![]() Since the consumer (and professional) never see a side by side comparison, they are unable to ‘see’ the difference between softwares… But if they did, each would pick Displa圜al’s result… It’s not even a maybe, it’s a fore sure! … I’ve seen it with my own critical eye (which doesn’t even need to be critical in this case) and I can’t believe that they’re getting away with it!Ĭolorimeter companies rely on this tactic. They know that good enough is sellable because the consumer will usually never compare the result to superior alternatives like Displa圜al. Sensitive colors such as skin-tones, skies, and other ‘known’ colors seem to pop like never before… They just look more true to real life. I have done exhaustive experimentation over the past year and am now totally convinced that open source software like Displa圜al produce far superior results. I never launch those other softwares anymore. Spyder makes me laugh when they state in their software that you have two choices for calibrating. One, you can do a quick run, or two, you can do a slower run which promises to produce a more sophisticated result… I timed each choice: (1) 4 minutes, and (2) 6 minutes. ![]() Good calibration takes time…A lot of time… If you want fantastic results you need to let the software run for a while, at least 2-3 hours… It’s just reality…Accept it and be amazed! Are you kidding me? 4-6 minutes is your biggest problem of the day?!? They say that if you’re in a hurry choose number one…. This reply was modified 6 years, 1 month ago by Steve Smith. Just a word of caution, don’t buy a hardware calibratable monitor (i.e. That has internal 1D or 3D LUT support) if your aim is to use Displa圜AL for calibration – there is no standardized interface to their internal LUTs, so Displa圜AL cannot access them directly, and as a result, you’ll still have to rely on the graphics card gamma tables (videoLUT), which may be limited to 8 bits (although see paragraph below).
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |