Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: [1]   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Monitor Maximum dE > 1  (Read 3716 times)
Mark F
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 347


« on: December 29, 2008, 09:48:24 PM »
ReplyReply

After a lot of strugglaing, using ColorEye Pro I have been able to get my iMac monitor luminance down to the 120 target, but I see that the Maximum dE = 1.49.  Average dE = .55

I seem to remember (can't find the source now) that the dE should be around 1.0.  Does this mean that my profile is still not acceptable? That is, that my prints will not match my monitor?

Thanks.
Logged

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

Posts: 1332


« Reply #1 on: December 30, 2008, 08:13:59 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Mark F
After a lot of strugglaing, using ColorEye Pro I have been able to get my iMac monitor luminance down to the 120 target, but I see that the Maximum dE = 1.49.  Average dE = .55

I seem to remember (can't find the source now) that the dE should be around 1.0.  Does this mean that my profile is still not acceptable? That is, that my prints will not match my monitor?

Thanks.

A couple of comments:  First, an average dE of .55 is not bad at all.  Second, the maximum dE of 1.49 is not so bad, either, especially if it occurred in the first few levels above black, which is natural for the kind of display you have.  But the main question I have is how did you determine that 120 cd/m2 should be your target intensity?  It is probably the suggested target, but it is dependent on your room illumination as well as the illumination used when you assess your prints.

My display is now calibrated and profiled at a target of 135 cd/m2.  I tried luminance settings at the recommended 120, down to as low as 95, and back up to 140 and found that the intensity of 135 gives me the best results in my lighting.

The ideal situation is to set up a print-viewing situation where the brightness of the light on the print is the same as that coming from your display.  At that point, your prints should not be darker or lighter than the softproof on the screen.
« Last Edit: December 30, 2008, 08:15:00 AM by walter.sk » Logged
Mark F
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 347


« Reply #2 on: December 30, 2008, 09:19:36 PM »
ReplyReply

You make some very good points, which I am going to have to put off working through since another problem I am dealing with is that the overhead lighting in my computer room causes terrible reflections on the iMac's glossy screen. I'm trying to figure out how to deal with this, and am thinking of switching to Solux (sp?) track lighting.    


Quote from: walter.sk
A couple of comments:  First, an average dE of .55 is not bad at all.  Second, the maximum dE of 1.49 is not so bad, either, especially if it occurred in the first few levels above black, which is natural for the kind of display you have.  But the main question I have is how did you determine that 120 cd/m2 should be your target intensity?  It is probably the suggested target, but it is dependent on your room illumination as well as the illumination used when you assess your prints.

My display is now calibrated and profiled at a target of 135 cd/m2.  I tried luminance settings at the recommended 120, down to as low as 95, and back up to 140 and found that the intensity of 135 gives me the best results in my lighting.

The ideal situation is to set up a print-viewing situation where the brightness of the light on the print is the same as that coming from your display.  At that point, your prints should not be darker or lighter than the softproof on the screen.
Logged

Mark
Damo77
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 69


WWW
« Reply #3 on: January 03, 2009, 10:09:22 PM »
ReplyReply

I've read that a Delta E of 3 is quite acceptable.

I've also read that this program will help reduce the luminance of your monitor.
Logged

Damien
jackbingham
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 206


WWW
« Reply #4 on: January 04, 2009, 07:33:55 AM »
ReplyReply


I've also read that this program will help reduce the luminance of your monitor.
[/quote]

Shades is not a good solution for monitors that are being profiled. All it does is reduce the brightness through the video card. When you reprofile the video card gets reset so those settings are gone. If you profile and then use shades you pouch your profile. So don't go there. You can use any monitor profiling software to build a profile and reduce the luminance through the video card. Not ideal but neither is the Imac. It's a reasonable solution for most users.
Logged

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

Posts: 206


WWW
« Reply #5 on: January 04, 2009, 07:36:19 AM »
ReplyReply

[quote name='Mark F' date='Dec 30 2008, 04:48 AM' post='247859']
After a lot of strugglaing, using ColorEye Pro I have been able to get my iMac monitor luminance down to the 120 target, but I see that the Maximum dE = 1.49.  Average dE = .55

I seem to remember (can't find the source now) that the dE should be around 1.0.  Does this mean that my profile is still not acceptable? That is, that my prints will not match my monitor?

A Delta e of 1 or less is ideal but 1.49 depending on where it is does not present a problem either. If it is in the darkest two gray tones that is to be expected particularly with this display. You are in good shape here.
Logged

Jack Bingham
Integrated Color Corp Makers of Coloreyes Display
Damo77
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 69


WWW
« Reply #6 on: January 04, 2009, 02:21:43 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: jackbingham
You can use any monitor profiling software to build a profile and reduce the luminance through the video card.
Really?  I've used the EyeOne Display 2 (a reputable device, by all accounts) for a long time, and I've never known it to have the ability to control the video card luminance.  White temperature yes, but not luminance.
Logged

Damien
Nill Toulme
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 741



WWW
« Reply #7 on: January 04, 2009, 02:36:10 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: walter.sk
The ideal situation is to set up a print-viewing situation where the brightness of the light on the print is the same as that coming from your display.  At that point, your prints should not be darker or lighter than the softproof on the screen.
This seems backwards to me.  I would think you'd want to adjust & calibrate your monitor to match your prints in the lighting in which you expect them ultimately to be viewed, rather than cobbling up a lighting/viewing station to match your monitor.  (You might very well want to cobble up such a station to match the lighting of the prints' final destination, but not to match your monitor.)

Nill
Logged
Nill Toulme
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 741



WWW
« Reply #8 on: January 04, 2009, 02:37:57 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Damo77
Really?  I've used the EyeOne Display 2 (a reputable device, by all accounts) for a long time, and I've never known it to have the ability to control the video card luminance.  White temperature yes, but not luminance.
You can certainly do it using the Display 2 with NEC's Spectraview II software on an NEC monitor.  I can't remember whether you can do it with the Eye One Match software or not... it's been a long time since I used it.

Come to think of it, luminance might be one of the things for which Spectraview II addresses the monitor's own internal 10-bit LUTs directly, rather than the video card.

Nill
« Last Edit: January 04, 2009, 02:39:48 PM by Nill Toulme » Logged
Damo77
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 69


WWW
« Reply #9 on: January 04, 2009, 02:39:31 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Nill Toulme
You can certainly do it using the Display 2 with NEC's Spectraview II software on an NEC monitor.  I can't remember whether you can do it with the Eye One Match software or not... it's been a long time since I used it.
Yes, ditto with my Eizo.  But clearly this thread is not about high-end monitors.
Logged

Damien
digitaldog
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 9185



WWW
« Reply #10 on: January 04, 2009, 03:00:29 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Nill Toulme
This seems backwards to me.  I would think you'd want to adjust & calibrate your monitor to match your prints in the lighting in which you expect them ultimately to be viewed, rather than cobbling up a lighting/viewing station to match your monitor.  (You might very well want to cobble up such a station to match the lighting of the prints' final destination, but not to match your monitor.)

Not at all cobbled, exactly what we need when the goal is print to display matching. The very exercise demands we view the print next to (very nearby and in the correct position as not to add light to the display) to that display! This as specified, is optimized for the display as well.

Least we forget what the vast majority of output profiles expect and use for conversions in terms of viewing white point....

As to these deltaE reports. Ask yourself some questions before you decide what value is "good" or not:

What's the deltaE of the two samples we are measuring and do we know that errors are or are not introduced by the very instrument used?

Are you measuring the colors as they are sent directly to the display? With the profile? What's the delta supposed to be between?
Logged

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

Posts: 741



WWW
« Reply #11 on: January 04, 2009, 05:33:21 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: digitaldog
Not at all cobbled, exactly what we need when the goal is print to display matching. The very exercise demands we view the print next to (very nearby and in the correct position as not to add light to the display) to that display! This as specified, is optimized for the display as well.

Least we forget what the vast majority of output profiles expect and use for conversions in terms of viewing white point....
Andrew I think we've had this discussion before and I must have forgotten what I learned there.  If prints are being produced for viewing in a particular environment, e.g., a gallery, or a home, or a storefront... don't we want to evaluate them in that light or a reasonable approximation thereof?  What good does it do us if they look good in our well-cobbled viewing box, but are too dark or too light in their real target environment?

Nill
Logged
digitaldog
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 9185



WWW
« Reply #12 on: January 04, 2009, 07:37:51 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Nill Toulme
Andrew I think we've had this discussion before and I must have forgotten what I learned there.  If prints are being produced for viewing in a particular environment, e.g., a gallery, or a home, or a storefront... don't we want to evaluate them in that light or a reasonable approximation thereof?

Sure we do. But the display (and the matching to that display) is out of the equation.

If you can match the print to the display using sound color management practices, you can match it to a differing illuminant and luminance. The technology exists. If you can build your own printer profiles by first measuring the illuminant and the luminance of that source, you can get much closer color matching.
Logged

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

Ad
Ad
Ad