you only have three numbers, and these numbers were not
measured through filters like those of the eye, you can't get an
accurate spectral match.

> 2)    A spectrophotometer, however, has a very narrow band filter,
>     which color is continuously adjustable.

Modern spectrophotometers as used for printer profiling have an array
of detectors 10nm or so apart, so there is no scan as such: the entire
spectrum is detected in parallel.  At least, the decent ones work this
way.

[ good stuff snipped ]

>     I'm not at all sure how one would build a spectrophotometer to
>     monitor the output from a CRT or a LCD display.

It's really quite simple: a diffraction grating illuminates a
light-sensitive diode array.

>     I would be interested in seeing the spectrum from each of the
>     "colors" on my LCD display.

>>Also, in the "real world", how much better is the color matching from
>>using a $1000+ unit instead of a $500 unit?

It all depends on the inks you're using.  Some inks have very smooth
spectral curves, and these might work well with simple colorimeter
profiling.  Some inks, especially pigment inks, don't.
Colorimeter/scanner based systems might work well with "typical" inks
and papers because that's what they've been calibrated with, but get
less accurate with unusual combinations of inks and papers.

Andrew.
DoN. Nichols - 02 Aug 2005 21:54 GMT
    [ ... ]

>> 2)    A spectrophotometer, however, has a very narrow band filter,
>>     which color is continuously adjustable.
[quoted text clipped - 11 lines]
>It's really quite simple: a diffraction grating illuminates a
>light-sensitive diode array.

    Aha -- a significant improvement -- as long as you aren't
looking for things like absorption or emission lines significantly
narrower than that.  I think that sometimes you still have to do it the
slow way, but the system which you describe would certainly speed up a
lot of the operation for most uses.

    Thanks for bringing me up to date on this.

    Again, thanks,
        DoN.

Signature

Email:   <dnichols@d-and-d.com>   | Voice (all times): (703) 938-4564
    (too) near Washington D.C. | http://www.d-and-d.com/dnichols/DoN.html
          --- Black Holes are where God is dividing by zero ---

 
Sign In
Join
My Latest Posts
My Monitored Threads
My Blog
My Photo Gallery
My Profile
My Homepage

Start New Thread
Enable EMail Alerts
Rate this Thread



©2009 Advenet LLC   Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.