[Frank Fletcher]

Ok. Now I think calibration (on linux) is for the birds.

I received my Spyder2Pro and calibrated it using dispcal (argyllCMS) and I get - yuck. I get an ugly green cast. So I find that it's using the wrong white balance and wrong gamma for my taste. I recalibrate (for the 1000th time - did I mention that argyll is slowwwwww with the Spyder2?), using standard targets: gamma = 2.2 and white point = 6500K .... <drum roll please> ... now I get an ugly cyan cast.

So far, I'm unimpressed... so I check it out with my GFs mac, using the software the unit came with - nice result. That proved to me that it's not the calibration hardware - it has to be either argyllcms or my own dell that's messing up the process. Tonight, I'll check it again on my external monitor (since I know everybody is going to tell me about how bad laptop screens are).

Thus far, the best solution has definitely been the Spyder3Pro under WindowsXP running on VirtualBox. It has produced the cleanest profile and my ColorChecker on screen, most closely matches my ColorChecker in my hand, illuminated by early afternoon sunlight.

If I can't get it to work, I guess I'll end up dual-booting - which I can't stand to do!

** frusterated **

[zaurus]

Ok. Now I think calibration (on linux) is for the birds.

Possible, but not yet proved.

I received my Spyder2Pro and calibrated it using dispcal (argyllCMS) and I get - yuck. I get an ugly green cast. So I find that it's using the wrong white balance and wrong gamma for my taste. I recalibrate (for the 1000th time - did I mention that argyll is slowwwwww with the Spyder2?), using standard targets: gamma = 2.2 and white point = 6500K .... <drum roll please> ... now I get an ugly cyan cast.

When switching to a color profile using:

Code:

@lex:~> dispwin .color/icc/eizo-685.icc

I also initially get surprised by an alleged light brownish/reddish cast, but this impression goes away in a couple of minutes and "measurements" prove the color fidelity is much better.

So far, I'm unimpressed... so I check it out with my GFs mac, using the software the unit came with - nice result.

I have an Intel MacMini with a DVI output and my Eizo 685 has dual-DVI inputs, so I can compare calibration results by push a button "next to each other," so to speak.
To my eyes when inspecting them using e.g this standard LCD test the Linux one looked better.
However, it might be the difference between using integrated GMA950 on the MacMini vs. discrete Nvidia on openSUSE.

That proved to me that it's not the calibration hardware - it has to be either argyllcms or my own dell that's messing up the process. Tonight, I'll check it again on my external monitor (since I know everybody is going to tell me about how bad laptop screens are).

It might also be the quality of the driver for your graphics card -- as the "calibration process" actually changes its values (unless you have a professional hardware-calibrated monitor).
On openSUSE I am using a Nvidia FX-5700 with the Nvidia proprietary binary driver which is supposedly the same (or close) for any OS.

Thus far, the best solution has definitely been the Spyder3Pro under WindowsXP running on VirtualBox.

I assume you are using the process described here.
Are you sure you are using optimal settings?
How many patches did you use (default and 250 are way too little)?
I used 500 (if I remember correctly).
It took 28 minutes on my dual Opteron workstation.

Code:

@lex:~> ls -l eizo-685.*
-rw-r--r-- 1 x users 10266 2008-02-18 20:08 eizo-685.cal
-rw-r--r-- 1 x users  4016 2008-02-18 20:44 eizo-685.icc
-rw-r--r-- 1 x users 25390 2008-02-18 20:13 eizo-685.ti1
-rw-r--r-- 1 x users 32703 2008-02-18 20:41 eizo-685.ti3

It has produced the cleanest profile and my ColorChecker on screen, most closely matches my ColorChecker in my hand, illuminated by early afternoon sunlight.

Haven't checked with printed out charts.
Wish there was an easy standard automatic way to measure deviation, not to rely on subjective impression...