Re: Eizo CG 21 and Eye-One
Re: Eizo CG 21 and Eye-One
- Subject: Re: Eizo CG 21 and Eye-One
- From: Roger Breton <email@hidden>
- Date: Sat, 23 Apr 2005 15:22:57 -0400
> It's a question of method rather than whether it is or is not done
> internally.
Well it is not done internally, as far as I can see, and that makes a
difference to me.
> It is done internally but the methods differ.
Please discuss your testing methodology. Here it, on this Eizo, it's not
happening as you describe it.
> Theoretically
> if you set white and black point for each channel correctly, the same
> gamma for each channel should produce gray (assuming the primaries are
> properly paired up to do that).
That theory is more applicable to CRT -- and even then. LCD's notorious
non-linearity prevents this happy state of events from happening, in my
real-world experience.
> The basICColor and ColorEyes gray
> balance method is iterative, and allows for separate tone correction
> for each channel.
The basICcolor Display method is the ONLY true, hardware gray balance method
I ever came across in all the pieces of software I used for the purposes of
calibrating displays. It seeks to set RGB values from light to dark that not
only yield the desired gamma but also the desired chromaticities. That has
never happen automatically in all the monitors I ever calibrated by merely
setting the gamma. But I doubt your experience to be very different to mine.
> But something else I've noticed is that these table-based display
> profiles that are supposedly better, cause profile induced
> posterization and gray balance crossovers.
Crossovers are not a bad thing per se, certainly not as bad as common
prevailing myths would have us believe. Not worth chasing endlessly as some
people do.
> I won't see it in a
> non-color managed gradient, but will see it in a color managed one,
> when using table-based profiles, but not in matrix-based ones.
That's another issue. Is that a function of "imperfect" measurements? Or
device's actual behavior differing from predicted behaviors? Or, more
likely, is that a function of incomplete mathematical color modeling? Some
unforeseen intervening variable? Or all of the above? I wish I knew.
> I can see how the secondary colors would be more accurate with a
> table-based profile, so if that's more important to you than smooth
> neutrals, then that's the way to go. Otherwise, stick with matrix-based
> display profiles.
I use LUT-based profile on this Eizo and I don't see how I could be happier
with matrix/shaper profiles. And, yes, perhaps against all odds, I get what
appears to me as smooth neutrals.
> Chris Murphy
Roger Breton | Laval, Canada | email@hidden
http://pages.infinit.net/graxx
_______________________________________________
Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored.
Colorsync-users mailing list (email@hidden)
Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription:
This email sent to email@hidden