Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 [2]   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Monitor profiling services?  (Read 5338 times)
MiSwan
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 15


« Reply #20 on: October 02, 2013, 04:55:04 PM »
ReplyReply

Marcin,

I'm not sure I remember exacly what I did in the year of 1964 but it must had been with some very useful toys that I forgot…. Wink

Ok, somwhere I recall I have some PDF's from Eizo talking about the diff that can occur in whitepoint - even when targeting to the very same values -  between a "normal" gamut monitor and a larger sized gamut (I'm not sure but in their example I think they considered Adobe RGB gamut as widegamut). Changing to 10 degrees observer angle by choosing the "monitor matching" option in Colornavigator would help balancing the whitepointnailing between the monitors. I think this option came in some of the latest version of Colornavigator. I haven't used it. Is this larger observer angle what you're pointing at as a fix for the Retina? I'm in the wrong place to find those papers now.

Please describe an effective workflow/workaround that can be used within a decent timeframe (you know damn well what I mean;) when not using Colornavigator on the *Edges……. messing around with Babelcolor or Excel sheets to recount a profiles coordinates or anything like that isn't appreciated at client places. The clock is ticking money loudly. I rather pull curves in BasiCColor then. I use one eye open first, then close it and open the other as a referens-validation. That's what I call precision from experince…. Shocked

One has to use the Spectro to zero in the whitepoint, right? No workarounds for the Discus?

A longshot; measuring not directly on the surface of the Retina, but from say 30 cm distance would that mimic the whole thing or does it take a softwaresetting/workaround to make use of the 10 degree effect? Ok, ambient problems, making the room dark and all that, bout would it mimic for the observer angle effect? I could do it in the dark toilet on my knees if I have to. The MacBook laptop Retina I mean.

Tablebased profiles ok -- or matrix only?

Keep it simple, I'm not that intelligent.  I'm just cocky Wink

Thanks
Logged
Czornyj
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1445



WWW
« Reply #21 on: October 02, 2013, 05:50:22 PM »
ReplyReply

FWIW - I calibrate my own rMBP 13 with ArgyllCMS using -Q 1964_10 flag and i1Pro2. Once you calibrate it you can measure the x,y with DISCUS and use them as a target in basICColor.

Playing with different observers in Argyll can generally bring interesting results. Didn't found the golden rule that solves all the problems automagically, and I'm too lazy, too stupid and too much drinking to even try to understand and evaluate it. But I started to suspect that NEC/EIZO/X-Rite(?) folks seem to use different observers to get visual match between displays with different backlight spectra, and noticed that it works pretty darn well in EIZO ColorNavigator or NEC MultiProfiler / OSD in P/PA series with 3DLUT.

Marcin,

I'm not sure I remember exacly what I did in the year of 1964 but it must had been with some very useful toys that I forgot…. Wink

Ok, somwhere I recall I have some PDF's from Eizo talking about the diff that can occur in whitepoint - even when targeting to the very same values -  between a "normal" gamut monitor and a larger sized gamut (I'm not sure but in their example I think they considered Adobe RGB gamut as widegamut). Changing to 10 degrees observer angle by choosing the "monitor matching" option in Colornavigator would help balancing the whitepointnailing between the monitors. I think this option came in some of the latest version of Colornavigator. I haven't used it. Is this larger observer angle what you're pointing at as a fix for the Retina? I'm in the wrong place to find those papers now.

Please describe an effective workflow/workaround that can be used within a decent timeframe (you know damn well what I mean;) when not using Colornavigator on the *Edges……. messing around with Babelcolor or Excel sheets to recount a profiles coordinates or anything like that isn't appreciated at client places. The clock is ticking money loudly. I rather pull curves in BasiCColor then. I use one eye open first, then close it and open the other as a referens-validation. That's what I call precision from experince…. Shocked

One has to use the Spectro to zero in the whitepoint, right? No workarounds for the Discus?

A longshot; measuring not directly on the surface of the Retina, but from say 30 cm distance would that mimic the whole thing or does it take a softwaresetting/workaround to make use of the 10 degree effect? Ok, ambient problems, making the room dark and all that, bout would it mimic for the observer angle effect? I could do it in the dark toilet on my knees if I have to. The MacBook laptop Retina I mean.

Tablebased profiles ok -- or matrix only?

Keep it simple, I'm not that intelligent.  I'm just cocky Wink

Thanks
« Last Edit: October 02, 2013, 05:53:09 PM by Czornyj » Logged

MiSwan
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 15


« Reply #22 on: October 02, 2013, 06:40:37 PM »
ReplyReply

Ahh, I suspected that Argyll was lurking around there at your place. I'll look into that when having a Retina here offlocation next time for calibration/profiling without hurry. Very good to know. And the fact that the concept seems be around here and there in the other apps in one way or another.

Does anyone know yet why this redtint is so typical for the Retinas?

A little off topic thing that just pops up in my mind without any particular reason: If you're using BasiCColor Display you can easily add more patches by digging up this following file and edit it to your liking. Nice for the LUT profiles. The iProfiler display target patches is quite fun to copy into BasiCColor existing patchfile on the mac. Takes some time and patient, though.  The "small target" has more than double amount of patches than the original BC target. The medium 4 times. One can also add more "closer" patches in the lower part of the neutral greyramp for example..... makes any difference? I feel that the "small" i1Profiler target actually does as is:

BasiCColor5 > ( show content/package) > Contents > Resources > Monitor RGB.txt.

Okidoki, like Hanibal Lecter use to say. Time for a slice of meat (!) and some wine. Or I might go directly onto that bottle Lagavulin instead? Yes I think I do that.

Thanks for the information!

PS:
Coulden't help myself from googling half an hour here to find the whitepaper from Eizo if you're interested:
http://www.eizo.ch/netmanager/download/product/pdf/9b25f50d04c81d878c3d1210a2ca188e.pdf
Logged
gwhitf
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 820


« Reply #23 on: October 08, 2013, 09:31:12 AM »
ReplyReply

What amazes me is that he we are in the year 2013, and we're still having conversations about monitor calibration. I remember these discussions back when the Canon D60 or 60D or whatever it was came out. It amazes me that either Apple, or someone, has not come up with an out-of-the-box solution to uniformity of color by now. We are still having this elementary discussion.
Logged
digitaldog
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 9298



WWW
« Reply #24 on: October 08, 2013, 09:35:41 AM »
ReplyReply

What amazes me is that he we are in the year 2013, and we're still having conversations about monitor calibration. I remember these discussions back when the Canon D60 or 60D or whatever it was came out. It amazes me that either Apple, or someone, has not come up with an out-of-the-box solution to uniformity of color by now. We are still having this elementary discussion.
Apple came out with a self calibrating display well over a decade ago (it wasn't very good). The issue is that one has to calibrate a display based on it's behavior and abilities, the viewing conditions it will be used within and the print next to that display someone desires to match. Lots of variables. One size doesn't fit all by a long shot. Profiling a display is pretty easy. Calibrating it to a behavior which is desirable and doing this consistently is more difficult. This is a bit like asking for an out of the box camera that always produces an image just as you desire. No need for editing, raw conversions etc. Sounds easy.
Logged

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

Posts: 820


« Reply #25 on: November 22, 2013, 09:03:24 PM »
ReplyReply

so i bought the color munki to calibrate this MacBookPro 13" glossy screen. Ran the software; worked great. Ran it at 120 lumens but seemed very dark. ran it again at 130. Both profiles seem noticeably warm in the greys.

whole process very frustrating. Why they give you choices in lumens. why they give you choices in CT's. I thought the whole thing was standardization and taking the subjectivity out of the equation.

2013 and we're still talking about this stuff.

FAIL.
Logged
MiSwan
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 15


« Reply #26 on: November 23, 2013, 06:08:46 AM »
ReplyReply

That's to sad.

Why they give a choice for how bright the screen will target to and what CCT? Depending on your environment lighting and different standards. Go native CCT on that laptop and around 130 perhaps, using it on a well-lit sportarena; go 160. Darkened room while running the calibration!

Yes, the non-objective factor without any subjective involvement….. would be nice as well as having all monitors to respond exacly the same way on the same target set up. Isn't that what the package try to give as an impression?

The warm greyramp is probably the wellknown Retina effect. A kind of red tint. That's where even more subjective approaches come in. One has to by hand tune that shit away using the curves in a good calibrationsoftware…. a thing that not long ago was a total TABU. Well, tell us what to do then. I pull the curves till my face turn blue. No one wants that red tint (on the monitor).

Yes again, 2013. And some monitorbrands are now using swingout sensors doing the process by schedule at night once a week. Cool. People who know nothing about colormanagment feels safe without any afterchecks at all.  – Hey, we're "calibrated" today…. think that little swingpoke was out on an adventure tonight, a little track in the dust down there! Yeah, the colors feel a bit different today, did a good job, and how is yours? Ahh, looks like mine did better!

The sensor is very good, still it takes the readings at a place where no one with a normal brain would take a reading. A few centimeters from the edge, where the most variations/changes appear due to temp fluctuations and more. That's where we stands today with one of the most respected brands. Given a choice to co-calibrate with another probe in the middle at the same time. (Take that as a confirmation on the problems involved even if they try to say that it is for other reasons).

Could we agree on the fact that the process of calibrating/profiling a monitor itself is quite simple, but somehow it takes a little bit more – no? Could that be why we're still talking about it?

Frustration, sure. Imaging how it feels in a room with 50 monitors in a lovely mix. HP's, Dell's and ColorEdges. "We need a match here. Oh and we also got these 8 years PC-laptops (TN) that we need very much on location. They don't look the same somehow. We need to trust our equipment, you see". Come on, THAT's where you start losing hair rapidly.

Experiment - every single day - with your monkey. In a few months you're on track and think it's not that bad after all = accepting Wink

Yes. I'm brutal some days Wink
Logged
gwhitf
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 820


« Reply #27 on: November 23, 2013, 08:40:26 AM »
ReplyReply

I'm just a commercial photographer so what do I know. But this is the way i see all this. There seem to be at least two different reasons why you'd want to go to the extremes of having your monitor standardized. But the reasons for these two ways are quite different:

A. Closed Loop: You're in the business of making prints, and you want your monitor to match your printer. That's all you care about. You just want to tweak your image, and then send it properly to the printing software, and when the print pops out, it pretty much matches on the first print. (I am not this guy).

B. Open Loop: You're making images destined for outside clients, probably going to CMYK. You shoot a job, you retouch it, and you simply FTP the final file, and you never even make a proof. You just want to think, in your mind, that your monitor that sits on your desk "matches" some universal standard that exists around THE WORLD for the most part. IOW, if i opened that TIFF file in Pittsburg, or LA, or NYC, it would look the same in Photoshop. You simply want to FTP the file without getting a phone call from a pre press house or the ad agency, saying, "Wow, we love the picture, but boy, it sure does feel a tad light, and a tad magenta". (I am this guy).

So in theory, I want to buy a puck and some software that runs, and then it builds a profile, and that software does not give me ANY choices. The software says, "Screw you, you can't work in a bright room. Buy some blinds for your damn windows. We're not gonna read the ambient in your room and adjust OUR profile. YOU are going to change your room to adjust to ME". And the software also says, "Screw you -- the CT  is 6500. There are no other choices. Deal with it. That is the universal standard".

When we started all this Digital Mess, ten years ago or so, this is where I thought it would all be headed, but it's just as random and non-standardized now, in 2013, as it ever was. Yeah, frustrating.

There should not be a Moving Target. The software should also have an option to say, "Your monitor sucks. It simply won't calibrate to a universal standard. You buy a real computer and a real monitor. Deal with it".

« Last Edit: November 23, 2013, 08:42:11 AM by gwhitf » Logged
D Fosse
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 389



« Reply #28 on: November 23, 2013, 02:11:52 PM »
ReplyReply

Yes, somebody needed to say that...

Reading this forum you'd think we all sat around our Epsons producing exhibition prints all the time, but there are many of us who make a print perhaps twice a year. The "B" guy fits me perfectly. All I want is to send out files that I know are good and will reproduce well on press.

Still, I'm not sure it has to be D65, or 120. I look at my monitor and look for "paper white", or something that I can translate in my head to represent paper white. That can be anything between, say, 5500 and 6500, and anything between, say, 90 and 130. There's just no way to have a perfectly standardized environment.
Logged
hugowolf
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 643


« Reply #29 on: November 24, 2013, 01:53:36 PM »
ReplyReply

What amazes me is that he we are in the year 2013, and we're still having conversations about monitor calibration. I remember these discussions back when the Canon D60 or 60D or whatever it was came out. It amazes me that either Apple, or someone, has not come up with an out-of-the-box solution to uniformity of color by now. We are still having this elementary discussion.

Living in the US, I am amazed that you are amazed. Even compared to English units, the US is non-standard. The pint is different, the fluid once, the gallon. The paper sizes are totally weird…

Brian A
Logged
Pages: « 1 [2]   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad