![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
Here's a test where they used several colorimeters and tested them with a spectroradiometer:
http://www.drycreekphoto.com/Learn/Calibration/MonitorCalibrationHardware.html
As you can see, the DTP-94 comes on top except with wide gamut, where Spyder 3 is one of the few that has filters for. You use a NEC 2490WUXi, which is sRGB, so unless you plan to upgrade to a wide gamut display or your DTP-94 is failing, there shouldn't be a need for a new colorimeter.
I use an Eizo S2433W, I used a NEC 2490 only for one day.
We are talking about i1 display 3 not spyder 3
By applying appropiate 3x3 correction matrices. Quato implements averaged generic ones for IPS and VA displays with WCG-CCFL and extended WCG-CCFL backlight (92-102% NTSC - the spectra are not so different between these screens) and every supported colorimeter. This approach works fine for the DTP94 which has a quite good inter instrument agreement (the particular matrix is also averaged over a number of probes of one type). So the measured values pass through two correction matrices in this case. One for non WCG-CCFL screens (72% NTSC) on colorimeterside and another for the WCG-CCFL spectra on softwareside.
The filter solution of Spyder 3 and EOD2 comes a bit closer to the 2 degree CIE standard observer - without achieving it (therefore corrections against a spectral normal are still required). The main problem is the poor inter instrument agreement and bad durability of the organic gelatine filters. But Datacolor has recently changed the filter solution for the Sypder 3 to an anorganic type which leads to noticeable better results now - unfortunately that enhancement is not communicated. X-Rite has replaced the EOD2 with the already mentioned (and very potent) new colorimeter that features an optical system, anorganic interference filters and a more flexible correction matrix handling (the filter solution matches the 2 degree standard observer better but there is still no ideal match which would lead to spectral independency).
We are testing this in all reviews with the EyeOne Pro as reference. For example:
You are selecting it within the software. Although the matrices are averaged between WCG-CCFL and extended WCG-CCFL screens and multiple probes of one type the results are very usable with the stable DTP94. As I said: The spectra between the mentioned screens are not so different.As long as the probes have a good inter instrument agreement you won't suffer from too strong deviations. In the majority of cases the results are not worse compared to the OEM EOD2 solution of NEC or the similar approach of HP für the LP2480zx.
I will definitely look at one/ some of the new devices but I can't tell a definite date.
Question wasn't about the performance of the solution, but the implementation itself. BasICColor Discus was interesting though and can be proven to be the best solution on the marked now if its consistent.
Sure that accuracy is worth it to some, not many here I imagine. That is is about what I paid for my complete NEC2490UXiSV package. I will get similar accuracy (my probe is calibrated for my monitor) and I got a monitor too.
I cringe at the thought of $500 spectrophotometer, but it does occasionally cross my mind. $1200, not unless I had so much money that I never needed to think about it again.
I am more interested in how the new i1d3 stacks up in terms of getting good enough results on a variety of screens. Though it does sound like the device may be locked an not work with third party SW.
I will probably just try to make do on next monitor (perhaps a Dell U2412) and see how bad the results look from my NEC branded iD2 on a W-LED display.
A shame that NEC US blocked EU credit cards to get that package.