Screen profiles are important to me because I distribute camera profiles.
- I have found the optical Colorchecker test which Roger recommends to
be excellent, except I also use the Colorchecker SG charts which I
employ to make camera profiles. Files are displayed by Photoshop as
this is the environment which my work gets used in.
- When I get really desperate for certainty, I measure the physical
patches that annoy me, and write the values into the file - all
Colorcheckers are not alike.
- In all cases where I have had unsatisfying screen profiles, I have
later been able to achieve better profiles by changing equipment,
software, and applying sheer stubborness. I have been known to spend
an hour on the phone with the poor tech guys at a poor software maker.
- I check gray ramps, but do not consider that slight banding or
neutrality variations are a usage issue, for me, although I would
agree that they are globally indicative of profile quality.
- I usually call in a second pair of eyes to check over every
calibration with the sample chart under controlled light or daylight.
I found the other pair of eyes has more "immediate" perception of
colors, I need longer to decide.
- The "evaluations" included with some software have not been of much
use to me, although they can serve as problem indicators.
- it looks like people are starting to hoard Optix. I wonder whether
the same will be the case for Pulse.
Edmund
On 2/28/07, Andrew Rodney <email@hidden> wrote:
A spectrophotometer is not necessarily better (means more accurate or
precise) then a colorimeter.
Actually for handling a display, there are some who would say it's worse
due to its design! I've heard some say that for measuring darks on a
display, a good Colorimeter like the OPTIX is a much better option.
