Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 [2] 3 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Monitor Profiling -New Products**  (Read 19181 times)
Raw shooter
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 205


« Reply #20 on: October 07, 2006, 10:29:03 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Not much really - it is truly quite straightforward. When you first use it, you must do both calibration and profiling. Their menus take you through the procedure step by step. You need to be sure to select the Profiling and Calibration path to begin with, and you need to be sure that you have correctly selected the kind of monitor you are using (LCD or CRT). From there, the only discretionary settings you need to make before the process takes-over are gamma, luminosity and white balance. For gamma they recommend L* which I use successfully, for luminance I set it to 110, because my LCD is otherwise too bright relative to the Enhanced Matte that comes out of the printer; for white balance I use 6500K, because this setting on the monitor corresponds best for the human visual system when we look at prints under D50 illumination. Don't ask me why, but it works. Once you've made those three choices, the software does the rest. Once it finishes there is a profile verification option which I always activate; it measures another fifteen patches and gives you a Delta-E readout for both grayscale and R,G,B. This gives you a clear indication of the profile's reliability. The program automatically makes the new profile your default monitor profile, but it is always good to double-check this in you video card driver advanced colour settings tab.

It is important to make sure when you start the procedure that you do a good reading of the black patch as they suggest (no stray light and the correct kind of black material) and that no ambient light is getting in between the colorimeter and the patch on the monitor where you place the instrument.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=79421\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Mark,
Thank you for such a complete answer to my question.  I do appreciate the detail and the important settings you have listed.  You are clearly a great asset to this site.
Logged
Mark D Segal
Contributor
Sr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 6818


WWW
« Reply #21 on: October 07, 2006, 10:42:39 AM »
ReplyReply

You are welcome. Pleased to help.
Logged

Mark D Segal (formerly MarkDS)
Author: "Scanning Workflows with SilverFast 8....." http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/film/scanning_workflows_with_silverfast_8.shtml
Mark D Segal
Contributor
Sr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 6818


WWW
« Reply #22 on: October 07, 2006, 10:46:54 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Mark, I don't know how to make this any clearer to you. I had NO problem with the software, I had problems with the ColorEyes people who represented the software.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=79427\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Fine, but I have had no problems dealing with them - in fact quite to the contrary. I don't know what your problems were and whether the kinds of things you wanted from them differ from the kinds of things I wanted from them, so let us  leave it at that - not a productive side-discussion for a chap who just wants to know what software will provide a properly calibrated and profiled montor.
Logged

Mark D Segal (formerly MarkDS)
Author: "Scanning Workflows with SilverFast 8....." http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/film/scanning_workflows_with_silverfast_8.shtml
digitaldog
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8581



WWW
« Reply #23 on: October 07, 2006, 11:03:45 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Fine, but I have had no problems dealing with them - in fact quite to the contrary. I don't know what your problems were and whether the kinds of things you wanted from them differ from the kinds of things I wanted from them, so let us  leave it at that - not a productive side-discussion for a chap who just wants to know what software will provide a properly calibrated and profiled montor.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=79431\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Agreed although my initial post also mentioned the new capabilities in the ICS software and the bits about the two companies (apparently) going their separate ways (not sure about the ramifications of the patent issues). The new CIECAM stuff is also interesting.
Logged

Andrew Rodney
Author “Color Management for Photographers”
http://digitaldog.net/
digitaldog
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8581



WWW
« Reply #24 on: October 07, 2006, 11:52:14 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
That's exactly what I'm seeing so far. The ramp is smoother but there's a good 15% of one area of the ramp that's decidedly greenish.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=79367\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Just tried using D65 versus Native (other settings the same). Prefer Native, at least on this one LCD (nothing fancy, a 20" iMac).
Logged

Andrew Rodney
Author “Color Management for Photographers”
http://digitaldog.net/
jackbingham
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 206


WWW
« Reply #25 on: October 07, 2006, 04:16:30 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Mark, I don't know how to make this any clearer to you. I had NO problem with the software, I had problems with the ColorEyes people who represented the software.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=79427\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Just so we all have our history correct.......   Coloreyes and Basiccolor up to version 3 were all entirely created by Integrated Color Solutions of San Diego. So I guess it could be said that Karl didn't write any display code either! ICS made the decision to grant exclusive rights to their display product to Integrated Color Corp who sells it as Coloreyes. And no we did not write any of it either. I'm not sure why that matters. The fact is ICS does not want to market any stand alone display products and we were chosen to did it, much to our pleasure.
Basiccolor 4 is now entirely Karl's product although it should be noted that the interface was intially developed by ICS and was to be Coloreyes 4 as well. Since it is now Basiccolor you will soon be seeing an entirely new ColorEyes.
As for Mr Rodney, Integrated Color Corp shares the same warm feelings toward him. That in no way reflects on the service we provide our CUSTOMERS.
Logged

Jack Bingham
Integrated Color Corp Makers of Coloreyes Display
digitaldog
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8581



WWW
« Reply #26 on: October 07, 2006, 04:21:45 PM »
ReplyReply

Jack, welcome back. I see it's been since June 05 that you posted here. I figured if I mentioned ColorEyes you'd eventually show up. Where you been bud?

Quote
Basiccolor 4 is now entirely Karl's product

Thanks for clarifying that. On to more testing.
« Last Edit: October 07, 2006, 04:23:31 PM by digitaldog » Logged

Andrew Rodney
Author “Color Management for Photographers”
http://digitaldog.net/
jackbingham
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 206


WWW
« Reply #27 on: October 08, 2006, 06:00:38 AM »
ReplyReply

I've been working on a new Display!
« Last Edit: October 08, 2006, 06:01:59 AM by jackbingham » Logged

Jack Bingham
Integrated Color Corp Makers of Coloreyes Display
jackbingham
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 206


WWW
« Reply #28 on: October 08, 2006, 01:50:14 PM »
ReplyReply

"not sure about the ramifications of the patent issues). The new CIECAM stuff is also interesting."

The diminishment of the value of L* by basiccolor might give you a clue about that.
Logged

Jack Bingham
Integrated Color Corp Makers of Coloreyes Display
digitaldog
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8581



WWW
« Reply #29 on: October 08, 2006, 02:15:41 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
"not sure about the ramifications of the patent issues). The new CIECAM stuff is also interesting."

The diminishment of the value of L* by basiccolor might give you a clue about that.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=79565\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Karl already summed it up:

Quote
On 10/3/06 10:50 AM, "Karl Koch"  wrote:

>  But after the implementation of CIECAM02 mechanisms in 
> basICColor display 4 and its derivates, L* is history! L* is based on 
> 30 years old technology, CIECAM02 was defined in 2002, you figure ;-)

Do you have anything to add to the patient issues OR the two technologies?

For others, just noted that this beta runs Native on an Intel (nice).

Did a profile using the OPTIX on a Powerbook with the beta and MonacoOPTIX (not the same target aim points but close as possible but using CIECAM on BasICColor). Two profiles produce pretty similar results when assigning both to a black to white gradient and switching the profiles (toggling back to Photoshop). The OPTIX profile is showing much better black calibration (I can actually see a difference between level zero and 2). With the BasICColor profile, zero and 5. But that profile is a bit smoother on the gradient. Again, green area in about 10-15% of dark tones as mentioned above.

It's still somewhat of an apples to oranges comparisons with slightly differing targets. OPTIX doesn't provide the option for Native gamma or of course the newer CIECAM stuff.
Logged

Andrew Rodney
Author “Color Management for Photographers”
http://digitaldog.net/
msbc
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 83


« Reply #30 on: October 08, 2006, 08:59:15 PM »
ReplyReply

Andrew,

The more I read of this thread the more confused I become.

L* is a setting for the Tonal Response Curve in basICColor display 4.0.2 - the other options being Gamma 1.8, 2.2 or Linear.

CIECAM02 is a setting for the Chromatic Adaptation.

So, how can CIECAM02 be a replacement for L*?

I'm obviously missing something here.
Logged
digitaldog
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8581



WWW
« Reply #31 on: October 09, 2006, 09:35:48 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
So, how can CIECAM02 be a replacement for L*?

I'm obviously missing something here.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=79614\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

The CIECAM stuff (options) are in the area of the beta where you are asked to select "Tone Lumanice Curve". You have the option of four gamma settings (one a field you can enter anything you wish) or three CIECAM options. No L option in this beta. What the ramifications are, I can't say as the PDF manual isn't up to date on these new options.

Even in the UI, there's text that mentions L* but no option to select that and no text discussing the CIECAM options. Again, its a beta so this is to be expected. But it looks clear that L* is gone, CIECAM options are here.
Logged

Andrew Rodney
Author “Color Management for Photographers”
http://digitaldog.net/
Mark D Segal
Contributor
Sr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 6818


WWW
« Reply #32 on: October 09, 2006, 10:56:42 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
The CIECAM stuff (options) are in the area of the beta where you are asked to select "Tone Lumanice Curve". You have the option of four gamma settings (one a field you can enter anything you wish) or three CIECAM options. No L option in this beta. What the ramifications are, I can't say as the PDF manual isn't up to date on these new options.

Even in the UI, there's text that mentions L* but no option to select that and no text discussing the CIECAM options. Again, its a beta so this is to be expected. But it looks clear that L* is gone, CIECAM options are here.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=79657\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

It's quite obvious therefore that there's no point speculating on the preference of the one versus the other in respect of L* or no L* because both the documentation and the comparative testing are inadequate for a user to determine independently what's being achieved.
Logged

Mark D Segal (formerly MarkDS)
Author: "Scanning Workflows with SilverFast 8....." http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/film/scanning_workflows_with_silverfast_8.shtml
digitaldog
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8581



WWW
« Reply #33 on: October 09, 2006, 11:21:22 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
It's quite obvious therefore that there's no point speculating on the preference of the one versus the other in respect of L* or no L* because both the documentation and the comparative testing are inadequate for a user to determine independently what's being achieved.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=79671\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Well Karl made it quite clear which options were going away (L* is gone) and how it's being replaced by a newer and more robust technology. Their math not withstanding, using the most modern color science based on appearance models should provide the next step forward in display calibration technology.

There appears to be a split developing between the two products, the point of most of this discussion.

I also very much like the ability to set contrast ratio in this product. I don't know if that's new or not but its a much needed capability.
Logged

Andrew Rodney
Author “Color Management for Photographers”
http://digitaldog.net/
Mark D Segal
Contributor
Sr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 6818


WWW
« Reply #34 on: October 09, 2006, 11:35:40 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Well Karl made it quite clear which options were going away (L* is gone) and how it's being replaced by a newer and more robust technology. Their math not withstanding, using the most modern color science based on appearance models should provide the next step forward in display calibration technology.

There appears to be a split developing between the two products, the point of most of this discussion.

I also very much like the ability to set contrast ratio in this product. I don't know if that's new or not but its a much needed capability.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=79678\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Commercial claims by product developers are one thing, independent sighting of practical results another. As I said, it's not judgment time yet.
Logged

Mark D Segal (formerly MarkDS)
Author: "Scanning Workflows with SilverFast 8....." http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/film/scanning_workflows_with_silverfast_8.shtml
jackbingham
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 206


WWW
« Reply #35 on: October 12, 2006, 07:24:33 AM »
ReplyReply

"Well Karl made it quite clear which options were going away (L* is gone) and how it's being replaced by a newer and more robust technology."

The only thing Karl has made clear is that he can no longer use L*
There is no proof that his approach will be any better, or even better for the bulk of users. He has stated L* is old technology and he has a shiny new bridge to sell you. However it is unclear what can be proven since you can't do a side by side comparison and we won't be leaving "old" trusted and proven technology for the uncharted just yet.
I'm more than happy to see him make the case but Andrew perhaps you should wait until he has.
Logged

Jack Bingham
Integrated Color Corp Makers of Coloreyes Display
digitaldog
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8581



WWW
« Reply #36 on: October 12, 2006, 08:33:46 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
"Well Karl made it quite clear which options were going away (L* is gone) and how it's being replaced by a newer and more robust technology."

That's what I said Jack. L* is going away. In his product. Which is what I was referring to!

Quote
He has stated L* is old technology and he has a shiny new bridge to sell you.

Not that you're here to sell anything... OK, so tell us why L* is better, different cheaper/faster.

Why would someone pick one product over the other?
« Last Edit: October 12, 2006, 08:34:17 AM by digitaldog » Logged

Andrew Rodney
Author “Color Management for Photographers”
http://digitaldog.net/
jackbingham
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 206


WWW
« Reply #37 on: October 13, 2006, 06:37:56 AM »
ReplyReply

I'm merely making the point that it is way to early to judge. He may well be on to something but L* is tested and proven technology. Shiny new bridges are just swell, but not until a lot of traffic has gone over them....
I do indeed have something to sell, which is why I am concerned about Karl feeding you a line and you taking it so easily. You being a world renowned color expert and all, who people listen to for advice. Now we'll all have customers thinking L* doesn't work which is silly. All of us who make monitor profiling thank you for your diligence.
Logged

Jack Bingham
Integrated Color Corp Makers of Coloreyes Display
opgr
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1125


WWW
« Reply #38 on: October 13, 2006, 07:24:47 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Now we'll all have customers thinking L* doesn't work which is silly.

Huh? How do you figure that? People tend to be quite color-savvy on this forum and don't jump to any conclusions based on Andrew sharing some information as a "user". (At least, that's how I interpreted his comments).

Besides, I get a distinct impression that this needs to be taken "outside" (= off-line).
Logged

Regards,
Oscar Rysdyk
theimagingfactory
Mark D Segal
Contributor
Sr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 6818


WWW
« Reply #39 on: October 13, 2006, 08:39:35 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Huh? How do you figure that? People tend to be quite color-savvy on this forum and don't jump to any conclusions based on Andrew sharing some information as a "user". (At least, that's how I interpreted his comments).

Besides, I get a distinct impression that this needs to be taken "outside" (= off-line).
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=80210\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Oscar - all kinds of people at different levels of knowledge, experience and interests (commercial or otherwise) read this site, and it is perfectly sensible for Jack Bingham to make the points he has been making. It would be an injustice to ColorEyes and to all readers of this thread if such comments were confined between Andrew and Jack after Andrew came public with notions that he himself would not appear to have yet conclusively tested and demonstrated. I am quite active on Luminous-Landscape but I make it a matter of quite stricy policy not to pass judgment on equipment or processes with which I have not had or directly seen myself first-hand experience. It is simply not responsible to do otherwise, and when it happens it is quite correct that an affected party should respond in the same forum where the matter was raised.
Logged

Mark D Segal (formerly MarkDS)
Author: "Scanning Workflows with SilverFast 8....." http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/film/scanning_workflows_with_silverfast_8.shtml
Pages: « 1 [2] 3 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad