Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 2 [3] 4 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Losing sleep over monitor calibration  (Read 15159 times)
digitaldog
Sr. Member
****
Online Online

Posts: 9092



WWW
« Reply #40 on: March 24, 2007, 09:58:52 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Ok lets apply a real world example to this silly discussion. This one happens every week like clock work. I get a valiudation screen from a customer and all the dark grays and blacks are delta e's of 4-20. My first question is what are your ambient conditions and everytime it's bright. Simple deduction, turn off the lights and run again. Lo and behold the values drop dramatically.

And you had to tell them that, the instrument and software didn't? And what got measured to produce this detlaE of 4-20, the before then after ambient light? What process did the user conduct to get those values? He measured what? He held up the device the first time and got an ambient reading then a week later? I'll buy that but it's NO different from holding the device to the display and comparing the LAB values in both instances so it IS measuring device drift (the device is the lighting around the display). We've already said comparing original and updated measurements with the same device is useful and has nothing to do with profile accuracy.

Quote
Here's another one. Customer sends a validation screen where most of the values are way above 3. The target luminance he is trying to hit is 90 and he has a nice shiny new eizo ce. Change the target value to 150 or so and again the validations drop like a rock cause there is no way that monitor works at below 120 with any accuracy at all.

Same question as above. What was measured to produce these results? Why did the software not 'tell' the user via this magical deltaE in the first place it can't produce a luminance of 90 cd/m2? He asked for 90 and the software did what? Not warn the user the display can't get to that target?

Quote
Now neither of these is primamrily instrument drift and it is fair to say the the results after the change are far more accurate than before.

You sure love to use that word accurate. Accurate to what? Sounds like in one case the user had two vastly different ambient light conditions which the software didn't detect, the user saw a visual problem and you had to tell him this. Or the software should have told him at the get go. In the 2nd, the software and hardware didn't know enough to tell the user 'you can't get that target value'. In each case, I still don't know how you define what's accurate.

If someone calibrates their display and opens a soft proof, then I shine a 10,000 candela light in their eyes and they report a problem seeing the display, I can probably inform them they have a viewing condition issue (and maybe they could hold up the puck to tell them that too which I guess is mildly useful in stating the obvious). But where's the accuracy you keep using? And how does this tell the user in your examples how he should have set the target calibration aim points which you say it did? Again, what was measured initially and subsequently here that told the user the problem, not the guy in tech support?


Quote
Again lets all remember that I have used the words relative accuracy repeatedly in this conversation.

Relative to what?

Quote
So while you and Karl are no doubt real smart guys you are ignoring the practical value of a tool that consistently delivers valuable information.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=108414\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

That's what everyone here is trying to decipher. Other than device drift based on the differences in a set of measured lab values over time, something we all agree is useful, just what information is being provided and how?HuhHuh

And ALL hardware devices supported measure ambient light?
Logged

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

Posts: 206


WWW
« Reply #41 on: March 25, 2007, 07:21:56 AM »
ReplyReply

I continue to use the words "Relative accuracy" This discussion has become a huge waste of time because you want me to place some specific values on the table so you can try to hit them. As I have said over and over and over again we use verifications to compare one profile to another in a relative sense. Above I gave two simple illustrations of how you can use verifications to compare results of different target values as I have said at least twice and probably 20 times above. It really doesn't matter how accurate they are, within reason,  if they are reasonably consistent. You can troddle on and on about them being absolutely worthless but as usual you will ignore practical experience over your perception of something you have not tried.
And as usual you did not read what I said. For instance I did not say the software/monitor could not produce a luminance of 90. I said when you hit a target of 90 the monitor performed badly. I did not say the customer measured the ambient light. I said he had high ambient light conditions when he built the profile.
Feel free to ramble on about my short comings. I'll be going back to helping our good customers get good profiles.
Logged

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

Posts: 177


« Reply #42 on: March 25, 2007, 09:25:55 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
This discussion has become a huge waste of time...[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=108570\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Yet, you continue.

Here's my definition of turn-off: an intelligent man who permits his ego and stubbornness to diminish his ability to demonstrate just how smart and helpful he can be.

Some of you guys do a great disservice to yourselves and your erudite reputations by displaying such childish insecurity and pettiness. Ignoring this thread is like resisting the temptation to pull out a camera and photograph a car wreck when you normally shoot nothing but beauty.

Here's my definition of sexy: an intelligent man who's secure with himself, who doesn't have to win every debate or strike back at every challenge and/or criticism. Sometimes he comes with a cute face. Where's Karl Lang when you need him?    No wonder he doesn't post here.  
Logged
digitaldog
Sr. Member
****
Online Online

Posts: 9092



WWW
« Reply #43 on: March 25, 2007, 10:06:12 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
I continue to use the words "Relative accuracy"

Without any definition of what that means other than the term accuracy sounds like its providing an end user something that I'm trying to determine is useful or simply hype.

Quote
This discussion has become a huge waste of time because you want me to place some specific values on the table so you can try to hit them.

I can't hit anything that you refuse to explain or define. But I agree, this is a huge waste of time. You have been quoted a number of times in this one series of posts discussing profile accuracy and so on, without ever answering what the heck you're trying to define. This is Orwellian speak at its smoothest.

Quote
As I have said over and over and over again we use verifications to compare one profile to another in a relative sense.

So that has nothing to do with profile accuracy? It does as I've said from the first post allow us to define device drift (which you then suggested was incorrect, brought up Adobe Gamma and suggested based on my argument, we should not calibrate our displays.

Quote
Above I gave two simple illustrations of how you can use verifications to compare results of different target values as I have said at least twice and probably 20 times above.

But when called to explain the holes in the argument or clarification, you bypass the questions which is makes me more highly suspect of your thinking here.

Quote
It really doesn't matter how accurate they are, within reason,  if they are reasonably consistent.

Accurate to what? We both agree the instrument is or should be repeatable. We both agree that taking two sets of measurements over time can provide a deltaE of device drift. Which of the two profiles is 'accurate' and to what? That's the question I've asked you since day one that you skirt.

I don't of course expect an answer this late in the game.

Quote
You can troddle on and on about them being absolutely worthless but as usual you will ignore practical experience over your perception of something you have not tried.

What would make you think I haven't tried it?

Quote
For instance I did not say the software/monitor could not produce a luminance of 90. I said when you hit a target of 90 the monitor performed badly.

And I asked why the software didn't tell the user at the get go it couldn't produce the luminance asked and how a validation process which compares a reading made earlier and one just made is helping here or how that has anything to do with profile accuracy. Why didn't the software pop a warning telling the user he/she can't produce that target from the first session? And what does 'preform badly' mean?

Quote
Feel free to ramble on about my short comings.
You're doing fine on your own.

Sorry Misty, I'm done. It appears that if you ask for simple technical explanations after a vendor posts about his product that sounds either unclear or suspicious, the posts go on and on and on in an attempt for clarification. I should let it all rest, assuming people here are smart enough to see thorough the hype. But after all these years of hearing so much junk from color management vendors, it ruffles my feathers.
« Last Edit: March 25, 2007, 10:20:18 AM by digitaldog » Logged

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

Posts: 9092



WWW
« Reply #44 on: March 25, 2007, 11:51:37 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Sometimes he comes with a cute face. Where's Karl Lang when you need him?    [{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Well here's his cute face:

[a href=\"http://www.lumita.com/]http://www.lumita.com/[/url]
Logged

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

Posts: 7962



WWW
« Reply #45 on: March 25, 2007, 01:11:02 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Well here's his cute face:

http://www.lumita.com/
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=108597\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Interesting that the cute face of this color guru is shown in B&W.  
Logged

-Eric Myrvaagnes

http://myrvaagnes.com  Visit my website. New images each season.
eronald
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 4026



« Reply #46 on: March 25, 2007, 04:56:24 PM »
ReplyReply

Andrew, Jack, let's stop doing this in front of the children

We've all stated our opinions here, we all actually have high respect for each other on a personal level, and it's time to move on.

I would like to thank Jack for unselfishly supporting users of rival products on this forum, when they are in distress, and congratulate him for his excellent product.

I would like to thank Andrew for helping people here with his broad expertise of color management, giving freely of his time in order to make things work better.

Thank you also to people who helped with Windows and driver-specific information for the original poster's concerns.

I do not feel so impressed by some other members of this forum who fanned the flames - you know who you are.

Edmund
« Last Edit: March 25, 2007, 05:33:08 PM by eronald » Logged
digitaldog
Sr. Member
****
Online Online

Posts: 9092



WWW
« Reply #47 on: March 25, 2007, 07:04:28 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Interesting that the cute face of this color guru is shown in B&W.   
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=108607\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Yes but at least its accurate <g>
Logged

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

Posts: 7962



WWW
« Reply #48 on: March 25, 2007, 07:07:40 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Yes but at least its accurate <g>
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=108661\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Or is it "relatively accurate?"
Logged

-Eric Myrvaagnes

http://myrvaagnes.com  Visit my website. New images each season.
orangekay
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 65


« Reply #49 on: March 26, 2007, 08:37:26 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Andrew, Jack, let's stop doing this in front of the children

We've all stated our opinions here, we all actually have high respect for each other on a personal level, and it's time to move on.

I would like to thank Jack for unselfishly supporting users of rival products on this forum, when they are in distress, and congratulate him for his excellent product.

I would like to thank Andrew for helping people here with his broad expertise of color management, giving freely of his time in order to make things work better.

Thank you also to people who helped with Windows and driver-specific information for the original poster's concerns.

I do not feel so impressed by some other members of this forum who fanned the flames - you know who you are.

Edmund
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=108639\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I've gotten past wondering why you seem to feel as though anyone cares about your non-opinions only to find myself wondering how you ever manage to speak at all given the number of dicks you're constantly struggling to shove in your mouth at once.  

And is there any forum on which the ColorEyes "staff" have not made complete jackasses of themselves? Considering the fact that they post exclusively as a marketing tactic, you'd think they'd at least attempt to cover up their own ignorance as to how the software they didn't write and have very little to do with actually works. Given the quality of the code their company mysteriously churns out I'm beginning to suspect Edmund is their chief engineer.

And why haven't I been banned for my "personal attacks" against the idiots shitting up this entire forum yet? It'd be a lot quicker than deleting my posts since I clearly lack the self-control necessary to resist the urge to bitch when the S/N ratios drop to these dpreview levels. Am I not swearing enough or something?
Logged
mistybreeze
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 177


« Reply #50 on: March 26, 2007, 09:53:03 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
And why haven't I been banned for my "personal attacks" against the idiots shitting up this entire forum yet?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=108745\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Just keep in mind not everyone with Irritable Bowel Syndrome is an idiot. I know a few "loose cannons" who are quite brilliant if you can catch them outside a men's room.

Orangekay, I sure hope nobody bans you. I love a good cuss sergeant. Your virulent posts are so well written and nobody defines "angry bitch" quite like you. After reading your posts, I feel downright angelic, as if I've just gone to confession and prayed the rosary as my penance.

Knock 'em dead, precious. Maybe you should re-register with a new name: I'm thinking BloodDiamond. They don't invite me to the marketing round-tables for nothing.  
Logged
Ray
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8883


« Reply #51 on: March 26, 2007, 11:40:13 AM »
ReplyReply

We sure like a good arguement, don't we! And to think, all this vitriol has resulted from a question about calibrating a laptop.  

I no longer worry much about calibration issues, but I might try calibrating my laptop with my Eye-one Display 2, just for kicks.

