Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Digicam Help > General Discussion

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Mar 9, 2004, 8:58 PM   #31
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 78
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bcoultry
Quote:
Originally Posted by NHL
Spyder Pro bundled with PrintFix now only $449:
[
Ordered it this morning.
hi Barbara... How did the Spyder Pro bundled with PrinfFix work out for you?
Harleyguy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 10, 2004, 12:53 AM   #32
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 5,803
Default

Yes, I was looking at the one with printfix. Actually, the price has dropped even more. Adorama has it for $150 with PhotoCal.

Maybe I’m stating things too harshly. My general statement is this. I wouldn’t by it myself, but I have (to my bank account’s dismay) very high standards and older but nice monitors. I have read accounts of “much better than no spyder” results, but still having some color shifting problems. And spyders (and some other profiling packages) having trouble with older monitors (meaning I’ll have trouble.)

The two of those reviews that I would consider serious are the bythom and dpreview. Thom is very knowledgeable, I'll read that one. dpreview I generally trust (as I've seen them give seriously bad reviews to products from companies that would probably advertise with them.) I'll search their site for a comparison review. I hadn’t seen either of those.

I have read comments by people who write books on color management who suggest going up one level. Drycreek does profiling for a living, I’ll take their opinion over several techTV reviews. I like Dansdata (I’ve read lots on his site, he writes well) and his review is interesting mostly for his statement about the bug in the older spyder software (the rest basically says that it isn’t that hard to do and it works for him…. Not exactly the best review methodology, but technically still a datapoint. I’d rather have a review that projected the ICC profile into a 3D colorspace cube to show that it actually produced a reasonable profile.) That software bug certainly puts older reviews of the product in doubt (along with the forum comments, as he says.) And could explain why the things I’ve read in the past were so against it, but that you’ve found it work so well for you.

Eric
eric s is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 10, 2004, 7:54 AM   #33
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 3,652
Default

Quote:
having trouble with older monitors
Eric, how old is "old" do you suppose? The reason I ask is that my own monitor--a Sony Trinitron--is about 4 or 5 years old, and the Spyder did an admirable job.

PrintFIX, it must be remembered, isn't set up to profile any and all printers. It seems to have been geared mostly toward Epson, which is what I have. I haven't had enough time all in a clump to really put it through its paces, so my final opinion is pending.
bcoultry is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 10, 2004, 5:14 PM   #34
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 5,803
Default

I think the definition of "old" is really about how many hours it has been used. It's really a statement about how much the phosphorescence has been heated/burnt/worn away under the color guns.

Hum, that makes me wonder. I wonder if Sony Trinitron tubes (that only have 1 color gun, I believe) have longer lasting phosphorescence. I’m generally a fan of Trinitron based monitors (which are no longer in production, damn them!) because their color alignment is better… but if you treat your monitors well this really isn’t an issue. Since I carry my monitor places some times, I have to be careful when I’m not moving my Trinitron based one.

My Panasonic 21” at home is probably…. 5 or so years old, but for the first 3 years of its life it was on 8 hours a day and I believe its phosphorescence isn’t as good as it could be.

I actually know next to nothing about PrintFIX, so I won’t say anything about it. Does anyone know of any review about just it? Profiling my printer matters… but my monitor is so out of whack I have to fix that first.

Eric
eric s is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 10, 2004, 5:43 PM   #35
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 3,652
Default

The Sony gets left on all day nearly every day. I don't bother turning things off and on, so this baby's seen a huge number of hours. It doesn't look to have lost any quality, but I couldn't possibly know for sure, could I? I mean, it would deteriorate only very slowly and, with each tiny step, I'd get used to it. How on earth do you tell if things have gone down the tube (so to speak)?
bcoultry is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 10, 2004, 7:11 PM   #36
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 5,803
Default

Does it go into power saving? What matters is if the screen is being painted by the color gun. That is what damages the phosphorescence.

But yes, you would get used to it as it would slowly get bad. In my monitor's case, I believe (its a guess) that a hint it's going bad is that I have to have contrast and brightness to max to get it to show a reasonable proper range of dark and light.

Eric
eric s is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 10, 2004, 9:30 PM   #37
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 3,652
Default

No, I don't use power saving. As a matter of fact, I've always thought this involved the whole computer. Do you mean it can be set for the monitor alone?
bcoultry is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 10, 2004, 9:42 PM   #38
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 365
Default

Yes, you can set power saving for your monitor only. The settings available to you may vary depending on your flavor of Windows. On mine (XP), I right mouse click on a blank area of my desk top, choose properties, click on the Screen Saver tab. At the bottom of the tab is a button that says power. Click that button and you can specify to turn the monitor off after so much time has passed. You can do the same for system standby, but I only let it turn my monitor off after 20 minutes. All I have to do to reactivate my monitor when it is off is move my mouse or press any key
mdparker is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 11, 2004, 9:14 AM   #39
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 3,652
Default

Now that you've described it, I realize why I don't use this or a screen saver: it's because I never thought about the wear-and-tear on the monitor; all I thought about was the former problem of images getting burned in. So, when this problem went away, I figured all problems had gone away. Guess not, right?
bcoultry is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 11, 2004, 9:32 AM   #40
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 438
Default

The burn-in problem has not gone away. It only takes longer than it used to many years ago. Some time ago I replaced a monitor that was some 5 years old and you could distinguish the Windows task bar burnt in the bottom of the screen when turned off.

If you never turn off your monitor chances are that the task bar is noticeable when turned off. Try it.
luisr is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 9:27 AM.