Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 2 [3]   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Monitor Profiling -New Products**  (Read 19760 times)
digitaldog
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 9186



WWW
« Reply #40 on: October 13, 2006, 08:48:06 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Now we'll all have customers thinking L* doesn't work which is silly. [a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=80207\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I never said anything to give customers that impression? You're very sensitive.

To Jack's customers. I have nothing against L* nor think it doesn't work. Jacks older shiny bridge is stable to walk or drive across.

Karl is working on getting some information about the new CIECAM stuff which if it's OK with Jack, I'll post as soon as I hear anything.
Logged

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

Posts: 6970


WWW
« Reply #41 on: October 13, 2006, 09:00:51 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
I never said anything to give customers that impression? You're very sensitive.

To Jack's customers. I have nothing against L* nor think it doesn't work. Jacks older shiny bridge is stable to walk or drive across.

Karl is working on getting some information about the new CIECAM stuff which if it's OK with Jack, I'll post as soon as I hear anything.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=80217\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Andrew I have only two comments about this sarcasm:

(1) If a bridge is shiny and gets me from point A to Point B I don't care how old it is. When a DEMONSTRABLY better mouse-trap comes along that gives me better still, I'm all for it.

(2) Instead of being a post-office for Karl, why don't you put your own value-added into this by doing comparative testing once CIECAM is in a final version so you can then advise people first-hand about what has been accomplished in a comparative sense. That is the kind of thing your readers would expect of you, respect you for and find more useful.
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: 9186



WWW
« Reply #42 on: October 13, 2006, 09:05:54 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Andrew I have only two comments about this sarcasm:

Only two? Jack?

Quote
(1) If a bridge is shiny and gets me from point A to Point B I don't care how old it is. When a DEMONSTRABLY better mouse-trap comes along that gives me better still, I'm all for it.

We can attribute the Bridge comments back to the salesman (Jack). I'm only bouncing his comment back in context.

Quote
(2) Instead of being a post-office for Karl, why don't you put your own value-added into this by doing comparative testing once CIECAM is in a final version so you can then advise people first-hand about what has been accomplished in a comparative sense.

That's my intent. And since there are other beta testers commenting here AND it's OK with Karl (I wasn't asked to sign an NDA, he asked for folks on a public forum to email him for the beta), there's nothing wrong with us discussing this product. In fact, until Jack showed up, we WERE on topic. I suggest we continue please.
Logged

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

Posts: 9186



WWW
« Reply #43 on: October 13, 2006, 09:43:09 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Karl is working on getting some information about the new CIECAM stuff which if it's OK with Jack, I'll post as soon as I hear anything.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=80217\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Here's a start

Quote
L* calibration is based on a linear relation between RGB values and 
monitor luminance in L*(a*b*)
CIECAM02 calibration takes some other factors of human vision into 
account, the most important of which (in our implementation) is the 
ambient light in the viewer´s environment. So far, we have 3 discrete 
steps, "dark" which is up to 32 lx, "dim" 32 - 64 lx and "average" 
which is > 64 lx. The release version will have the option to measure 
ambient light in order to define the correct setting. The calculation 
of the calibration curves is being calculated with the CIECAM02 
algorithms.
Logged

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

Posts: 29


« Reply #44 on: October 13, 2006, 10:05:06 AM »
ReplyReply

will the "new CIECAM stuff" reproduce a better shadow as L*??
Logged
standard_observer
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 11


« Reply #45 on: October 14, 2006, 01:42:55 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Here's a start
>> The release version will have the option to measure ambient light in order to define the correct setting. The calculation of the calibration curves is being calculated with the CIECAM02 algorithms. <<
Could it be that CIECAM02 calibration will produce a difference between the calibrated & measured tone curve and the TRC tag of the resulting monitor profile?  Thus, applying a visually effective tonal boost on the shadows, like with a tone curve in PS, rather than being a purely descriptive approach for the calibrated state?

Anyway, I would also be pleased to learn which of the newer products offers the setting ‘Native gamma’, or, allows to upload the TRC tag from any icc profile as the target for calibration (like with old optical 3.7.Cool?

Thanks!

--
Logged
digitaldog
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 9186



WWW
« Reply #46 on: October 14, 2006, 06:10:22 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Anyway, I would also be pleased to learn which of the newer products offers the setting ‘Native gamma’, or, allows to upload the TRC tag from any icc profile as the target for calibration (like with old optical 3.7.Cool?
--
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=80388\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

EyeOne Match supports Native Gamma in the last version. The BasICColor product being discussed does too.
Logged

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

Posts: 11


« Reply #47 on: October 16, 2006, 07:54:40 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
EyeOne Match supports Native Gamma in the last version. The BasICColor product being discussed does too.
That’s good to hear.

For me the basic question is:  why should I want to calibrate away from the native gamma, or any suited target curve closest to this native state?  Given that it’s desirable to avoid any work for the video card.  And further given that any ‘gamma’ is invisible in an icc-aware application…

However, I see that this is probably the wrong thread to go further into this subject
- though your comments are always appreciated !

--
Logged
digitaldog
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 9186



WWW
« Reply #48 on: October 16, 2006, 08:26:30 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
However, I see that this is probably the wrong thread to go further into this subject
- though your comments are always appreciated !
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=80658\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

On an LCD, you want it whenever possible. But do a search as this has been discussed here in detail.
Logged

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

Posts: 709


« Reply #49 on: November 01, 2006, 12:15:20 PM »
ReplyReply

Slightly off topic..............but.........

I use PC. I know zip about Macs.

I want to calibrate a friend's desktop iMac.

Is it possible to adjust brightness, contrast and RGB channels seperately?

If so, where are they to be found.

Thanks.

D.

Needless to say, he knows less about Macs than I do! ;-)
Logged
61Dynamic
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1442


WWW
« Reply #50 on: November 01, 2006, 12:34:16 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Slightly off topic..............but.........

I use PC. I know zip about Macs.

I want to calibrate a friend's desktop iMac.

Is it possible to adjust brightness, contrast and RGB channels seperately?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=83255\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

On an iMac, no. It would be like the ACD displays where only brightness is adjustable; just as it should be.

The iMacs, just like the ACD displays are able to dim to 95cd/m2, well below the optimum luminance.
« Last Edit: November 01, 2006, 12:35:10 PM by 61Dynamic » Logged
Dinarius
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 709


« Reply #51 on: November 01, 2006, 01:04:07 PM »
ReplyReply

Daniel,

Thanks for that.

1. He actually has a couple of iMacs. Not being able to find any controls, I ran Eye-One Match on Easy mode. At the end, one Mac had Gamma 2.2./7300K/132Lum. The other was 2.8/6800/92.

Presumably, there's not much I can do to bring them closer together?

2. If I can persuade him to buy another Mac for imaging only, which of them is fully adjustable?

Many thanks.

D.
Logged
opgr
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1125


WWW
« Reply #52 on: November 01, 2006, 01:21:37 PM »
ReplyReply

The monitor should easily be adjustable. Either use the sunny-symbol keys (F1, F2 ?) or go to the Apple Menu -> System Prefs -> Monitor Panel and adjust the slider accordingly. I prefer the sunny symbol keys as they allow a stepped setting. This way you can reduce the brightness whenever useful and return to a known brightness state whenever critical.

The gamma difference seems rather excessive. You may also want to check whether the Universal Access is switched off. Universal Access has a short cut for monitor contrast which happened to conveniently(not!) co-incide with some Photoshop shortcut. Therefore some people would find their monitor state changed after using photoshop or even get a calibration error.

Universal Access can be switched off in Apple Menu -> System Prefs -> Keyboard & Mouse. Go to the Keyboard Shortcuts tab and switch off Universal Access.

Quote
Daniel,

Thanks for that.

1. He actually has a couple of iMacs. Not being able to find any controls, I ran Eye-One Match on Easy mode. At the end, one Mac had Gamma 2.2./7300K/132Lum. The other was 2.8/6800/92.

Presumably, there's not much I can do to bring them closer together?

2. If I can persuade him to buy another Mac for imaging only, which of them is fully adjustable?

Many thanks.

D.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=83265\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Logged

Regards,
Oscar Rysdyk
theimagingfactory
61Dynamic
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1442


WWW
« Reply #53 on: November 01, 2006, 06:38:21 PM »
ReplyReply

Dinarius,

Don't calibrate in Easy Mode. Use advanced and set things at specifically 6500K/2.2 or Native WP/Gama depending on his needs.

The imacs should have touch-senitive controls on the side or back (I'm thinking of newer models, don't know about the swivel-head or half-egg variety) for brightness from what I remember. Using the keyboard isn't as accurate for setting brightness as the touch-controls (don't know about laptops which seems to be what OPGR is thinking of. F14 and F15 are for brightness adjustment on non-laptops).
Logged
jackbingham
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 206


WWW
« Reply #54 on: November 10, 2006, 08:00:58 AM »
ReplyReply

A couple of comments. From research I have been given from ICS it appears that L* might well be required in order to make ciecam2 work properly. Having a linear base to build on seems to be at the core of making ciecam produce the results it promises. Second, ciecam really comes into play when considering not just the monitor profile but critical viewing conditions. So while it may well promise a new day in accuracy all users will need to upgrade their viewing environments to get the benefit. We're not just talking about a display profile here. Viewing booths, paint colors, ambient light levels........... Therein lies the shiny new bridge.
As for native white point and gamma, I think this point is being driven by the most technical among us and does not necessarily apply to the bulk of users. Secondly LCDs with high bit internal luts make the native white point argument mute since there is no correction being applied in the video lut. For many monitors this is also true for tone curves. Certainly there are monitors that are sold as high end imaging displays that should have internal controls in order to meet that description, that do not. And native gamma and white point for these may be the only way.
Logged

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

Posts: 9186



WWW
« Reply #55 on: November 10, 2006, 08:55:29 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Second, ciecam really comes into play when considering not just the monitor profile but critical viewing conditions. So while it may well promise a new day in accuracy all users will need to upgrade their viewing environments to get the benefit. We're not just talking about a display profile here. Viewing booths, paint colors, ambient light levels........... Therein lies the shiny new bridge.

Ciecam or not, those should always be bridges users should consider for best screen to print matching. You can have a $20K spectroradiometer and anyone's best software product and if you don't have viewing conditions nailed, you're not going to get optimal screen to print marching. It will NEVER be anything close to 100% anyway. If you get the mid 90% range, fantastic. When we work with prints that emit light, lets talk. Otherwise, just the huge gamut mismatch in display versus output, the differences in dynamic range of the two (and the poor tools we have to soft proof paper white in an image editor) make this even more difficult.

Quote
As for native white point and gamma, I think this point is being driven by the most technical among us and does not necessarily apply to the bulk of users.

Only if you don't care about the degree of data loss and banding on most LCDs.

Quote
Secondly LCDs with high bit internal luts make the native white point argument mute since there is no correction being applied in the video lut.

It's still an 8-bit system in and out. We don't have the OS level and hardware level support for true high bit viewing. 8-bit to 12 bit to 8-bit is mildly useful. It's much more useful if you sell displays!
Logged

Andrew Rodney
Author “Color Management for Photographers”
http://digitaldog.net/
Pages: « 1 2 [3]   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad