# Question: Calman w/ Colormunki Spectro.



## j0nnyfive (Jan 25, 2012)

Howdy! 


I am a (sorta newbish) home theater enthusiast now. Yes, I've joined the cult. I've been learning a lot about color and have read various guides about calibration, and I want to purchase some software and a meter. My question is: 

Would purchasing Calman with the Colormunki Spectrophotometer be a good choice for me? I want to calibrate TVs and my projector. The reason I'm looking at a spectro instead of a colorimeter is that I don't want to deal with the uncertainty of drifting or the hassle of needing to send it in for recalibration annually.
I want to calibrate lots of TVs (friends, family's), but I'm usually kinda slow getting around to doing some things. So, I feel that having a colorimeter alone wouldn't be satisfactory because I don't move fast enough. lol 

I am aware that:

spectros are generally slower (I'm in no rush). 
spectros tend to not read the low range as well. (not sure how I would deal with this).

So other things I'm wondering are:

1. Do spectros drift over time (even if slower than colorimeters)? Any experiences with this?

2. Is the Colormunki a good spectro compared to the more expensive i1pro? (I don't have a 1k bucks)

3. Would a good light meter be enough to make up for the low light level weakness of the spectro? Or
would I need to get a colorimeter for this? IOW, could I just use a light meter with a spectro,
or do I need a colorimeter with a spectro? And, if I have a spectro, would a colorimeter like the M2
be okay since I have the spectro to reference with? I know the M2 isn't as good as the i1 display pro 3,
but would it matter since I have the colormunki to calibrate the M2 against? 


If my questions don't make complete sense, use incorrect terminology, or falsely assume something... it wouldn't surprise me. lol 


Thanks!


----------



## mechman (Feb 8, 2007)

Ever since I've been bitten with the video calibration bug, the mantra from the pros has always been that the way to the most accurate readings is with a spectroradiometer. 

1. It is my understanding that spectros _may_ drift over time. But they shouldn't drift anywhere near as fast as a colorimeter. I had my older i1Pro re-certified by X-Rite on a couple of occasions and I noticed no changes since first purchasing it - measurement wise. I think that you could probably go several years without the re-certification. All of this is moot though as I don't believe the Colormunki spectro can be re-certified. I don't see it listed at the SpectraCal site under meter services. :huh:

2. Sure. :T I've seen comparisons showing them pretty much even measurement wise. The difference is the i1Pro can be re-certified and it is NIST traceable. That's what you get for a few extra hundred bucks. :bigsmile:

3. No need. You should be able to get decent readings at 20-30%. If your display has a two point grayscale adjustment then the lower levels should be properly adjusted along side 20-30%. You can usually detect errors at 0-10% by eye better than the meter can. A light meter won't do anything for you except measure light - lumens, candelas, foot lamberts, foot candles, etc. It won't measure chromaticity. A M2 or even a i1Display2 would be a fine colorimeter to profile with the Colormunki. :T


----------



## j0nnyfive (Jan 25, 2012)

Thanks Mech! 

You guys have been very helpful to me. I really appreciate it. I'm going to do a bit more research on the Colormunki before pulling the trigger. Going to email both Tom Huffman and the Spectrocal peeps and get the low down on recertification, compatibility, opinions, etc. I'm up in the air about whether to get Chromapure or Calman. They both look good to me. I'm mostly concerned with meter services, compatibility, and pricing structure. (considering whether I should save for an i1 pro, or get Colormunki now.)

I'm glad to hear that a light meter isn't necessary! Another cost I can scratch off! So, I'm definitely going spectrophoto/radiometer instead of colorimeter. I see this as a slow n' steady (lasting for years) thing. I might get a colorimeter later. 

Mech, if you don't mind me asking, what do you think Chromapure does better, and what do you think Calman does better? Which do you prefer, and why? I'm not experienced enough to really understand the subtle differences. I get that Calman has custom workflows, and Chromapure is more of a static workflow. Does Chromapure seem faster at processing things? Does one software seem more intuitive than the other? Just curious about your latest opinion. I'm reading through the demo version of Calman right now. Very neat! I wish Chromapure had a demo like this so I could get a feel for that one as well. 


Thanks again!


