Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: [1]   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: profile in native state  (Read 3462 times)
Melodi
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 57


WWW
« on: April 25, 2009, 02:22:10 PM »
ReplyReply

I was watching the LL videos and it caught my ear when it was mentioned to profile higher end monitors in their native state because I have an Eizo Flexscan.  What does it mean to profile a monitor in its native state and how do you do this?
To do this, do you simply choose these options ("Native ..." ) from the drop down list of choices?
Thanks for any info.

Logged
digitaldog
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 9004



WWW
« Reply #1 on: April 25, 2009, 03:34:36 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Melodi
I was watching the LL videos and it caught my ear when it was mentioned to profile higher end monitors in their native state because I have an Eizo Flexscan.  What does it mean to profile a monitor in its native state and how do you do this?
To do this, do you simply choose these options ("Native ..." ) from the drop down list of choices?
Thanks for any info.

It means you don't try to adjust native white point or native gamma, you simply profile that behavior. Its useful for LCD's that don't have high bit internal LUTs since there's nothing you are actually adjusting in this case.
Logged

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

Posts: 5469


WWW
« Reply #2 on: April 25, 2009, 04:52:09 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Melodi
Thanks for any info.


As Andrew says, if you don't have a display capable of using the internal white point and gamma adjustment in 10 bit or higher, you will be better off not trying to "calibrate", just profile the display's normal "native state". Which for most LCDs will be very close to D65 and gamma 2.2. Trying to force a white point or gamma on one of these displays will generally lead to less than 8 bit display luts and introduce the chance of banding in the display. All Photoshop (and Lightroom) really need are accurate profiles describing the display state...

If your Eizo has the ability to do internal adjustments in a high bit depth, then by all means go ahead and calibrate to D65 and gamma 2.2.
Logged
Jeremy Payne
Guest
« Reply #3 on: April 25, 2009, 06:44:50 PM »
ReplyReply

I'm in a similar spot ... and probably now pushing the limits of my technical understanding.

I just bought a factory refurbished Samsung XL20.  It is an LCD panel with LED backlighting.  It uses 8-bit inputs to create a 10-bit internal LUT.

It came with a X-Rite Huey specifically designed for the monitor and proprietary calibration software (natural color expert).

Mine came with the Huey, but not the software ... (which I now realize I can download).

Since it didn't have the software, and I already had a Spyder3Pro and the Colorvision utility installed on my machine, I profiled it with the Spyder3.

Am I better off doing a real calibration with the Huey and Natural Color Expert or should I leave well-enough alone and use the Spyder3 profile I already made?
 
Logged
Melodi
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 57


WWW
« Reply #4 on: April 26, 2009, 05:25:36 PM »
ReplyReply

Thanks for the feedback. You noted that if it has more than an 8 bit LUT, to go ahead and set the white point and gamma.  The Eizo I have has a 12bit LUT.  I'll maybe rewatch the portion of the video to see if I can find more details on why it was recommended to leave it in native state.
Logged
jackbingham
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 206


WWW
« Reply #5 on: April 27, 2009, 04:14:59 PM »
ReplyReply

The eizo you have may have an internal 12 bilt lut but you can not do anything with it. Eizo has intentionally locked us all out of using it to protect the CG line.
As for calibrating to native there is something else to consider. If by calibrating to native you do not have a good color match to your viewing environment what good is calibration at all. Using the on screen display tools to hit a specific color temp may be a better choice.  A little banding for a better color match is a reasonable choice to make. If the calibration software does a good job of smoothing, which most do, the minor amount of banding in the shadows, if you see it at all will be of no harm.
Logged

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

Posts: 205


« Reply #6 on: April 27, 2009, 05:11:16 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: jackbingham
The eizo you have may have an internal 12 bilt lut but you can not do anything with it. Eizo has intentionally locked us all out of using it to protect the CG line.
As for calibrating to native there is something else to consider. If by calibrating to native you do not have a good color match to your viewing environment what good is calibration at all. Using the on screen display tools to hit a specific color temp may be a better choice.  A little banding for a better color match is a reasonable choice to make. If the calibration software does a good job of smoothing, which most do, the minor amount of banding in the shadows, if you see it at all will be of no harm.
Jack,
What about a monitor that doesn't have on-screen RGB tools - just brightness? (Dell 3007)
Logged
Damo77
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 69


WWW
« Reply #7 on: April 27, 2009, 05:25:14 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: jackbingham
As for calibrating to native there is something else to consider. If by calibrating to native you do not have a good color match to your viewing environment what good is calibration at all. Using the on screen display tools to hit a specific color temp may be a better choice.  A little banding for a better color match is a reasonable choice to make. If the calibration software does a good job of smoothing, which most do, the minor amount of banding in the shadows, if you see it at all will be of no harm.
Jack, it's really refreshing to hear somebody speak some common sense in this regard.  I couldn't agree more.
Logged

Damien
jackbingham
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 206


WWW
« Reply #8 on: April 27, 2009, 06:19:37 PM »
ReplyReply

Well you could make all the color adjustments in the video card and again you might encounter some banding. Or you may not. My main point on this is you need to try both options and see which works best for you. As with any other "standard", testing for yourself is almost always the better choice.
Logged

Jack Bingham
Integrated Color Corp Makers of Coloreyes Display
digitaldog
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 9004



WWW
« Reply #9 on: April 27, 2009, 06:25:23 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: jackbingham
If by calibrating to native you do not have a good color match to your viewing environment what good is calibration at all.

True however, the native white point of nearly all such displays is quite close to D65 which produces with good soft proof output profiles, a good match.

IF that's not the case, then the lesser of two evils is adjusting the LUT but adjusting the LUT isn't a good default starting point!

Users are having far more difficulty matching print to display luminance than print to display white.
Logged

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

Posts: 57


WWW
« Reply #10 on: April 27, 2009, 08:59:49 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: jackbingham
The eizo you have may have an internal 12 bilt lut but you can not do anything with it. Eizo has intentionally locked us all out of using it to protect the CG line.
As for calibrating to native there is something else to consider. If by calibrating to native you do not have a good color match to your viewing environment what good is calibration at all. Using the on screen display tools to hit a specific color temp may be a better choice.  A little banding for a better color match is a reasonable choice to make. If the calibration software does a good job of smoothing, which most do, the minor amount of banding in the shadows, if you see it at all will be of no harm.

I think this makes sense to me in that you really need to have your environment that is affecting your perception of your monitor under control or included as part of the calibration.

I'm not sure I'm clear on when you're saying to use the screen display tools to hit a specific color temp.  Would this be done outside of the calibration tool?

What about also attempting to improve the environment to match the suggested environments.  Isnt' this something I can also see measured when using the xrite tool?  I'm at a point though, where I see that I'm pretty far off from the suggested viewing environment and have been researching the best lighting options there, too.

Thanks a bunch.
Logged
jackbingham
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 206


WWW
« Reply #11 on: April 28, 2009, 09:22:11 AM »
ReplyReply

It's only a good match if the user sees color the way you do. Since everyone is unique they need to find their own best solution. All I'm suggesting is we need to stop saying native is the best choice. It might be for some. There is a constant drum beat from this list and others that native is the only choice. This is not good.
Logged

Jack Bingham
Integrated Color Corp Makers of Coloreyes Display
Scott Martin
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1311


WWW
« Reply #12 on: April 28, 2009, 09:57:52 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: jackbingham
There is a constant drum beat from this list and others that native is the only choice. This is not good.
I agree. I travel 4-6 days a week to photography, design and print studios helping them optimize their workflows and color managment. I find, more often than not, that customizing the white color temp provides more benefit then calibrating to native. Some display calibration applications do a better job than others at smoothing gradations with 8 bit LUTs but regardless, the benefits of color matching are significant while the negative effects of banding are minimal if at all. Excellent lighting is really an issue that we all need to focus more on and encourage others to think more about.
Logged

digitaldog
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 9004



WWW
« Reply #13 on: April 28, 2009, 10:17:37 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: jackbingham
All I'm suggesting is we need to stop saying native is the best choice.

I would say its a good default starting point.

Everyone being unique is somewhat true. If you're working in a collaboration, obviously everyone needs to be on the same page, same target values and ideally same display! That might mean they are all using a native WP or something else. That also means everyone is using the same viewing booth. IOW, a reference environment. I've set em up, its doable but only really works when everyone is using the same equipment down to having all instruments correlating to a higher end, reference standard device (in my case, a PR-670).
Logged

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

Posts: 5469


WWW
« Reply #14 on: April 28, 2009, 01:36:06 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: jackbingham
There is a constant drum beat from this list and others that native is the only choice. This is not good.


If you are talking about Photoshop color rendering, horseshyte...

What is super critical and very important is that you produce a very accurate profile of the state of the display. If you do that, Photoshop will do a working space > display profile transform and you'll get an accurate display on screen regardless of the white point or gamma of the display. Forcing a white point setting and/or a gamma on to the display does ZERO positive benefits for Photoshop's display capability...you can have a D50 gamma 1.8 display side by side with a D65 and gamma 2.2 and Photoshop will accurately display the same image with the same appearance on both displays (assuming you have accurate display profiles for each).

What you may or may not gain by forcing a calibration is subjective based on the display, the card and the OS...but in this day and age of pretty standard and commoditized displays, you may do more harm to the display environment by forcing lut adjustments in an 8 bit display system.

On the other hand, spending the extra bucks to buy into a display system that exceeds the limitations of 8 bit display tech might seem over the top for some people. But if you care at all how your images appear on your display and the accuracy of the image appearance important to you, then I wouldn't be futzing around with a display that is limited to only 8 bit lut adjustments for calibration. You get what you pay for and if you buy cheapass displays, then don't expect high performance and accuracy.
Logged
Pages: [1]   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad