Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Losing sleep over monitor calibration  (Read 15611 times)
Broyer
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2


« on: March 08, 2007, 09:38:52 AM »
ReplyReply

Hello everyone,

I am losing sleep over monitor calibration.  Here's the deal:

HP dv9000t laptop, XP SP2.  I calibrate with Huey Pantone.  I running the latest driver for Huey and my video card.

My problem is this:  When looking at Windows display properties, it lists the color management profile as the Huey:



This looks good to me.

But, when I go into the video card settings, Nvidia GeForce Go 7600 and select color correction, it lists it as STANDARD MODE.   When I try to import the huey profile, I get a windows run32dll error and the whole window closes up.  I can however import another profile, such as Adobe RGB 1998 etc... (but it looks like crap).

So, am I actually using the profile or not?  My photos look great on my laptop (haven't printed any yet) but look lousy on other monitors.


Here are two more photos for consideration:

a photo of my daughter shot with strobes.  Converted to jpeg from raw in Bibble, CS2 to reduce image size, slight curve, slight sharpen.
skin tones look fabuluous on my laptop.  



last photo is my colorchecker for reference.  Nothing done to this except processed to jpg and reduced image size. No sharpening.


I'm lost.  How does it look to you?
Am I actually using the profile?


Help please.

Tim
Logged
ARD
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 296



WWW
« Reply #1 on: March 08, 2007, 04:00:21 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
My problem is this:  When looking at Windows display properties, it lists the color management profile as the Huey:



This looks good to me.

[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=105472\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

At this time you are running the profile from the Huey, however, if you go into your video card and alter things there, and try to import the Huey into that, as you say it won't go.

The Huey is working after the video card but before the monitor itself.

So yes, at the above you are running the Huey and are calibrated to that
Logged
jackbingham
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 206


WWW
« Reply #2 on: March 08, 2007, 05:54:45 PM »
ReplyReply

All you need to do is build a profile. It is automatically loaded at the system level. There is no reason to touch the video card settings. They are redundant and will only get you in to greater trouble.
Logged

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

Posts: 4210



« Reply #3 on: March 08, 2007, 06:44:30 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
All you need to do is build a profile. It is automatically loaded at the system level. There is no reason to touch the video card settings. They are redundant and will only get you in to greater trouble.
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


Jack, the OP has a point, there is no quick way to see how good a calibration is, without a reference. Luckily the OP has a reference. BTW, to random readers, Jacks's company markets some excellent calibration software used and loved by color geeks. In fact it's so good that I use it, after his co-worker spent an hour on the phone telling me what I should have read in the manual  He should be *applauded* for helping to support one of his competitor's products.

Broyer,
 here is a good way to test your monitor calibration, as you already own a Colorchecker which can act as a hard reference:

DOWNLOAD the following file.
[a href=\"http://www.babelcolor.com/download/ColorChecker_Lab_from_Avg.tif]http://www.babelcolor.com/download/ColorCh...ab_from_Avg.tif[/url]

Then open it in Photoshop (NOTyour web browser, that's another can of worms). Compare the Colorchecker to your screen. Happy ?

Edmund
« Last Edit: March 08, 2007, 06:48:06 PM by eronald » Logged
61Dynamic
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1442


WWW
« Reply #4 on: March 08, 2007, 08:20:13 PM »
ReplyReply

Stay the heck away from the video card drivers. You will only undue what you have done.

Notice in Color Management it says "Default Monitor Profile: huey Unnamed Monitor?" That means it is using the profile you made and things are good. If you change the video card drivers that profile will mean squat.

If you want to test the profile, download the pdf "December 2004:Testing your display profile" from Andrew Rodney's site. Don't follow Edmund's advice as that will lead you nowhere.

You bought the heuy so you would not rely on your inconstant and inaccurate eyes for calibration. Why would you rely on them to verify a profile? The CC and the digital refference chart are two different mediums (reflective light vs transmitted light) and they will never match exactly. Even if you have a proofing setup.

Read Andrew's article. It takes less time, doesn't introduce dozen's of variables and it actually works.
« Last Edit: March 08, 2007, 08:22:53 PM by 61Dynamic » Logged
Broyer
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2


« Reply #5 on: March 09, 2007, 05:04:10 AM »
ReplyReply

Thanks All.  I will try the advice out.  Thanks for the digital dog link.  There is a wealth of information on there.  I'm reading the article now.

Tim
Logged
orangekay
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 65


« Reply #6 on: March 09, 2007, 05:58:01 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Compare the Colorchecker to your screen.

You've got to be kidding.
Logged
Panascape
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 215


« Reply #7 on: March 09, 2007, 10:33:31 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
DOWNLOAD the following file.
http://www.babelcolor.com/download/ColorCh...ab_from_Avg.tif

Then open it in Photoshop (NOTyour web browser, that's another can of worms). Compare the Colorchecker to your screen. Happy ?

Edmund
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=105554\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Edmund, I can't believe you are suggesting this...
Logged
eronald
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 4210



« Reply #8 on: March 09, 2007, 08:06:20 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Edmund, I can't believe you are suggesting this...
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=105654\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Go ahead, educate me  
The file I referred to is Lab.

I never believed in the subtleties of monitor calibration testing anyway - I just take a Colorchecker, and a pair of female eyes, and mine own eyes, and look at the hard sample (Solux lamp or daylight), and the display sample, and compare. Yes, Elvis, there is such a thing as white adaptation.

Of course, I use a Colorchecker file in which I've painted in the *measured* values of my own Colorchecker chart rather than the generic average file referred to above. But I don't think the OP has a spectro.

Back when I was doing this more seriously, I used more complex tests using a spectro, but found these reflect reality less well -for me- than actual eyeballing as above. Amongst other problems with the measuring is the widely neglected fact that spectros and screens are polarized.

With two screens (Eizo, Samsung) on my desk, and a sample, a decent match among all three can be achieved if the white of one screen is measured and used to calibrate the other. Jack's Coloreyes software did this well already in the previous version.

By eyeballing you get a very good handle on the hues, *in a comparison*. Luminance gradation is a different game but maybe at this stage you have enough information to ridicule me already, and the OP has hung up out of boredom  

Edmund

PS. Of course you can run various "evaluation" routines provided with the colorimeter software too; I am sure these are of interest to the makers of such software , and they trust their tests - I tend to trust my eyes first, in a *comparison*, and then to a more limited extent my spectros. Colorimeters are consumer products.
« Last Edit: March 09, 2007, 08:19:12 PM by eronald » Logged
Serge Cashman
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 200


« Reply #9 on: March 11, 2007, 07:07:37 PM »
ReplyReply

What videocard drivers refer to as "profiles" are some weird propriatary settings you can save in there. It's never used by anybody for anything. Just ignore them.

Your settings look good to me as they are.

If you feel like getting a closer look at XP color management  you can download the color control panel applet. You really don't need it, but it can be fun if you're interested in the subject.

http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details...&displaylang=en
Logged
jdyke
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 123



WWW
« Reply #10 on: March 15, 2007, 08:23:20 AM »
ReplyReply

Tim

Firsty stay AWAY from the NIVIDA drivers or you will end up in a double colour management siutation!

Secondly not sure why there are three profiles in the panel:-

AdobeRGB1998 - Why is this in here?? I though this was a colourspace rather than a colour profile.
Why do you have two huey profiles??

It looks to me like you may be loading several profiles one after the other.  I only have the one colour profile in my settings (I am using a colorvision Spyder).

I would also check you startup folder to make sure you are not running the dreaded Adobe Gamma - this installs by default when you install Photoshop - get rid of it.

As for the advice of Edmund I'm afraid this seem like very odd advice to me - it may work for him but human eyes are very subjective which is why you buy a device in the first place.    
Perhaps Edmund is just lucky that his eyes are accurate.    
Andrew Rodney's articles are first class as are the late and missed Bruce Fraser.  Also check out Digital Outback.

Good Luck

Jon
Logged
61Dynamic
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1442


WWW
« Reply #11 on: March 15, 2007, 09:44:26 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
It looks to me like you may be loading several profiles one after the other.  I only have the one colour profile in my settings (I am using a colorvision Spyder).
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=106777\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
There may be three in the list, but only the selected one is loaded.
Logged
djgarcia
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 343



WWW
« Reply #12 on: March 15, 2007, 04:12:59 PM »
ReplyReply

That's correct. You can actually add more profiles from those stored in the Windows\system32\spool\drivers\color folder by clicking Add in the color management tab, but only one will be the default, as you select. When you color-calibrate with whatever product you use, it creates the profile, dumps it in this system folder, and sets it as default. When Windows boots, it automatically sets it up. If you run the calibrator multiple times and save with different target names, you can end up with various profiles in the color management list. In my dual-head system, both the calibrating app and Windows keep track of each monitor separately.
Logged

Over-Equipped Snapshooter - EOS 1dsII & 1DsIII, Zeiss & Leica lenses
http://improbablystructuredlayers.net
imagingassociates
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2



WWW
« Reply #13 on: March 15, 2007, 11:47:51 PM »
ReplyReply

More information about CRT and LCD monitor calibration, ICC Profiles and Color Management can be found using these targeted swicki search engines:

Monitor Calibration Tips Search Engine
Color Management Search Engine
Logged

Imaging Associates | Digital Imaging and Color Management Solutions
www.imagingassociates.com.au
jdyke
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 123



WWW
« Reply #14 on: March 16, 2007, 10:44:00 AM »
ReplyReply

I undertand you can have more than one profile in the list but for the sake of troubleshooting this problem I would get rid of all profiles bar the recent one from your calibration device.

Jon
Logged
jackbingham
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 206


WWW
« Reply #15 on: March 17, 2007, 09:54:22 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
I undertand you can have more than one profile in the list but for the sake of troubleshooting this problem I would get rid of all profiles bar the recent one from your calibration device.

Jon
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=107015\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Windows will and can only load the profile selected as the default. For troubleshooting purposes we should concentrate on things that might cause trouble without suggesting false issues.
Logged

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

Posts: 9225



WWW
« Reply #16 on: March 17, 2007, 04:43:12 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Go ahead, educate me  
The file I referred to is Lab.

I never believed in the subtleties of monitor calibration testing anyway - I just take a Colorchecker, and a pair of female eyes, and mine own eyes, and look at the hard sample (Solux lamp or daylight), and the display sample, and compare.

I have no issues what so ever with this approach! Often, the best approach is simply KISS. This sure beats using the same instrument that calibrated the display to provide what is pretty much useless stat's such as deltaE compared to the target calibration aim points you asked for.

Using the same instrument to attempt to correlate some degree of accuracy, instead of a known reference instrument is kind of silly. Now using that instrument to provide a deltaE (which forumula?) over time, to gauge device stability IS useful assuming the instrument itself is a stable and repeatable device.
Logged

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

Posts: 206


WWW
« Reply #17 on: March 21, 2007, 01:03:50 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
I have no issues what so ever with this approach! Often, the best approach is simply KISS. This sure beats using the same instrument that calibrated the display to provide what is pretty much useless stat's such as deltaE compared to the target calibration aim points you asked for.

Using the same instrument to attempt to correlate some degree of accuracy, instead of a known reference instrument is kind of silly. Now using that instrument to provide a deltaE (which forumula?) over time, to gauge device stability IS useful assuming the instrument itself is a stable and repeatable device.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=107212\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Fortunately we are living in a relative world and unfortunately you are applying absolute principles where they don't belong. No doubt Absolute accuracy would require some reference device of unquestioned accuracy. However using validations to test the monitor profiling function does not require that level of accuracy to provide valuable information about a profile and even more so about a series of profiles. The stats are far from useless. Clearly it can be seen that one profile can be more accurate than another based on a validation. It can be clear that higher validations might lead one to change their target values or ambient conditions, or a host of other steps in order to generate a lower set of delta e values regardless of the method or the use of the same instrument. To suggest that visually judging a color checker is a better method than a validation perhaps even sillier considering the instability of the human visual system. Clearly a reasonable instrument is more stable than that.
Now I suppose you could throw into doubt the quality and consistency of all the instruments on the market in which case we should all just go back to adobe gamma!
Logged

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

Posts: 9225



WWW
« Reply #18 on: March 21, 2007, 01:40:07 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Fortunately we are living in a relative world and unfortunately you are applying absolute principles where they don't belong. No doubt Absolute accuracy would require some reference device of unquestioned accuracy. However using validations to test the monitor profiling function does not require that level of accuracy to provide valuable information about a profile and even more so about a series of profiles. The stats are far from useless. Clearly it can be seen that one profile can be more accurate than another based on a validation. It can be clear that higher validations might lead one to change their target values or ambient conditions, or a host of other steps in order to generate a lower set of delta e values regardless of the method or the use of the same instrument. To suggest that visually judging a color checker is a better method than a validation perhaps even sillier considering the instability of the human visual system. Clearly a reasonable instrument is more stable than that.
Now I suppose you could throw into doubt the quality and consistency of all the instruments on the market in which case we should all just go back to adobe gamma!
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=107906\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

You're again missing the point. We're not talking Absolute accuracy, that's a meaningless term.

Analogy. You use your foot to measure the patio you're building. I instead go to Home Depot and get a good old tape measure and compare your foot to a reference. Now the tape measure may be accurate to 1/100 of an inch but that's OK for the task at hand. I can now see your foot measures 11.3 inches. Your measurements for the patio are going to be an issue. I could buy a reference grade tape measure that's accurate to 1/1000 of an inch or even one that's accurate to 1/10000 of an inch. You might call the later absolute accuracy but I'm sure we have devices that can measure far finer units with far finer accuracy. There's a point of diminishing return here.

But if you use your left foot to gauge the accuracy of your right foot, you're simply fooling yourself. And this is essentially the functionality you're trying to sell your customers. Now, as I said, using the SAME instrument to measure something over time, assuming the instrument is repeatable to a published and useful degree (say less than a deltaE 2000 of 1) is useful for gauging device drift. Or, if you send the user a Minolta spectroradiometer to compare the data from your original device using the same algorithm (which may or may not have issues of their own), now we have something useful to compare. Has nothing to do with so called absolute accuracy as the Government or NASA probably has an instrument that's more accurate than the Minolta. But at least we're using differing instruments with specific degrees of accuracy to measure the process, not both your feet!
Logged

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

Posts: 1231



WWW
« Reply #19 on: March 21, 2007, 01:54:08 PM »
ReplyReply

How about putting away deltaE numbers and use the good 'ole eyeballs to test color matching on a wide range of calibrated displays. I mean that's the whole point of color management and calibration. You know, one tagged device independant file looking the same on a wide range of devices as long as the devices are calibrated and profiled.

I finally came up with a more useable color target after a long troubleshooting session on this forum with a MacBook Pro display that turned out to be a display quality issue that I'ld thought had been remedied by Apple. It's a CM hue/saturation/brightness testing target using colors and hues greatly affected by display profiles built by software with bad chromatic transform formulas or basic corruption.

Give it a try and see if you get the same response on your calibrated display as I do on my EyeOneDisplay calibrated CRT which looks the same on my 2004 G5 iMac calibrated with Apple's eyeball calibrator containing a correct chromatic transform formula.

The instructions included I hope are clear enough. It requires 100% view size in a CM app-(no converting to sRGB for nonCM viewing), warmed up display and 6500K neutrality. It only has to be close to what's described, not perfect. However if the center squares look way too dark or light then there's something really off with your calibration and/or profile.
Logged
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad