Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: [1]   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Moniter calibration  (Read 2244 times)
haefnerphoto
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 617


WWW
« on: January 12, 2009, 02:22:03 PM »
ReplyReply

I hoping for some idea as to whether my monitor will look like many others after it's been calibrated.  I've been working with the same technical adviser for many years, he sells and maintains my equipment, and I thought I check to see for instance if there's a universal white point that monitors are calibrated to.  We've been setting ours at 6500, is that standard?  All my monitors are Apple Cinema Displays, three are 23" models and I have one 30" display.  The most recent attempt (I have this done twice a year) wasn't successful and subsequently it was determined that the calibrating equipment was faulty.  Should I expect the 23" monitors to look the same as the 30"?  To me, it makes sense that they would be pretty close.  Also, we're setting the gamma to 1.8, which I understand is standard for Macs.  Does that mean on a PC that's set to 2.2 the image will look different?  Any input would be welcome.  Thanks, Jim
Logged

Kristy Depper
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2


« Reply #1 on: January 12, 2009, 03:24:22 PM »
ReplyReply

Hi Jim,

Could you please tell us a little more about your process? What software and hardware are you using to calibrate your screens?

I support two photography labs of 20" Apple Cinema Displays (a 25 seat lab and a 35 seat lab) and am able to get them to match. Depending on the software you're using, you shouldn't have too much trouble getting any style of display to match, given the same the same environment conditions and settings.

There are many schools of thought regarding the appropriate white point to be used. Because my users are concerned with matching their prints to their screens, I personally prescribe to the belief that your white point should match your viewing conditions. Thus, I calibrate to a white point of D50 and my users view their prints in either a GTI or Just Normlicht viewing booths. However, many people who print to inkjets with super bright white papers find D65 to be more accurate for them.

Why did you deem your latest calibration not to be successful?

-Kristy
Logged
Mark D Segal
Contributor
Sr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 6891


WWW
« Reply #2 on: January 12, 2009, 04:08:16 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: haefnerphoto
I hoping for some idea as to whether my monitor will look like many others after it's been calibrated.  I've been working with the same technical adviser for many years, he sells and maintains my equipment, and I thought I check to see for instance if there's a universal white point that monitors are calibrated to.  We've been setting ours at 6500, is that standard?  All my monitors are Apple Cinema Displays, three are 23" models and I have one 30" display.  The most recent attempt (I have this done twice a year) wasn't successful and subsequently it was determined that the calibrating equipment was faulty.  Should I expect the 23" monitors to look the same as the 30"?  To me, it makes sense that they would be pretty close.  Also, we're setting the gamma to 1.8, which I understand is standard for Macs.  Does that mean on a PC that's set to 2.2 the image will look different?  Any input would be welcome.  Thanks, Jim

If you use different gamma settings on different displays the images will definitely look different. The most current general recommendation is to use 2.2 on all of them.
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
haefnerphoto
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 617


WWW
« Reply #3 on: January 12, 2009, 05:07:42 PM »
ReplyReply

The equipment is a Gretag MacBeth Spectrolino using Profile Maker 5.  Is everyone out there setting their gamma at 2.2?  Jim
Logged

Kristy Depper
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2


« Reply #4 on: January 12, 2009, 06:57:24 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: haefnerphoto
The equipment is a Gretag MacBeth Spectrolino using Profile Maker 5.  Is everyone out there setting their gamma at 2.2?  Jim

No, I actually set mine to L* but that's closer to 2.2 than 1.8. Certainly, you'll have a hard time getting the screens to match if you're not using the same settings.

Have you absolutely determined the Spectrolino is not operating correctly? Do you have access to any other spectros or colorimeters to verify your results?  If you're in the market for a new device, you may consider investigating other applications. FWIW, I've not had much luck with Profilemaker and screen profiling. I love it for printer profiling, but have chosen a different application to manage my screens.
Logged
Mark D Segal
Contributor
Sr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 6891


WWW
« Reply #5 on: January 12, 2009, 07:42:52 PM »
ReplyReply

The "state of the art" display calibration packages are ColorEyes Display (which can come bundled with a DPT-94 colorimeter - an excellent device) and BasicColor. Both allow you to select L* for gamma.
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
haefnerphoto
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 617


WWW
« Reply #6 on: January 12, 2009, 08:46:17 PM »
ReplyReply

The equipment isn't mine, it belongs to my computer tech.  He had it checked and it wasn't operating correctly but we'll be calibrating again soon and that's why I was interested to see if there were any "across the board" standard settings.  My knowledge of this is limited but it surprises me that constants don't exist.  Jim
Logged

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

Ad
Ad
Ad