Datacolor User to User Support Group.

--- In colorvision_group@yahoogroups.com, "elvissivle77" <rasianator@...> wrote:

> As it stands now we are using Epson profiles, which don't match up close enough 
> for our liking; a lot of paper/ink being wasted on test strips and so on. I know that prices for 
> custom profiling software can cost an upwards of few $1000. My question: does anyone have 
> an opinion as to whether or not the Spyder3 would be sufficient in creating profiles for this 
> type of environment or would we be better off spending the extra $$ for the higher end 
> systems? For those of you with experience, is there a significantly noticeable difference 
> between the quality of Epsons canned profiles vs those made with the Spyder3? 

Spyder3 and PrintFix Pro 2+3 builds profiles at least equal to the Xrite's EyeOne that costs about 3 times as much. There is no 
way that Xrite would build the Munki to produce profiles equal to the EyeOne as that would undercut EyeOne sales.

Also the design of the Munki looks like light would leak in from the side while calibrating monitors.

The Munki doesn't impress...least it's name.