----------



## mechman (Feb 8, 2007)

j0nnyfive said:


> Mech, if you don't mind me asking, what do you think Chromapure does better, and what do you think Calman does better? Which do you prefer, and why? I'm not experienced enough to really understand the subtle differences. I get that Calman has custom workflows, and Chromapure is more of a static workflow. Does Chromapure seem faster at processing things? Does one software seem more intuitive than the other? Just curious about your latest opinion. I'm reading through the demo version of Calman right now. Very neat! I wish Chromapure had a demo like this so I could get a feel for that one as well.


What does Chromapure do better? It's not a steep learning curve. It's fairly simple and straightforward to setup and use.

What does CalMAN do better? Customization. And I thought that the learning curve was a bit steep at first but once I got the hang of it, I actually prefer it. Plus, you now have the simple walk-through that we created here to walk you through the whole process. Support is probably better through SpectraCal as well. Tom (Chromapure) has always been pretty fast at responding to my requests but he's only one man. There's a team at SpectraCal. And there's always the question as to what if (God forbid!!) something should happen to Tom? There's no one outside of him as far as I know. CalMAN also has more meter support.

Chromapure does have help videos on their web site.

I'm hoping to get some time in the coming weeks to work on a HTS CalMAN workflow. I think that the workflows that are available to the diy'er are a bit long in the tooth.


----------



## michael tlv (Jun 23, 2009)

Greetings

CP is one workflow. Just think of it like that. As if calman only gave you one WF and you couldn't change it at all. It's essentially the Tom workflow and if you like it, then you are golden. If you don't ... too bad. Some people don't like choice ... they want vanilla and only vanilla. Too many flavors confuses them. 

The THX WF that is used with the Calman program is designed actually similar to the CP work flow. It's not Tom's WF per se ... but rather the order of things that any seasoned calibrator normally goes through. One page to capture pre-cal data ... then one page for grayscale stuff ... then one page for CMS stuff ... then create a report for print out. Four steps ... in the whole process outside of setting up a meter and entering client data.

The professional WF in Calman is actually very similar to the THX WF aside from cosmetic changes. (Designed by same person ... me)

Once a person gets down to work with the professional WF ... let's say ... then the two programs run very similar to each other. With the Pro WF actually more stream line than the CP wf. For a pro calibrator, that is all they need. They do not need 30 steps reminding them to do brightness and then contrast and blah blah. That is what many find overwhelming about the calman program. The overly long WF ... designed for absolute beginners. Which after a few uses actually becomes overly long for those same beginners. 

The new user to Calman doesn't know they have other choices ... and settle for this long WF and complain all the way. Add to that, they rarely have the patience to open each WF to examine what it does and what it does not do in order to find what is right for them.

It is still my program of choice because I have streamlined the process and it always opens up with that 4 step THX flow and I get down to business right off.

Some down sides to CP include the fixed screen area of the layouts. My laptops run 1920x1080 screens and CP layouts take up too little of the screen real estate. Too much space is wasted and I often wish I could embiggen some of the data windows. But I can't. The layout is fixed in size for what looks like a laptop resolution of 1280x800 or so.

But what can a person say about CP ... it may not be pretty but it gets the job done.

I like to customize things ... but it is legitimate that a number of people out there do not want to do this or take the time to learn to do this. CP is better that way. However ... if Calman just loaded up by default with a WF that was similar to what was on the CP ... I'd think there would be more happy campers.

regards


----------



## j0nnyfive (Jan 25, 2012)

Hey guys! Thank you so much for your input! 

I think I've basically come to the conclusion that I would miss the customization aspect of Calman too much to not get it. I have been playing with it the past 2 days and I like the drag/drop/resize features. I like being able to make my own workflows and such. Very, very cool. 

Well, I am pretty much sold on Calman with the Colormunki at this point. Thanks for your help! Oh! One other thing. Tripod for Colormunki! Any good ideas floating around for that? I emailed Spectrocal about it. Like, 10 minutes ago. lol Can't wait guys! I'm going nuts over here! :unbelievable:


----------



## j0nnyfive (Jan 25, 2012)

BTW, I've just looked at your Calman tutorial Mechman and all I can say is... Whoa I'm going crazy!!!! :unbelievable: :neener: :crying: :blink: :dumbcrazy: :doh: :rofl2: :T Very nice! Thanks for all your hard work! I will be taking full advantage of all of it!


----------



## lcaillo (May 2, 2006)

I have to agree. I am very impressed with Mech's contribution. We are very fortunate to have him here. As a professional in the field of calibration I am impressed by his ability to remain technically correct yet make the explanations understandable to everyone.


----------

