Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: [1]   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Monitor Luminance Values  (Read 11653 times)
Ei Katsumata
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 3


WWW
« on: November 05, 2008, 11:22:13 PM »
ReplyReply

Hi,

First time poster here.

I got a new 24" HP LP2475w LCD a couple weeks ago. It's a wide-gamut monitor, and it's great for the price, as it is one of the few IPS monitors available.

I've always calibrated my older, smaller LCD to a luminance value of ~120, but it seems too bright on this display. Almost painfully bright. Maybe because it's just because it's much bigger than what I'm used to, and it's emitting light from a larger surface area than my old LCD.

So I turned down the brightness and recalibrated, and now have a luminance value of 102 which is far more comfortable to my eyes. Is such a low luminance value acceptable? Someone told me that LCD luminance values should never go below 120. True or false?
Logged

Mark D Segal
Contributor
Sr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 6945


WWW
« Reply #1 on: November 05, 2008, 11:55:06 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Ei Katsumata
Hi,

First time poster here.

I got a new 24" HP LP2475w LCD a couple weeks ago. It's a wide-gamut monitor, and it's great for the price, as it is one of the few IPS monitors available.

I've always calibrated my older, smaller LCD to a luminance value of ~120, but it seems too bright on this display. Almost painfully bright. Maybe because it's just because it's much bigger than what I'm used to, and it's emitting light from a larger surface area than my old LCD.

So I turned down the brightness and recalibrated, and now have a luminance value of 102 which is far more comfortable to my eyes. Is such a low luminance value acceptable? Someone told me that LCD luminance values should never go below 120. True or false?

You should adjust he luminance value according to what gives you the closest match between what you see on the display under softproofing conditions (with "Simulate Paper White" active) versus what comes out of the printer, paying particular attention to shadow or dark tone detail. Low values in the range of 90 to 110 are to be expected. Needs some experimentation in your particular lighting and printing conditions.
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
David Sutton
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 892


WWW
« Reply #2 on: November 06, 2008, 12:03:30 AM »
ReplyReply

I've set my 2475 to a luminance of 100 and the screen to print match is good. Any brighter and I get sore eyes. David
Logged

Lornholio
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2


« Reply #3 on: November 06, 2008, 03:14:53 AM »
ReplyReply

I'm having similar problems calibrating my Dell 2007WFP (IPS model) using an Eye-One Display 2.  Settings are luminance 120, gamma 2.2 and white point 6500K as recommended.  Looking at test patterns such as this one appears acceptable, maybe a tiny bit too much contrast if anything (black level test: 7 blends into black background; white level: 252 blends into background).  But comparing my lab prints to what the image looks like on screen is way off - the prints have much more contrast, especially in the blacks.  If I tweak my monitor's brightness setting from 20 down to 0 the display looks more similar to the print but still not enough contrast in the blacks.

I've asked my lab for printer profiles but the results are so far off I don't see that being the problem really.  Comparing a print from a different lab the result is pretty much the same.

Any help?
Logged
Lornholio
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2


« Reply #4 on: November 06, 2008, 05:28:40 AM »
ReplyReply

To update: I have recalibrated my screen at 90 luminance and the tones look more accurate to my print but still not perfect (print has less shadow detail).  I'll try again at the lowest luminance possible (probably about 85) and see if that helps.  Still, I must be going wrong somewhere if I need to go so far from the recommended 120 setting, right?

UPDATED: I've recalibrated again at the lowest possible luminance (75).  Results are better again bust still showing more shadow detail than my prints do.  Similarly on my Macbook's screen calibrated at 75.
« Last Edit: November 06, 2008, 05:58:04 AM by Lornholio » Logged
Mark D Segal
Contributor
Sr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 6945


WWW
« Reply #5 on: November 06, 2008, 05:54:52 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Lornholio
To update: I have recalibrated my screen at 90 luminance and the tones look more accurate to my print but still not perfect (print has less shadow detail).  I'll try again at the lowest luminance possible (probably about 85) and see if that helps.  Still, I must be going wrong somewhere if I need to go so far from the recommended 120 setting, right?

No - you haven't necessarily gone wrong anywhere. Remember, there is a fundamental difference between viewing an image by transmitted light from a display versus by reflected light off a piece of paper. No colour management system can completely bridge that difference, and it is one of the main factors causing you to see less tonal separation in the deep tone areas on paper than you see on the display. Something one gets accustomed to.
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
vandevanterSH
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 626


« Reply #6 on: November 06, 2008, 09:49:32 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Lornholio
To update: I have recalibrated my screen at 90 luminance and the tones look more accurate to my print but still not perfect (print has less shadow detail).  I'll try again at the lowest luminance possible (probably about 85) and see if that helps.  Still, I must be going wrong somewhere if I need to go so far from the recommended 120 setting, right?

UPDATED: I've recalibrated again at the lowest possible luminance (75).  Results are better again bust still showing more shadow detail than my prints do.  Similarly on my Macbook's screen calibrated at 75.

I experienced the same problem when I got a Cinema 30 display last year.  Jeff Schewe's comment was "Are you working in a cave?".  Increasing the amount of ambient light helped balance the display's brightness.

Steve
Logged
Ei Katsumata
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 3


WWW
« Reply #7 on: November 06, 2008, 11:15:24 AM »
ReplyReply

Thanks for the responses.

FWIW, 99% of my work is never printed, and when it is printed, it's never viewed under ideal conditions (e.g. print viewing booth). I did check the test images at lagom.nl with both calibrations (luminance of 120 and 102), and they both show similar results. My only issues are slight banding of the gradient test image and the inability to differentiate between 254 and 255 in the white saturation test image, both of which I can easily live with.

In any case, glad to hear that my luminance value is acceptable. Thanks again.
Logged

duranash
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 84


« Reply #8 on: November 18, 2008, 04:47:55 PM »
ReplyReply

A follow-up question related to luminance.  I calibrate my monitor (CRT) with an Eye One Display2 and have set luminance to 120.  My prints are very close to what I see on the monitor, but I also submit digital images for club competition that are projected on an Epson digital projector.  The projected images are quite "washed out" -- they look over exposured.  The projector is supposedly calibrated with a Spyder.  I was wondering if it made sense to create 2 monitor profiles - one for prints and general use, and another for Digital Projection?
Logged
David Sutton
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 892


WWW
« Reply #9 on: November 19, 2008, 12:08:25 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: duranash
A follow-up question related to luminance.  I calibrate my monitor (CRT) with an Eye One Display2 and have set luminance to 120.  My prints are very close to what I see on the monitor, but I also submit digital images for club competition that are projected on an Epson digital projector.  The projected images are quite "washed out" -- they look over exposured.  The projector is supposedly calibrated with a Spyder.  I was wondering if it made sense to create 2 monitor profiles - one for prints and general use, and another for Digital Projection?
Have you converted to sRGB for projection?
If they are still washed out, try getting a copy of the profile and softproof. David
Logged

walter.sk
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1331


« Reply #10 on: November 19, 2008, 09:25:34 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Taquin
Have you converted to sRGB for projection?
If they are still washed out, try getting a copy of the profile and softproof. David

I had the same problem.  My monitor/print comparisons are excellent, but everything I gave for projection on an Epson was too bright, with burned out highlights.  The projector had been carefully profiled, but I was unable to get a copy of the profile.  What I do now is to pull the top of the Curves down to 245, and bring the middle down by "feel" until the print looks balanced but slightly too dark.  After a few trips back to the place where my images wee projected I found the correct amount for lowering the center of Curves and made a preset.  The calibrated and profiled Epson still has a very slight magenta cast in blown highlights of other peoples' images, but my curves adjustments did the trick for me.  I do convert files to be projected to sRGB.
« Last Edit: November 19, 2008, 09:27:31 AM by walter.sk » Logged
duranash
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 84


« Reply #11 on: November 24, 2008, 02:26:31 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Taquin
Have you converted to sRGB for projection?
If they are still washed out, try getting a copy of the profile and softproof. David

Sorry for the delay in responding - been out of town.  HAD to visit the Tetons for a couple of days!!!  Yes, I convert to sRGB before submitting them for projection.
Walter.sk - I'll give your method a try - might be a better approach than trying to set up 2 monitor profiles.

Another concern that I have is what I might expect when I replace my old (read that ooooold) CRT monitor with a LCD.  Seems like many folks have difficulty calibrating LCD's.  Hope I don't go from a simplistic setup that works to something more complex that doesn't.

Your comments about other peoples projected images is interesting because I think at least half of all the images I see projected by our club Epson projector look blown out at least to some degree.
« Last Edit: November 24, 2008, 02:29:49 PM by duranash » Logged
walter.sk
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1331


« Reply #12 on: November 24, 2008, 02:56:37 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: duranash
Your comments about other peoples projected images is interesting because I think at least half of all the images I see projected by our club Epson projector look blown out at least to some degree.

If you can get a copy of the profile for the projector (which I can't)  you could place it in your profiles folder like any other, and then use it in Photoshop's Proof Colors dialog for softproofing.  You would then be able to be more accurate in adjusting images for the projector.

I just took delivery of an NEC LCD3090 monitor.  I set the luminance at 120 as a target and ended up with a profile that was somewhat too bright.  The next profile, with luminance at 100 gave me a better profile than anything I had on my excellent but elderly Mitsubishi 2060u.  At a native resolution of 2560x1600, and almost the whole Adobe RGB colorspace, I am quickly becoming spoiled.
Logged
button
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 427


WWW
« Reply #13 on: November 26, 2008, 02:11:32 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Ei Katsumata
Someone told me that LCD luminance values should never go below 120. True or false?

I've got my monitor turned down to 110 or so.  Why is there a recommendation to keep the luminance high?  I think I rememmber a recommended value of 140.

John
Logged
Mark D Segal
Contributor
Sr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 6945


WWW
« Reply #14 on: November 26, 2008, 02:37:32 PM »
ReplyReply

Those recommendations about high values are worthless/ Much depends on the amount of ambient light in your work environment. Set the luminance to whatever value gives you the closest match between your softproof and your print. I have a LaCie 321 LCD and set it to around 100~110 - works fine for my environment.
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
Steve Gordon
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 30


« Reply #15 on: November 26, 2008, 05:09:22 PM »
ReplyReply

I'm experiencing a similar problem. Low luminance gives me a good screen to print match, but I create executable slideshows for others to view on their own computers and the images are too bright on their machines.

Most general folks aren't turning down their luminance just to watch YouTube.

A generic "curves" adjustment as suggested might help but is hardly ideal.

Any other suggestions. Creating a second profile for softproof using "typical" screen luminance values I guess could be an option for me here?


steve
Logged
Pages: [1]   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad