Datacolor Spyder5 Confusion and Disappointment

Cool articles you linked to, thanks! I use color picker for WB and scopes, but at the end of the day, I make decisions made by how things look, after all, we don't watch films or video with scopes on, do we? Sometimes they are just wrong (say, for instance, a macro shot of tundra vegetation, where there is no white, and the colors are, in reality, out of this world, or, also, when doing a tele shot of a distant mountain storm, while standing in bright sunlight ... no chance to use a color checker thingy!

But I am heartened to hear that you too use Spyder to calibrate monitors to visual sameness (means I wasn't hoping for a barrel of turnips while ordering a truck of gravel) ... my results were all different, so I requested RMA and it is repackaged, ready to return, while a new XRite i1 Display Pro is on its way.

I will be very interested to see the difference, not only directly compared to the profiles created by Spyder, but whether it brings my monitors to a visually close to each other state of calibration.

Just keep in mind that when you color correct, balance and process, you are doing it for production work and you want to give them as much data as possible so they can modify, adjust and finally grade to their needs. When you are doing it for yourself and your own enjoyment, make it anyway you like. I know certain things look better or at least under my vision they look better (hence: subjective!) But when delivering goods to the production world, they don't want to see your personal feel, they just want it clean, balanced and workable. Of course using h.264/265 makes this slightly crappy for their end as stuff gets too crunched for delivery. I still don't get why everyone is so hooked on h.264/265 - I think those codecs totally suck!

Agreed totally about the sucky codecs (haven't tried h.265)

Funny thing is, I used to keep things as dry/accurate as possible, but it seems my sales reflect better on the work where I have either gone for "good looking accurate" or in some cases "way over the top I should be embarrassed" and of course totally depends on the content, too ... but even when I am pushing it, I always "go there" and then back off a bit.

I do this better now than I used to .. some of my older work is, well .. um, gone too far .. yet still sells. Would it have sold better if I uploaded a flat/accurate version as well as to my eye version? Impossible to say, and the workload of doing such is too much.

To date I have not had a request for a flat version of something (although that's been an offer for most of my time doing this). I have had requests for more of something (as in angles, etc.) but never color work.

And from what I've found shooting flat to crappy codecs (like D-Log color to 60mb/s mp4 in Inspire1) is that the flat version is never as good as the "Natural" modes as the codec is not robust enough to handle the grade ... and similarly, if people keep insisting on downloading HD versions of 4K, they are not getting the ProRes HQ that I am uploading ... so even if my work was flatter, they would have more trouble working with it before it breaks up.

So in general, I'm "moderately interpreting" lately.

I just recalibrated with the Spyder5 on my 4K monitor. This time I set the brightness right where it said and the rest auto calibration. Everything looks great this time. You might just have a bad Spyder.

Good to know. BAD Spyder! Funny, good timing .. processing my macro shots of an orb spider cocooning and eating a moth ... at 200% this is what I call too much spider, but it's coming out nicely, I think. Went back to the default profiles for now (they have served me well enough).

Really a different topic, but directly related:

Another thought I had regarding accuracy of color and levels and monitoring and whether the client wants processed or unprocessed (akin to what StefHoffer was asking regarding DLOG files from his Phantom) is that I believe we are selling images (still or moving). Unless the color is obviously off, or wrong, (subjectively inappropriate to the content) the prospective client does not know what the look is supposed to be ... obviously, they are looking for something that works with their production. So if color is important, they will likely choose something that more closely matches the color attributes of their production, given content of fairly equal framing and other values. If it is part of a series, then yes, t certainly does matter that they all get the same treatment. But if shot, say, in DLOG or SLOG, and uploaded, in my experience, it is less likely to sell, as it looks grim and dowdy in comparison to the corrected/enhanced clips in the lineup right next to it.

Leaving them room to work is great, and important, I agree, but I have been messing with color, for better or for worse, and unabashedly so, ever since a very successful person here on P5 downloaded a still of one of my dowdy looking clips (from back when I was trying to provide a flat, honest, workable product, and almost ashamed of "doing things" to my clips), did some basic color work to it, making it pop, and sent it to me with suggestions. That artist has gone on and on, and is quite successful. I chose to follow that route, especially as I do relatively little editorial, and my video is an artistic vision based on what I see, and believe it should look like. Sometimes I just want it to look decent, and do cloning, color work, noise reduction, and all that stuff so the client doesn't' have to. For the most part I have been able to use my own clips, applying corrections and adjustments to match/work within my own sequences without having to go back to the source and re-render them because I made them too much (anything).

So that is my basis for wanting monitoring that agrees: If I watch videos from other people, content from known/respected sources, and like it and it appears "correct" to me, and all my monitors look pretty much the same, then the decisions I make when creating content are good to my eye for MY process, and I can work trusting that as far as I know, what I put out (especially when viewed by me on a completely different system than my own) will not give me any surprises later.

I talk too much. Sorry.

Easy does it ... Spyder sucks, Xrite i1 DisplayPro made my monitors all look the same.

Haven't gone "advanced" yet, but the basic cal looks good, and is not weird, either (based on other content I used to compare) whereas the Spyder results were pretty weird looking.

Hi folks, newbe here, but wanted to comment.
In reading these posts, I see the desire to calibrate your monitors. Good point often missed with production. Now you are ready and have that hot vid/still just right, but how about the buyers monitor? Is his calibrated? To what?

Dave

Oops, sorry for the dumb question. Should have read more. I see buyers have the Adobe Addon to use.

Calibrated by 4K laptop monitor yesterday with Spyder 5 and it worked fine and yes it looks better. I dunno.

I want to be reasonably sure that my monitors match each other, match my scopes, match my expectations of how the video looks in the wild. Saves me from unpleasant surprises later. For the most part when I've seen my work on other systems (uncalibrated or calibrated) things have been good. But when a new monitor comes into the mix, it is hard to say what is "real" as relative as that is.

! do not want the monitor to "look better" ... the new monitor looked great when I got it. It was set up to look great ... not infrequently this is done to enhance the user experience and sell monitors. The new monitor looked so good it made me suspicious. Still looks good after calibration, but at least it is more looking like what it should, rather than hyped.

It is better, brighter, newer, has more coverage of colors, etc, so it can show me more when I need it. But I don't want it to enhance my video leading me to back down on my color work, hence the calibration ...

The buyer's monitors are their own business.