Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: [1]   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Calibration Notebook Displays  (Read 11918 times)
Anders_HK
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1001



WWW
« on: December 04, 2008, 01:54:21 AM »
ReplyReply

There has been controversy with the new Macbook Pro glossy displays - http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/index....=macbook+glossy

Assuming color calibration using e.g. Eye One Display, will there be much difference in color, saturation, contrast, shadow tones etc between following displays? The new MacBook Pros also have lower resolution than other 15" displays...

- (new) MacBook Pro Glossy Displays 15.4" 1440x900, 110 dpi
- Lenovo W500 WUXGA 15.4" 1920x1200, 147 dpi, 200+nit
- Lenovo W700 WUXGA 17" 1920x1200, 133 dp, 400nit
- Other notebook displays

Much thanks for advise!

Regards
Anders
« Last Edit: December 04, 2008, 01:55:00 AM by Anders_HK » Logged
digitaldog
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 9185



WWW
« Reply #1 on: December 04, 2008, 10:06:50 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
There has been controversy with the new Macbook Pro glossy displays - http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/index....=macbook+glossy

The other "problem" is the backlight using white LED's which are not dealt with well with most current Colorimeters.
Logged

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

Posts: 564



WWW
« Reply #2 on: December 04, 2008, 11:46:45 AM »
ReplyReply

Rob Galbraith wrote a nice article on calibrating the led backlit MacBook Pro:

http://www.robgalbraith.com/bins/content_p...cid=7-8741-9027


Logged

Gerald J Skrocki
skrockidesign.com
digitaldog
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 9185



WWW
« Reply #3 on: December 04, 2008, 12:00:39 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: jerryrock
Rob Galbraith wrote a nice article on calibrating the led backlit MacBook Pro:

http://www.robgalbraith.com/bins/content_p...cid=7-8741-9027

Its flawed. First of all:
Quote
LED backlighting is touted as a breakthrough flat panel display technology, owing to its promise of a wider colour gamut, more even screen illumination, longer display life and greater power efficiency.

An LED by itself does not guarantee a wider gamut. Longer life and less power use (and greener) yes.

Quote
The best result was obtained with the Eye-One Pro and Eye-One Match

That's because the EyeOne Pro is a Spectrophotometer and has no issues with the backlight of which most Colorimeters can't handle (they don't have closely matching filter matrixes). I too have found the EyeOne Pro will work, and in fact, when calibrating such a display for a student, it was the only device that worked at the time. The EyeOne Display-2 produced butt ugly white point calibration. I suspect the ColorMunki would do a fine job, at the time I didn't have one to test on site.

We should see updated filter matrixes in newer or updated Colorimeters due to the onslaught of such display systems. They would be better for calibrating and profiling wide gamut displays as well since again, they would (should) have filter matrixes that "assume" they are dealing with such devices. This is a limitation a Spectrophotometer doesn't have although its not as good at measuring dark colors/black (well at least any Spectrophotometer we could afford). Drop $20K on a spectroradiometer and it would do a great job (and take 40+ minutes to do the job).
Logged

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

Posts: 893



WWW
« Reply #4 on: December 04, 2008, 02:34:19 PM »
ReplyReply

Thanks for that Rodney!  I had no idea the LED backlight would cause such issues, make me feel much better about the EyeOne Pro purchase a while back . . . .
Logged

Wayne Fox
Sr. Member
****
Online Online

Posts: 2879



WWW
« Reply #5 on: December 05, 2008, 05:30:39 PM »
ReplyReply

I've been using a glossy MacBook Pro for a couple of years now (on my third upgrade with glossy), calibrating seems fine with the EyeOne Pro.  Also have calibrated a 24" iMac with Glossy as well as my new 24" Apple Display for my macBook, all calibrated in quite nicely.

I don't use any of these for my final edits, but most of the time I don't seem to need to tweak much when I do final editing which is currently using a MacPro and 30" ACD.
Logged

jerryrock
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 564



WWW
« Reply #6 on: December 07, 2008, 03:03:28 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: digitaldog
I suspect the ColorMunki would do a fine job, at the time I didn't have one to test on site.

I seriously doubt it. Although the ColorMunki ia a modified spectrophotometer, the user experiences from this thread: http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/index....showtopic=24632
suggest that this is not the case.

It seems the DataColor Spyder3 with it's filter array can handle led and wide gamut displays better than any colorimeter currently on the market.


Logged

Gerald J Skrocki
skrockidesign.com
digitaldog
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 9185



WWW
« Reply #7 on: December 07, 2008, 03:52:51 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: jerryrock
I seriously doubt it. Although the ColorMunki ia a modified spectrophotometer, the user experiences from this thread: http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/index....showtopic=24632
suggest that this is not the case.

It seems the DataColor Spyder3 with it's filter array can handle led and wide gamut displays better than any colorimeter currently on the market.

What do you mean "modified Spectrophotometer"? Its a true Spectrophotometer. It did a fine job on my wide gamut NEC, I see no reason why it would have any difficulty with an white LED device. When you say "doubt it" that's based on speculation or actual testing?

Is there somewhere in the thread you posted above that specifically states that the hardware is unable to measure such devices correctly?
Logged

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

Posts: 564



WWW
« Reply #8 on: December 07, 2008, 05:40:02 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: digitaldog
What do you mean "modified Spectrophotometer"? Its a true Spectrophotometer. It did a fine job on my wide gamut NEC, I see no reason why it would have any difficulty with an white LED device. When you say "doubt it" that's based on speculation or actual testing?

Is there somewhere in the thread you posted above that specifically states that the hardware is unable to measure such devices correctly?

The ColorMunki is modified by the addition of an unremovable UV filter.

My statement is as speculative as yours, since you have not used the ColorMunki on an LED backlit display either.
I have successfully profiled my LED backlit display with the DataColor Spyder3 following the direction given in the Rob Galbraith article I linked in the previous post that you criticized as "flawed".

The thread I linked contains posts by ColorMunki users who have various problems with the bundled software:

Quote from: agood214
Downloading and installing version 1.05 and using it as my base install on a Vista home premium, x64 SP1 system here are my observations:

1. monitor profiles do not stick, they disapper after UAC or on resume from S3 standby.
This has been a known issue since at least mid 2007, based on threads across multiple boards and product lines.
X-rites supports commnets - " it's a Vista issue - not our problem".
I've temporarily solved it by placing the CM gamma icon on my desktop and after resume rerunning it.
« Last Edit: December 07, 2008, 05:54:11 PM by jerryrock » Logged

Gerald J Skrocki
skrockidesign.com
digitaldog
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 9185



WWW
« Reply #9 on: December 07, 2008, 06:06:41 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
The ColorMunki is modified by the addition of an unremovable UV filter.

immaterial to the discussion. Folks have used UV and Non UV filtration on Spectrophotometer's to successful profile displays for years (hint, one is used for reflective measurements, one for emissive). Not at all a factor here.

Quote
My statement is as speculative as yours, since you have not used the ColorMunki on an LED backlit display either.

Not so. I've used unsuccessfully, Colorimeters without adequate filtration matrix's on such displays with success using a Spectrophotometer (with UV cut). Its the measurement technology of a Spectrophotometer that made this possible. Both the ColorMunki and the EyeOne display should have no issues with an LED display due to this very reason!

Quote
The thread I linked contains posts by ColorMunki users who have various problems with the bundled software:

Which again has nothing to do with the issues here, that being that some Colorimeters which do not have filter matrixes for the newer LED displays are problematic, and Spectrophotometer's of which the ColorMunki is clearly such a device will not. You're quoting software issues, not inherent hardware issues.
Logged

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

Posts: 4110



« Reply #10 on: December 07, 2008, 07:00:22 PM »
ReplyReply

The topic is of more than academic interest to me, as just now I'm calibrating an instrument I made. Which includes computing the matrix.

Actually, the problem with -most- colorimeters is that the filters do not match the cone functions. I'm told there is at least one consumer priced gadget out there which has good filters. That one is *not* one of the big name units. It just needs a single diagonal matrix so as to do any screen

As regards the devices with a hardware component that breaks the light into little buckets, the quality of what you get depends on how well these little buckets are labelled. With LED backlighting ,slightly mislabelling the buckets can have some perceptible consequences, I'm told.  Even those nice expensive spectroradiometers seem to run into problems with the spikes induced by LED lighting, according to some of the posts on the Colorsync list.

Edmund
« Last Edit: December 07, 2008, 07:05:51 PM by eronald » Logged
jerryrock
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 564



WWW
« Reply #11 on: December 07, 2008, 10:17:46 PM »
ReplyReply

Andrew,

The OP asked about calibrating a MacBook display. I have successfully calibrated my MacBook display with the Spyder3 device. I posted a link to a good article describing how to perform this calibration.

You insist on recommending this ColorMunki which is clearly flawed in that it's software has compatibility problems. It is targeted for beginners and has very little manual control of luminance and white point.

You totally ignore DataColor products and refuse to admit that the Spyder 3 colorimeter is possibly the best colorimeter currently available.


Logged

Gerald J Skrocki
skrockidesign.com
digitaldog
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 9185



WWW
« Reply #12 on: December 08, 2008, 10:28:00 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: jerryrock
Andrew,

The OP asked about calibrating a MacBook display. I have successfully calibrated my MacBook display with the Spyder3 device. I posted a link to a good article describing how to perform this calibration.

You insist on recommending this ColorMunki which is clearly flawed in that it's software has compatibility problems. It is targeted for beginners and has very little manual control of luminance and white point.

You totally ignore DataColor products and refuse to admit that the Spyder 3 colorimeter is possibly the best colorimeter currently available.

There's no flaw in the software I'm using to calibrate a display with the Munki. And the post you point out to, is quote old and there have been several updates since then. Lastly, the discussion at this point is about the technology of the measurement devices, filtration assumptions and new displays. There's nothing in the design of the Munki hardware that makes it inadequate for measuring such devices. In fact, you will soon see it supported by a major manufacture for doing just that (calibrating a wide gamut unit, one that older Colorimeters have difficulty with).

I don't ignore DataColor or refuse anything about the Spyder 3, I don't have one, have no such comment on the product. But if you wish me to dig up old, outdated quotes about poor products, I can do so and point directly to DataColor but what's the point? That's dated and not useful.
Logged

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

Posts: 564



WWW
« Reply #13 on: December 08, 2008, 04:54:50 PM »
ReplyReply

From MacWorld:

AndrewRodney says:
Re: Better color management with Pantone’s ColorMunki
dominiquejames wrote:
So, what kind of "colorimeter" works best with LED-backlit display? And how do we know if it's a true Spectrophotometer or not? Does it say so on the box when we go out to buy one?

At this time, the only one that should be OK, but I have no direct experience is the Spyder 3 from DataColor. It has a newer filter set that is fine with wide gamut displays but I don't know about white LED backlight displays.

A Spectrophotometer has no such issues, it is actually measuring the spectrum of visible light within sets of bands where a Colorimeter breaks up the data into RGB measurements.

Generally Spectrophotometer's cost a lot more than Colorimeters. Previous to the ColorMunki, you'd have to pop about $1000 for one. So this is a great price point and an example of expensive technology coming down in price.

Generally speaking, a colorimeter is "better" for display calibration in how they handle low light levels. But they only provide one function where a Spectrophotometer is not fooled by differing illuminants but have more issues in measuring darker emissive devices like a display. Upside is they do many things, like allow you to build printer profiles as described in this review, ambient light etc.

IF you want to solely calibrate a display, a dedicated colorimeter will do a slightly better job due to its ability to measure darks. But if you're using a newer, exotic display, that could be an issue. Spectrophotometer's are generally more expensive, provide multiple functionality and for display calibration, are not as precise at measuring very dark colors. At least the Spectrophotometer's anyone can afford (a $21K spectroradiometer will do the job just fine, and take a hour to do so).

Finally........ a great post, thanks Andrew!
Logged

Gerald J Skrocki
skrockidesign.com
digitaldog
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 9185



WWW
« Reply #14 on: December 08, 2008, 05:00:36 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: jerryrock
Finally........ a great post, thanks Andrew!

To finallymeet up to your expectations (considering I've posted here a mere 2,398 times), I can die a happy dog.
Logged

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

Posts: 1001



WWW
« Reply #15 on: December 09, 2008, 09:05:22 AM »
ReplyReply

Hi

Very much kind thanks to all posts above, I knew this was the place to post the question because you guys know well of color management!

Back to my OP and original question, allow me narrow down some questioning;

1) Contrary to what I read of the new glossy MacBook Pro display, it sounds as if you guys are convinced it should be not much problem to calibrate it proper?

2) Will reflections/glare on the MacBook Pro be problem compared to Lenovo WUXGA displays?

3) If I calibrate decent using a not overly expensive device (reasonably simple, still account for ambient light etc), will there be much difference in color, saturation, contrast, shadow tones etc between the displays I mentioned Apple/Lenovo?

4) The new MacBook Pro 15.4" is 1440x900 or 110 dpi, thus lower resolution than the Lenovo's... that resolution is not an upgrade compared to my 2.5 year old Fujitsu... any advise on resolution?

Again kind thanks for advises.

Regards
Anders
Logged
jerryrock
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 564



WWW
« Reply #16 on: December 09, 2008, 09:46:10 AM »
ReplyReply

Anders,

I currently use the 15.4" MacBook Pro with 1440 x 900 native resolution. My computer is an early 2008 model, with a matte finish screen.
The resolution (for me) is good without becoming hard to read. This becomes a problem when trying to increase screen resolution on a relatively small screen.
I am not a fan of glossy finish screens, especially the new Apple products which place a piece of glass over the entire LCD screen.

Jerry
Logged

Gerald J Skrocki
skrockidesign.com
Anders_HK
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1001



WWW
« Reply #17 on: December 10, 2008, 11:03:25 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: jerryrock
I am not a fan of glossy finish screens, especially the new Apple products which place a piece of glass over the entire LCD screen.

Jerry

Hi Jerry and others,

I read that many state same. Will Apple's new glass over LCD be difficult to calibrate for color, saturation, contrast, shadow tones etc?

Or will I be better of with a Lenovo? I come from (troubled) PC notebook, thus I am only willing consider Lenovo and Apple as are top rated quality brands.

Thanks

Regards
Anders
« Last Edit: December 10, 2008, 11:04:06 PM by Anders_HK » Logged
NikoJorj
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1063


WWW
« Reply #18 on: December 15, 2008, 07:03:37 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: eronald
I'm told there is at least one consumer priced gadget out there which has good filters. That one is *not* one of the big name units. It just needs a single diagonal matrix so as to do any screen
And its name is... ?
Logged

Nicolas from Grenoble
A small gallery
Pages: [1]   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad