Re: High End Displays
Re: High End Displays
- Subject: Re: High End Displays
- From: Terence Wyse <email@hidden>
- Date: Wed, 30 Apr 2008 13:59:13 -0400
On Apr 30, 2008, at 12:13 PM, Andrew Rodney wrote:
My past
experience with basICColor and my current experience with ColorEyes
Display Pro tells me they are both best-in-class products.
So as far as you're concerned, they are identical? Or one is more
best in
class (whatever that means).
Haven't tested a current version of basICColor so I can't say but I'm
sufficiently pleased with the ColorEyes product that I'm not
interested in looking at other products right now. Monitor calibration/
profiling doesn't happen to be a large part of my business so I don't
put a high priority on it from an evaluation standpoint. As far as I'm
concerned, it runs circles around the X-Rite products I have at my
disposal. Proofing and pressroom calibration/profiling are my main
focus.
I can tell you this, I recently scrapped my entire MacBook Pro system
and had to re-install all my apps, including ColorEyes Display. I took
the opportunity to use it on my piece-of-crap 24" Gateway FPD2485W
display on one of my other Macs and tested using the software to dial
down the luminance vs. doing it using the display controls. I started
at maximum/native luminance (360 cd/m2! you could use this display as
a tanning bed!) and then dropped it in about 20% increments down to
120 cd/m using software/video LUT adjustment only. I then went back
and repeated the test using hardware luminance adjustment and left the
software at "maximum" luminance. ColorEyes' "Validition" history
clearly showed me that hardware luminance adjustment to be superior to
having the software adjust the video LUTs to bring down the
brightness. Using software/video LUT adjustment, the average and
particularly the max delta E values steadily increased as I dialed
down the luminance in software. Now this may be obvious to some
(software LUT adjust vs. hardware adjust) but it's something I've
never tested before. I then had a chance to compare the crap Gateway
display to my EIZO CG211. Did I say "compare"? There IS NO comparison!
Average/Max dE of the EIZO was in the .40/.60 range while the numbers
for the Gateway Tanning Bed Display were .60/2.0 using software
luminance control and .40/1.3 using hardware luminance adjust. BTW, I
was using DDC control on the EIZO of course. I know that validition
history is not unique to ColorEyes Display Pro but this was a cool
application of this feature.
Regards,
Terry
_______________________________________________
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