Chroma 5 vs. the "I1s" / X-Rite Chroma 5 vs the X-Rite EyeOne's

[corpfan1]

Can anyone tell me the advantages/disadvantages for using the Chroma 5 vs. the other meters that are advertised here on a Pioneer Kuro Elite 151FD?

I am thinking about having some fun doing some calibrating on my own and making some adjustments - but am not sure which meter to go with?

Thanks for any advice/answers/experiences!

[Turbe]

I think you mean vs. the I1 Pro, correct? :D

Both are great options for your Pioneer, both are used by Professionals. The I1 Pro is a Spectroradiometers (and the least expensive one made) and the Chroma 5 is a Colorimeter. If you can swing it, I do recommend the I1 Pro as it is suitable for many Display Types (the Chroma 5 may not be a good choice on DLP). Being a Spectroradiometer, the I1 Pro is suitable for many Displays with a CMS.

If you choose the Chroma 5 or I1 Pro for your Pioneer, you have no need to worry about your decision.

If using the I1pro on these sets, what are the advices you would give using such a meter, like particular weaknesses or limits?
Patience :) It can be slow and needs a black level re-cal every 10 minutes or so. It is the best for DIY plasma calibration....followed closely by the Chroma5 ;)

Greetings

DLPs might not be a good match for the Chroma 5 ... certainly not any attempt at CMS on the Mits units.

regards

[corpfan1]

What is the difference between the colorimeter and the Spectroradiometers?

I only want to calibrate my Kuro and possibly a future plasma/lcd.

Thanks!

[corpfan1]

Ordered my Serial Female to Female Straight Through cable today and found the usb-serial keyspan at a dealer here.

Still not sure what to do about the Chroma 5...?

Anyone else have feedback about using it on their Kuro?

[Turbe]

more...
Though I have used neither, I have researched it for myself. In addition to the Chroma 5 being more accurate, it needs no dark readings. The i1 needs to be taken down for a dark reading every 10 min, which interrupts your work. Also, the Chroma 5 is faster with each reading, which can save quite a bit of time and make real time measurements more pleasant.

Chad Billheimer
Touring ISF calibrator
Sony 34XBR960 and SXRD specialist
HDTVbyChadB.com

[Turbe]

more...
At startup and every 10 min or so you have to physically take the meter and block all light from entering the sensors while instructing the software to recalibrate (take a "dark reading"). It's not good enough to just leave it on the TV while feeding the TV a black pattern; it has to be taken down. It can be a pain during a long calibration.
Among other methods, you may either wrap it in a black blanket or lay it flat against a matte black surface (like the inside of a DVD case) if the room light is low.

Chad Billheimer
Touring ISF calibrator
Sony 34XBR960 and SXRD specialist
HDTVbyChadB.com

[Turbe]

more...
but from a professional stand point how does the i1 lt2 compare to the chroma 5 meter?The C5 is more accurate, can be recalibrated by the factory, and has temperature compensation as well. It does not require frequent dark readings.
This is an excellent question and something about which I have been meaning to post.

This is bound to be controversial, but I have spent quite a bit of time with all three, and what I have found is that compared to a reference source:



The Chroma 5 and the i1Pro chromaticity readings are more accurate than the D2/lt at adequate light levels.
More surprisingly, even at adequate light levels, the Chroma 5's chromaticity readings are at least as accurate as the i1Pro PROVIDED THAT the display being measured uses a standard source of illumination--that is, CRT, UHP projector, plasma, or standard LCD. If the display uses some non-standard technology, such as LED, laser, or Xenon, then the i1Pro returns considerably better results.
The Chroma 5 is considerably more accurate than the i1Pro for luminance readings. In fact, its results are indistinguishable from the reference spectroradiometer that I have been using. The D2/lt is pretty good as well, but not quite as accurate as the Chroma 5.
Finally, both the Chroma 5 and the D2/lt chromaticity readings are more accurate than the i1Pro at low light levels.


The Chroma 5 is a really nice colorimeter. If I were on a budget and I had to have just one meter, the Chroma 5 would be it.

NOTE: I have been using the Orb Optronics spectroradiomter as a reference.

Tom Huffman
Rockville, MD
In a related question, how does it compare to the hubble/OTC1000?
From what I have seen, the Hubble does no better than the Chroma 5 and can do worse.

Tom Huffman
Rockville, MD
Tom, can you go into detail about the Chroma5 vs the hubble in your experience, particularly in measuring primaries for CMS adjustment, use is mainly on panels, but also will include front-projectors. I will be ending up with both units, and would like to use the most accurate/appropriate device where possible, and also be aware of measurement weaknesses so I do not over-extend the capabilities of the tool.

I appreciate the info.
I have tried the Hubble on a half a dozen displays of different types, all conventionally illuminated. In no case did I find that it returned more accurate readings that the Chroma 5. It is very fast, stable, and with excellent low-light capabilities, but I don't see any advantage in terms of minimizing chromaticity error.
Did the chroma 5, in turn, return more accurate readings, or are they comparable?
In one case it did. That was with an LCD. It may have been an angle of acceptance problem that tripped up the Hubble. In the other cases they were roughly comparable.

The Chroma 5 also offers a great practical advantage for the lazy (like me). You don't have to take dark readings! With the Hubble you have to constantly get up from your chair, install the lens cap, take a dark reading, and then remove the lens cap, before resuming readings. Try doing that 10 or 15 times throughout a long and difficult calibration. PITA.

[Turbe]

more...
For CMS work you need a Spectro. Neither the Display2, Chroma5 or Hubble are suited for CMS. Yes they can be used and are only accurate once you get to the designed filter specs.
Indeed, ideally I'd be using a spectrometer, but these are not my own tools only using them for company work using provided meters. If I have the chance to measure and compare to a spectrometer (which takes a lot of time), I could have a good feel for where I could improve things(but not with perfect precision) using the given tools, versus situations where it isn't even worth my time. I was more curious what others have already found regarding strengths/weaknesses, particularly with some displays (particularly LED based) which may have very peaky and difficult SPDs to measure with a tristimulus device.


What do you mean?

Would a Chroma5 perform poorly on a KURO 9G's CMS in a completely darkened room?
The amount of light is largely irrelevant in regards to its suitability to the purpose. A colorimeter has just a few photodiodes that have filters on them. These are essentially "tuned" to measure white/gray. Once you start heading away from white/gray, you start to rely more and more on the accuracy of only one or two of the filters/diodes. You may get lucky, but more than likely you won't. Measuring the gamut, you want a bunch of sensors that are able to read the spectrum, and that generally means that you need a spectro.

Bill


What do you mean?

Would a Chroma5 perform poorly on a KURO 9G's CMS in a completely darkened room?
To begin with you don't want to use the Kuro's CMS at all. As wonderful a display as it is, its CMS is useless. It operates only in the hue range and using it messes up the grayscale. Put the Kuro in Pure mode and raise color control a couple of ticks and its color is nearly perfect in any case.

Second, I just calibrated one of these using the Chroma 5 corrected by my reference spectroradiometer. Here's what I saw:

Orb Chroma 5 CIE94
x y x y
R 0.667 0.324 0.665 0.325 0.2
G 0.270 0.653 0.272 0.661 1.0
B 0.147 0.061 0.144 0.063 1.2
Y 0.436 0.513 0.445 0.511 1.8
C 0.199 0.311 0.200 0.317 1.5
M 0.343 0.160 0.341 0.162 0.5
W 0.317 0.326 0.318 0.327 0.6


I assume no difference in luminance readings. The Chroma 5 is excellent in this regard. As you can see, these are very small differences. Only yellow and cyan exceed what I consider to be an acceptable tolerance.

This is fairly typical of what I have seen from other normally illuminated displays as well, with one exception. The Chroma 5 did much better with white on this display than I am used to seeing. I generally find that the white error is as large or larger than many of the pri/sec errors. For that reason, I don't quite agree with "you-need-a-spectro-for-color" position. This implies that there is some generic, across the board difference in accuracy between color readings and readings of white. Based on what I've seen there just isn't. Sometimes spectros do better than good colorimeters with color than they do with white. Green, yellow, and cyan are particularly problematic to varying degrees. However, colorimeters do as well or better with red, magenta, and often blue than they do with white.

Where I have seen a generic, across the board difference in accuracy between spectros and colorimeters is with non-standard displays as I described below. Also, a good spectro is probably essential for pros who need that last bit of accuracy for all display types to be credible.

Anyway, if you are NOT a pro and you don't have a display with an exotic lighting source, the Chroma 5 is, I think, the best deal out there.

Tom Huffman
Rockville, MD

[Turbe]

more...
Tom,

Do you have any raw data that shows the Chroma 5's unprofiled performance matched up with an I1Pro and I1D2 compared to your spectroradiometer readings as the reference for measures?


--tom
Some. However, I have not been gathering this systematically for publication. The only one I can find right now is what I measured on a Panasonic plasma.

i1Pro
R G B Y C M W
x 0.642 0.307 0.15 0.421 0.23 0.321 0.315
y 0.33 0.6 0.065 0.507 0.337 0.157 0.335
Y 0.203 0.717 0.076 0.922 0.794 0.28 1.000 Ave.
CIE94 1.1 1.3 1.6 0.4 2.1 0.7 3.3 1.5
CIELUV 2.6 3.6 2.0 0.8 6.3 4.2 4.6 3.5

D2 R G B Y C M W
x 0.645 0.312 0.148 0.429 0.220 0.325 0.320
y 0.328 0.606 0.063 0.507 0.337 0.158 0.335
Y 0.211 0.714 0.073 0.933 0.79 0.285 1.000 Ave.
CIE94 0.4 2.5 1.3 1.9 2.7 0.6 3.8 1.9
CIELUV 3.7 5.9 2.6 6.4 7.6 4.2 6.6 5.3


Chroma5 R G B Y C M W
x 0.639 0.305 0.149 0.424 0.225 0.322 0.317
y 0.331 0.608 0.065 0.508 0.332 0.159 0.330
Y 0.216 0.703 0.077 0.914 0.785 0.293 1.000 Ave.
CIE94 0.4 1.4 1.8 1.0 1.0 1.0 2.1 1.2
CIELUV 0.6 2.5 2.5 2.3 2.6 3.7 3.7 2.6


I have a couple more, but I can't find them right now. The data above is compared against the spectro's readings normalized to Rec. 709 specs. BTW, if you look at the CIELUV data (the better apples-to-apples example), you'll see that the colorimeters don't do appreciably worse with color than they do with white. Also, at least in this case, the C5 actually did slightly better than the i1Pro.

Tom Huffman
Rockville, MD

[Turbe]

more...
Tom, interesting comparison between meters, and especially interesting about your luminance findings with the i1Pro/Chroma 5. Does this apply to all light levels, or only low-light readings?

It's also interesting to see that the Chroma 5 is more accurate on that Panasonic. The problem is that with it being a colorimeter, you really have no idea if it's going to be accurate for a specific display, whereas the i1Pro should have relatively good accuracy across all display types. (but not laser/led)

I like the Chroma 5's speed and low-light repeatability (now that it's fixed in CalMAN) but I don't trust it unprofiled at all. It's always been 5–10% off from my i1Pro on greyscale measures no matter what the display type is. (usually plus red)
One of the problems with direct comparisons is that there is some unit-to-unit variation. I might have just got a better-than-average C5.

I find that the i1Pro measures peak luminance consistently low, but again it is possible that this is an artifact of my specific meter.

Tom Huffman
Rockville, MD
That's definitely unit-to-unit variation then. My i1Pro tends to read slightly higher than my Chroma 5 (from the CRT I measured last night, it was 80cd/m² vs 78cd/m²) and my DTP-94 disagrees with them both by about 5cd/m².

Of course, without a reference meter to hand, I have no idea which of the three is correct. It could be that my Chroma 5 is perfectly accurate, and the i1Pro is reading too high, or any other combination. I tend to trust the i1Pro though, as it seems to be more consistent across various display types whereas I've seen more variation from the colorimeters. (if I calibrate with the i1Pro, the displays are always a close visual match, but there is some variation when using an unprofiled colorimeter)

[Turbe]

more...
how are the eye one meters on a plasma
When set-up properly, they are about as good on most plasmas as they are on ordinary CRTs. Especially with plasmas, you want the display to warm-up for half an hour or so before taking measurements (most lower-end sensors can drift as they heat-up).

Bill

[Turbe]

more...
I have a plasma (pioneer krp-600m), sharp lcd, and an RS2 projector that I want to calibrate myself. Which meter should I buy? and why? i1pro, i1 display2, or chroma 5. budget for them is <$1000. I might end up offering my services too, once I get the hang of it.
Thanks in advance.
If you have the money, get an i1Pro/CalMAN bundle. For the money its a GREAT value - I've used it on my RS1, my 111FD, and plan to use it on my FPJ1 - my buddy used it on his W5000, and we got great results on all of them.
so the i1Pro is better than the chroma 5, for these types of displays? I know it is more expensive but that doesn't always equate to better. Thanks for your reply HogPilot
The i1 Pro is "different", not neccessarily "better". The i1 Pro is a low-end spectro. As a result, it has more "flexibility" for handling different measurement tasks, but it also has a much more constrained dynamic range vs. a filter-based unit. The Chroma 5 is fast and has a phenomenal dynamic range, but it can be challenged by some types of displays. If you are thinking about doing this professionally, you will actually want both units as a "starter" kit. If you have to choose one, and you want to use a CMS, then the i1 Pro is really the one to choose. If you aren't doing CMS work, then there is a strong case for the Chroma 5 if you have a high dynamic range display.

Bill
I agree completley - it's the Pro's flexibility amongst display types that was my primary reason for suggesting it over the Chroma5.

[Turbe]

more...
What types of display's do you think challenge the Chroma 5?
Any display with a non-standard lighting source, such as LED, laser, or xenon. For all practical purposes this essentially means LED-based Samsung DLP rear projectors and LED-backlit LCD flat panels.

There is only one extremely expensive laser-based rear projector made by Mitsubishi and I can't think of any currently-manufactured projector that uses a xenon lamp.

For all CRTs, conventional LCD and plasma flat panels, and UHP-based front and rear projectors (the overwhelming majority of the market) it does quite well, though very expensive professional tools will do better. The i1Pro may also do slightly better with these devices within its relatively limited dynamic range.

Tom Huffman
Rockville, MD

[Turbe]

more...
I just went throught the same info collecting, got the Chroma 5. To take what someone said above a step further, the D2/LT calibration is 'guaranteed' for a year, it will likely last some length of time beyond that, but once its filters degrade... it will make a nice tree ornament. The C5 can be recalibrated... I didn't want to spend that much money on something that was disposable.

[Dizzy810]

Turbe,

I am getting a Pro-111fd and I already have a Samsung HL-S5087W DLP. Would the Chroma 5 work well for it? I saw your posts about some display's challenging it. It is not a LED based DLP so does that mean it would be ok?

Thanks

[Turbe]

Well, look at Post #2 with what Michael TLV wrote.

I would suggest the I1 Pro (and Chroma 5 if you can pull it :D ).

[Turbe]

Saw this posted elsewhere (a SpectraCal reply to a User's message):

"The recertification process doesn’t actually make any adjustments to your meter. It’s basically just a process of checking to validate that the meter is still within specs.



The Chroma 5 is a well-engineered meter and will last a long time, but our experience that the EyeOne Pro is even more durable. Some of this is just the nature of the technology. The Chroma 5 is a tristimulus colorimeter, which means that its accuracy is dependent on its filters and the filters will age. The EyeOne Pro is a spectrophotometer, so it doesn’t have filters. The other factor is that the EyeOne Pro is just an exceptional piece of engineering, manufactured in Switzerland to very high standards.



I hope that adds light and doesn’t just further confuse the issue for you. Both are good meters; the EyeOne Pro is certainly the better investment."

[transendance]

How long would I expect that the

-eye one pro will remain calibrated.

-Chroma 5 will remain calibrated.

That is hold to their factory spectolerances and then.

whatwould be envolved in getting recalibration done?

[Turbe]

Most likely for a DIYer, you would consider recertifying your EyeOne Pro (and NIST Chroma 5) every couple years (though the certification is for approx 1 year).

The price charged by X-rite is $200 set up and $75 per calibration (and $5 per certificate).

By “recalibrate,” they will write new matrix tables into the meter. But if the meter’s physical characteristics have deteriorated to the point where it’s out of range, they won’t try to repair it. If the meter has drifted a small amount that could be covered by a new calibration table, they’ll write the new calibration table, but if the meter has drifted a lot, there’s nothing they can do about that.


I may have another less expensive option for DIYers (checked to a high end reference meter) in the future.

[transendance]

Most likely for a DIYer, you would consider recertifying your EyeOne Pro (and NIST Chroma 5) every couple years (though the certification is for approx 1 year).

The price charged by X-rite is $200 set up and $75 per calibration (and $5 per certificate).

By “recalibrate,” they will write new matrix tables into the meter. But if the meter’s physical characteristics have deteriorated to the point where it’s out of range, they won’t try to repair it. If the meter has drifted a small amount that could be covered by a new calibration table, they’ll write the new calibration table, but if the meter has drifted a lot, there’s nothing they can do about that.


I may have another less expensive option for DIYers (checked to a high end reference meter) in the future.

So if I get this right If one chooses the eyeonepro then it will require a ~ $300.00 expense to maintain every couple of years........where as the chroma5 one would probably just replace?

[Turbe]

One User sent his EyeOne Pro in and was only charged $200 plus shipping - I don't think it needed a new table written and it doesn't look like he was charged the $5 certificate fee either.

X-Rite charged $200 plus shipping. It's a lot of fun. They ask for your credit card and then you send them the i1. Then they charge you whatever they decided it cost them to recertify it. Since mine was working fine they just billed me the $200 base price, but if there had been something wrong they would have tacked more on. When we talked on the phone they said they'd contact me with the cost before they billed me, but since they didn't maybe that's something they only do if it's going to cost more.
Roy

The NIST Certificates are good for 1 Year but IMO DIYers probably could get away with checking every couple years.

[rmongiovi]

Yes, all they did was test the unit and determine it was still within spec. Considering the cost of the original i1 and the cost of this "recertification" including shipping, I suspect I'm not going to have it done again. They didn't even update the calibration date that the i1 returns when you initialize it. Essentially, I paid $200+ for a piece of paper (and whatever the piece of mind is worth).
Roy

[tony22]

Hi Turbe. Thanks for the info via PM, but I had another question that I figured might be worth posting here.

I think I understand what "profiling" a sensor is supposed to do, but is that necessary if a sensor (like the Chroma5) is supplied NIST certified? For example, from your other thread on sensors you say about the Chrmoa5...

"From the factory, these do not come with a diffuser, though good quality ones are not expensive (they do require "profiling", though)."

As supplied with ControlCAL and CalMAN, does the certified Chroma5 still need a diffuser? Does it still need to be profiled? What information is generated during this profiling process and how is it used?

[Turbe]

SpectraCAL has (and we offer it here, though it's not listed) the Chroma 5 Projector Kit for $40:

Chroma 5 Projector Kit
Chroma 5 tripod holder plus opal diffuser.



If you wanted it added, just LMK

[tony22]

Ah, so the diffuser is only if you want to use it for projectors?

So if I have a plasma (which I do :D ), I don't need to worry about profiling the Chroma5?

[Turbe]

No, not for your Plasma :)

[tony22]

Awesome. Any idea if I order Monday do you think I'd get the CalMAN/Chroma5 by Friday? I'm in NJ.

[Turbe]

Yes, it doesn't take long.. just need to verify if they have stock on the NIST Chroma 5's (I believe they do).

[Turbe]

.
The X-Rite i1 Display2 and DisplayLT do NOT require nor need a black level calibration, same goes for the Chroma5. The X-Rite Hubble/OTC-1000 and i1Pro do need a black level calibration every 10-15 minutes.

If your software says it does then they do not understand how the Display2 works.

Although, wasn't there some issue with the D2/LT vs Plasma's and thermal drift?
Yes the D2/LT can have thermal drift with large temperature changes but this should on only be in the Y not xy. As for D2 thermal drift not much can be done except let the meter sit on the display for 30 minutes or so.

FYI, the D2/LT has factory set sensor dark current offsets that can't be changed.