Retina MBP display calibration?

Discussion in 'MacBook Pro' started by withfilm, Jun 28, 2012.

  1. withfilm macrumors newbie

    Nov 17, 2009
    Are there any photographers on the forum that have calibrated their new RMBP? If so, what did you think? Improvement over previous MBP's?
  2. Hioctane macrumors newbie

    Jun 25, 2012
    Still waiting on mine, mimd to end of July :(
    My first Mac too so wont be able to compare either, but I too would be interested to know.
    I'll be calibrating mine once it arrives.
  3. Tibits macrumors 6502

    Feb 23, 2011
    I calibrated with SpyderElite (matching to my Thunderbolt ACD). The rMPB display required much less adjustment that previous MPBs. The display is accurate and editing photos via Aperture is a pleasure.
  4. IceAero macrumors newbie

    Jun 15, 2010
    Care to share your profile?
  5. Queen6 macrumors 604


    Dec 11, 2008
    Cocked, Locked, Ready to Rock
    Every display is subtly different so the cal file from another system may be of little use, then again it costs nothing to ask and try, if it looks better to your eye, it`s all good :p
  6. Mac-Tech macrumors regular


    Jun 4, 2012
    Toronto, ON
    How much is this software and hardware?
  7. Tibits macrumors 6502

    Feb 23, 2011
    SpyderPro is about $170 (from Amazon). SpyderElite is $250, with one of the differences being that you can calibrate and match multiple displays.

    I've never downloaded a profile before, but I will look into it.
  8. double329 macrumors 6502

    Sep 10, 2008
    I use ColorMunki on my MBA and on the Win box. I will use the same device once I recieved my new MBPr, if I ever recieve one.
  9. spdntrxi macrumors regular

    May 11, 2012
  10. Tibits macrumors 6502

    Feb 23, 2011
    I tried to upload the ICC file, but the extension was an invalid file type for this forum.
  11. 01mggt macrumors 6502

    Jun 23, 2010
    Would also like to see if we can share some calibrated profiles. There was a thread for it on the old uniMB 2008 I had. Downloading a calibrated file from the tread made a night and day difference when editing photos :)

    I would just upload as .zip :)
  12. TibookAktive macrumors member

    May 27, 2010
    I agree. I actually started a thread this morning asking the same thing as I totally missed this one started last night.

    I've used shared calibrated profiles on older MBP and it made a huge difference - obviously not accurate for professional purposes as each display is individual but SO much better than the stock profile.

    Tibits: Could you try compressing it as a .zip and upload that (as 01mggt suggests) - that would be amazing, thanks! :)
  13. Tibits macrumors 6502

    Feb 23, 2011
    Here is the .zip file. The monitor looks great and does match closely with my Thunderbolt display and printed pics. However I didn't have the display warmed up for over 30 min when initially calibrated, so I will recalibrate today when I have time.

    Attached Files:

  14. rikbrown macrumors regular

    Jun 29, 2010
    Thanks for this - will try when I get home. I was quite disappointed to find my stock rMBP colour did not match up with the Thunderbolt display very much... hopefully this will help :).
  15. Tibits macrumors 6502

    Feb 23, 2011
    You will need software which specifically addresses matching multiple displays to get a match with your external display. Also, as has been pointed out, all displays are different so a profile for one will not necessarily work for another.
  16. rikbrown macrumors regular

    Jun 29, 2010
    I got the impression it might help a bit though :)
  17. Beta Particle macrumors 6502a

    Jun 25, 2012
    I would recommend against buying one of the Spyder kits. The factory tolerances just aren't good enough on their meters for accurate results. That's not to say they won't improve your display, just that it's not necessarily accurate when you compare them to a reference-grade meter.

    Personally, the lowest-end kit I'd recommend would be the ColorMunki Design, which is around $450 on Amazon right now. That's the cheapest spectrophotometer on the market, and calibration results are nearly as good as an i1Pro.

    If that's out of your price range look at either the ColorMunki Display ($170) or the EyeOne Display Pro. ($250) These are the best cheap colorimeters you can buy, and should give reasonably good results.

    The next level above these options would be an i1Pro (or an i1Pro 2, but prices are higher, and the meter accuracy is almost the same) but these are considerably more expensive.
  18. tusctodd macrumors member

    Dec 22, 2009
    For the average consumer the Spyder series will work just fine.

    If you are extremely anal about it being perfect, buy a better system as this poster has recommended.
  19. fizzwinkus macrumors 6502a

    Jan 27, 2008
    though i'm nowhere near a pro user, i've been very happy with my i1 display 2 (it's since been replaced by the i1 pro i believe)

    - especially because i was given it as a replacement for a bad huey. i bought that just to try out since it was only 99USD and i didn't like spyder.
  20. Fortimir macrumors 6502a


    Sep 5, 2007
    Indianapolis, IN
    The kits you recommend are in a totally different league, while I agree are finitely more accurate, even "normal" professionals don't need that degree of calibration when price is factored in.

    I've worked in studios using some ultra-high-end solutions (true spectrophotometers), and my Spyder3Elite is seriously plenty good bang-for-the-buck. In that case, unless you are working in high capacity print/design, or day-in/day-out for high profile magazines and fashion work... I completely recommend the ~$200 solutions from Datacolor and X-Rite.
  21. Tibits macrumors 6502

    Feb 23, 2011
    I have had plenty of issues with the i1 products, and all calibration systems. None are perfect, everyone needs to do research, read the reviews and make an informed decision. I have been very happy with the Spyder system, as are many pros I know.
  22. 01mggt macrumors 6502

    Jun 23, 2010
    Thanks for sharing the profile! Now if my rMBP would hurry and get here lol
  23. Beta Particle, Jun 29, 2012
    Last edited: Jun 29, 2012

    Beta Particle macrumors 6502a

    Jun 25, 2012
    For the same money, the ColorMunki Display is much better hardware.

    The one advantage the Spyder kits have though, is that they offer the cheapest printer calibration, and have an iPad app for viewing color-managed images.

    A colorimeter really isn’t suited to that task, but it's probably better than no calibration. For printer calibration from X-Rite, you would need to step up to the ColorMunki Design. It really is much better hardware though.

    The i1 Display 2 is a great colorimeter, that was only recently replaced by the i1 Display Pro, and you got very lucky there!

    The reason I recommend spectrophotometers over colorimeters is because they are more accurate by design.

    As a simplified explanation, a colorimeter works by having RGB color filters over sensors that are tuned to try and match the human eye’s color response. The result is that they're essentially only accurate on displays that closely match the color filters they used. This worked very well with CRTs that were all relatively similar. The further a display’s gamut is from that response though, the less accurate they are. This is why most colorimeters have you select a CRT mode, LCD mode, LED mode etc before calibration.

    A spectrophotometer samples the wavelength of light at fixed intervals (10nm on the X-Rite kit) which means that it is accurate regardless of display type, whether it’s a wide gamut display or not etc.

    For a more real-world example, if you had an older LCD, a new LED backlit display, and a CRT and calibrated them with a colorimeter, even if the software said they were identical, they would look different to your eyes.

    If you calibrated them with a spectro, they would look the same. (Or as close as its possible to get them)

    It all depends on what your needs are really. The cheapest option for great results, is the ColorMunki Design. As a casual/home user, the colorimeters are probably fine.

    I started out with a Spyder 2 Pro kit when they were the latest thing, but ended up buying several more colorimeters after that because I wasn't satisfied with the pink-tinted display on my PowerBook, green-tinted CRT etc. Other colorimeters gave better results, but they still didn't match.

    After that, I moved onto spectros and was finally getting the results I wanted. I had to buy an i1Pro because the ColorMunki Design didn't exist at the time, but as long as you don’t need NIST certification, it's a much better deal.

    In the end, I would have saved a lot of money if I had just gone out and bought the i1Pro to begin with. If you’re really serious about what you’re doing, I highly recommend the ColorMunki kit. (The i1Pro kit is probably overkill for most people now that option exists)

    The Spyder hardware is good, it's that the factory tolerances aren’t strict enough for them. If you’re lucky, and get a “good” one, you will have great results. Without a reference for comparison, you have no way of knowing whether you got a good one or not. That’s why I recommend the X-Rite hardware instead.

    Even DataColor essentially admitted this over the years, as they would sell you a hand-picked meter when you bought ColorFacts, and Spectracal tried something similar a while back, by offering hand-checked meters that had been compared against a reference meter. (A Minolta CS-2000) This was stopped realtively quickly though, because there were too many meters coming in that didn't meet their standards. They now have the new i1Display 3 meter (as used in ColorMunki Display and i1Display Pro kits) as their standard option, and don’t even offer the Spyders any more.
  24. Davieis macrumors regular

    Aug 20, 2007
    Melbourne, AU
    Liking this profile! Thanks
  25. Itzmemark macrumors member

    Mar 4, 2012
    I downloaded this profile seems to be good for me thanx for taking the time.

Share This Page