I think I've reached the stage where my aging CRT monior is totally compatible with my Eye-One calibration package.
Logged
digitaldog
Sr. Member
****
Online Online

Posts: 9092



WWW
« Reply #52 on: March 26, 2007, 11:45:39 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
I no longer worry much about calibration issues, but I might try calibrating my laptop with my Eye-one Display 2, just for kicks.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=108790\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I know I do. This of course isn't an ideal display for color critical work but I still find calibrating and profiling such a device has benefits. On the road, when working in Lightroom, I don't have any issues doing work on my raws in such a display, certainly using Quick Develop on lots of images. Since this is metadata editing, I'm never touching the raws. Even if the corrections are off a bit, based on such a display, it gets them in good shape for review and editing down the picks. I can always tweak later on a better display.
Logged

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

Posts: 4026



« Reply #53 on: March 26, 2007, 04:54:15 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
I know I do. This of course isn't an ideal display for color critical work but I still find calibrating and profiling such a device has benefits. On the road, when working in Lightroom, I don't have any issues doing work on my raws in such a display, certainly using Quick Develop on lots of images. Since this is metadata editing, I'm never touching the raws. Even if the corrections are off a bit, based on such a display, it gets them in good shape for review and editing down the picks. I can always tweak later on a better display.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=108792\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Who was it said that marketing laptop calibration is in large part about managing user expectations ?

Edmund
Logged
digitaldog
Sr. Member
****
Online Online

Posts: 9092



WWW
« Reply #54 on: March 26, 2007, 05:53:03 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Who was it said that marketing laptop calibration is in large part about managing user expectations ?

Edmund
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=108864\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I don't know, who?
Logged

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

Posts: 4026



« Reply #55 on: March 26, 2007, 06:13:07 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
I don't know, who?
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Maybe I misquoted Tom Lianza ?

"The biggest challenge is the laptop display.  These displays are
generally unusable for critical viewing (Mac or PC) and customers insist
on calibrating them. The management of customer expectations in this
area is a full time job.  It seems that the displays in this area are
getting worse, not better. "

[a href=\"http://lists.apple.com/archives/colorsync-users/2006/Jun/msg00183.html]http://lists.apple.com/archives/colorsync-...n/msg00183.html[/url]

Edmund
Logged
digitaldog
Sr. Member
****
Online Online

Posts: 9092



WWW
« Reply #56 on: March 26, 2007, 06:20:45 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Maybe I misquoted Tom Lianza ?

I don't recall that specifically but Tom is one of the top guys in his field.

I don't expect calibrating such displays to make them into Sony Artisans but I find it helps (well it doesn't hurt). Same with projectors. Depending on how old they are and the quality, I'm often amazed at the before and after previews I see when I use a Beamer before doing a presentation. Certainly worth the 5 minute effort.
Logged

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

Posts: 4026



« Reply #57 on: March 26, 2007, 06:37:56 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
I don't recall that specifically but Tom is one of the top guys in his field.

I don't expect calibrating such displays to make them into Sony Artisans but I find it helps (well it doesn't hurt). Same with projectors. Depending on how old they are and the quality, I'm often amazed at the before and after previews I see when I use a Beamer before doing a presentation. Certainly worth the 5 minute effort.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=108887\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Never calibrated a beamer yet  - must try it. I think there is a real calibration cottage industry growing up in the home theatre area.

Edmund
Logged
djgarcia
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 343



WWW
« Reply #58 on: March 26, 2007, 09:57:38 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
I think there is a real calibration cottage industry growing up in the home theatre area.[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=108892\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Absolutely, although the operative words might be "pleasant" and "realistic" rather than "accurate"
Logged

Over-Equipped Snapshooter - EOS 1dsII & 1DsIII, Zeiss & Leica lenses
http://improbablystructuredlayers.net
Tim Lookingbill
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1153



WWW
« Reply #59 on: March 27, 2007, 12:08:32 AM »
ReplyReply

How is it these types of "done to death" topics still attract so many views? I mean we're at 1878. What's going on here? The long troubleshooting session with the MacBook Pro titled "OS X color management" is up to 3592 last I checked. Nothing much got accomplished.

Who reads these posts? Marketers? Consumers? Or is it just the "made you look" compulsion in play.

Heck, I'm still here. I guess that's what it is.
Logged
Pages: « 1 2 [3] 4 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad