Re: Monitor calibration software/hardware
Re: Monitor calibration software/hardware
- Subject: Re: Monitor calibration software/hardware
- From: Andrew Rodney <email@hidden>
- Date: Fri, 21 Sep 2007 19:51:51 -0600
- Thread-topic: Monitor calibration software/hardware
On 9/21/07 6:37 PM, "Derrick Brown" wrote:
> These tools can tell the user that just because they can run a finite
> black point on one display doesnt mean that value will work on all of
> them. If they try, the validation tools can show that "monitor B"
> will block up compared to "monitor A" in the shadows by running these
> specific values. Or to find out in the color correction room that
> running D50 on the new LCDs allows a brightness of 100cd/m2 next to
> the CRTs that are now old but running D50 and can no longer achieve
> the brightness without losing full black? Isnt that helping improve
> the user experience?
Yes, I'd agree to that premise. And I shoud be able to see this effect by
viewing a simple 21 step wedge in Photoshop. I'd agree that at least some
software product I'm aware of provide sensible suggestions for users, so
they don't think "well, 350 cd/m2 sounds nifty". I'd agree that if your goal
is to calibrate 2 displays and one can hit 140 cd/m2 while the other can't,
its useful over a network or similar approach to inform the user they simply
can't get the two to match IF they don't dumb down the better (higher
luminance) display. And as I said, it would be far more useful if the
products would use the instrument and some useful standards (which today are
pretty old) to inform users of appropriate target calibration aim points.
> By using the same instrument, same software on
> several machines you can baseline what your systems are doing.
That I'm not so sure about. If we agree the instruments are sound, why is it
that 3 different software products don't produce the same results either
visually or numerically (the former usually sticks out like a sore thumb,
the later isn't necessary)? HOW is the user supposed to know that the
software that came with his/her OPTIX or EyeOne Display or Spyder is "wrong"
and they need your product? What makes them know your product is "right"? We
could just look at the results or we could measure them. But something isn't
kosher here, it hasn't been since I tested the same unit on two pieces of
calibration software, way back in the Optical days (mid 1990's).
> These validations would all be with the same instruments so the
> relative comparisons do apply here.
The problem is, these relative comparisons have a tremendous fudge factor.
What we need are absolute comparisons. But that's expensive because as I've
said from day one, you need a pretty expensive reference grade device. That
being the case, I submit we have two options: feel good buttons with numeric
feedback and visual feedback, which while it can suffer the effects of
optical illusions and other issues, is still what we end up using once the
instrument is placed back into the drawer.
Trending at least tells us that the calibration and profile and what we saw
a month ago still apply today and should tomorrow. That is useful!
Andrew Rodney
Author "Color Management for Photographers"
http://www.digitaldog.net/
_______________________________________________
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