• Open Menu Close Menu
  • Apple
  • Shopping Bag
  • Apple
  • Mac
  • iPad
  • iPhone
  • Watch
  • TV
  • Music
  • Support
  • Search apple.com
  • Shopping Bag

Lists

Open Menu Close Menu
  • Terms and Conditions
  • Lists hosted on this site
  • Email the Postmaster
  • Tips for posting to public mailing lists
Re: Monitor calibration software/hardware
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Monitor calibration software/hardware


  • Subject: Re: Monitor calibration software/hardware
  • From: Chris Murphy <email@hidden>
  • Date: Fri, 21 Sep 2007 19:53:46 -0400

A few points.

In many instances it is not possible or even desirable to get a 1:1 reproduction of scene colorimetry. It may not be possible due to device limitations, and it might not be desirable because it would look wrong because of the difference between scene and print dynamic range. Dynamic range affects scene color appearance but not scene colorimetry.

So the idea that we want to have a completely reversible transform in all instances doesn't make sense. In the case of CLUT based display profiles for an LCD, and using a gamut compression option or CAM when building the profile will get you a display profile that won't round trip well. That's kindof the point. You give that profile LAB values, and get RGB values that intentionally cause different LAB values to be displayed than what you asked for.

And since we're talking about display profiles, there is in effect only one rendering intent because even if the display profile contained different table data for at least two intents (say perceptual and colorimetric), we don't have a mechanism to select which intent is used. Therefore in practice there is only one set of table data and all intents point to that single set of table data.

With regard to white and black luminance, it's not really applicable to talk about delta E. The real target should not be a specific white and black luminance, but rather a dynamic range or contrast ratio. And that would be something close to print contrast ratio because we don't really have 10000:1 contrast ratio displays that would then reproduce the scene color appearance of scene colorimetry. But what our display's contrast ratio is depends highly on ambient lighting conditions, and our typical display measuring devices are not at all equipped for doing this correctly.

As for validation I think it's OK to use the same measurement device for calibration validation. This is essentially pass/fail, and uses a behind the scenes set of metrics to determine that the expected behavior is what's occurring.

That is, if the starting LAB value, passed through the profile, resulting in RGB value to display, which should yield a DIFFERENT LAB value. An *expected* LAB value. And compare the expected LAB to the actual measured LAB value. Are measured and expected LAB values the same and within tolerance? Usually what's compared are just starting LAB values as though the profile's job is to guarantee that LAB value is reproduced, which often is not the mandate.

Even if you expect a full roundtrip of LAB (LAB goes through the CMS and that LAB value is displayed as far as the measurement device of choice is concerned) it's still a problem to use delta E because that implies some level of actual performance or accuracy. If you have a display calibration validation process that goes through 20 LAB values, passes them through the CMS and then for the display to display them, and they get measured and are exactly dead nuts on and the display gets deltaE=0 for all 20 patches, this translates into "it's working correctly, you have accurate color." But that's somewhere between misleading and false because it does not at all account for dynamic range or the ambient lighting conditions.

I do like the idea of verifying that the display is behaving in a manner consistent with its behavior when it was profiled, and tracking the device's behavior as it ages. Quite useful. The use of deltaE I think is distracting and isn't really helping us make better choices. It's not even clear to me which deltaE various products are using, and that too makes a big difference. Even deltaE00 is far from perfect.


Chris Murphy


Chris Murphy Color Remedies (TM) New York, NY ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Co-author "Real World Color Management, 2nd Ed"


_______________________________________________ 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
  • Follow-Ups:
    • Re: Monitor calibration software/hardware
      • From: Marco Ugolini <email@hidden>
References: 
 >Re: Monitor calibration software/hardware (From: Richard Wagner <email@hidden>)

  • Prev by Date: Re: Monitor calibration software/hardware
  • Next by Date: Re: Monitor calibration software/hardware
  • Previous by thread: Re: Monitor calibration software/hardware
  • Next by thread: Re: Monitor calibration software/hardware
  • Index(es):
    • Date
    • Thread