I agree with you that it's NOT a problem. Having a "nice-looking"
interface
is not as important to me as having correct color in my imaging
applications. Incidentally, one of my new year's wishes is to read on
this
forum of a few real-life examples of how well the "L* approach" (as
contrasted to the "gamma approach") is functioning in actual work
environments, and what the downsides are, besides the slight darkening
of
the interface.
Okay, Marco,
I'm running ColorEyes Display 3. The benefits?
1) L* calibration (in my experience, thus far) ends up with almost no
banding. Gradients are very smooth!! My perception is that this is
sort of a "native gamma" approach. That's probably way too simplistic,
but it's my misconception and I'll hold onto it for now.
2) I allowed the software to utilize the DDC functions and got about 30
cd/m2 more brightness out of my stinky old monitor than I ever have
before - makes it tough to justify a new monitor, though. On my monitor
(Sony 520GS) it did not require any additional cables.
3) ColorEyes allows you to add extra grayscale measurement points to
correct for problem areas you may note on a gray ramp. Very cool! Very
effective!
4) Since all Adobe products are utilizing a relative colorimetric
rendering in going from the destination color space to the monitor
space you could have problems - ColorEyes allows you to build a monitor
profile with some level of gamut compression. I'm still reviewing this
to see if it makes a great deal of difference to me. To a lot of the
photographers out there I would think that this could be a big selling
point.
Rich Apollo
Priority Litho
314-344-1144
email@hidden
