RE: View booth issues
RE: View booth issues
- Subject: RE: View booth issues
- From: Roger Breton <email@hidden>
- Date: Sat, 20 Dec 2008 10:35:37 -0500
Hey there Monsieur Eddignton,
> This could depend on how close your viewing booth is to the D50
> chromaticities.
That's such a logical answer, Mike, I can't argue with that ;-)
But the original poster did not make any mention of how far from D50 were
the chromaticities of the viewing booth he referred to.
The way I understood his post, calibrating to any viewing booth chromaticity
is *bound* to be better than calibrating to ISO-12646 D50.
So, it could be argue that, for most viewing booth, calibrating to their
unique chromaticities is a better target than D50.
Now, I have to confess that, as a policy, I either calibrate to D50 or D65,
but rarely in between. We all know of this mysterious journal article by RIT
about the qualities of 5800K, as used in the Ugra monitor verification
package, that's supposed to be the holy grail of screen to proof match.
Personally, I have yet to try 5800K on my monitors. I managed to obtain a
partial copy of that article, and read it, but did not find anything
convincing. But that's my bias.
All said, I will experiment with calibrating to viewing booth chromaticities
for a test...
> Perhaps more visually than measurably.
Right. That is why, I think if the industry is going to go down that path,
reliable visual metrics will be required.
> My light booth is within
> tolerance of ISO 3664 (to the best of my ability to measure it with an
> i1 Pro), but I get a better visual match deviating away from D50 and
> toward custom chromaticities when creating my monitor profiles.
That's interesting Mike. Do you end up changing the white point after the
fact or you select a given white point chromaticities before calibrating, as
a different target?
> From a standards perspective, I think it was better to define the
> chromaticity target fully... without preference to a particular
> viewing booth, but the target of what the viewing booth itself is
> shooting for (D50).
So true. I sure hope we'll live to see the day of better D50 simulators.
Incidently, I did bring my EyeOnePro at the last GATF CMS Conference and did
measure the JUST-Normlicht LED ColorComunicator, and I thought the shape of
that booth spectral power distribution was radically different from anything
that ever stroke this industry in the past 60 years, eversince fluorescent
have been around in graphic arts, in fact. (Keeping Solux out of the
equation)
Using BabeColor CT&A's ISO-3664, I remember measuring something like 98 for
the CRI and a Grade B in the CIE012 test panel. Something I had never seen
myself in all the luminaires I measured with this software and my EyeOnePro
over the last four years.
> Also note that not all softproofing is done with a
> viewing booth/hardcopy comparison.
But all softproofing at the press is to be done with a view booth/hardcopy
comparison, Mike.
The hardcopy happens to be that of the printing press. But granted, there
are empirical tweaks used by the monitor profilers to help improve the match
between the view booth/harcopy that probably go beyond calibrating to plain
D50. But, to the best of my knowledge, they don't necessarily use white
point deviations. I still have to digest Chris Edge article presented in
Portland's CIC.
My .02 canadian cents that are now worth less than your .02 us cents :(
Regards / Roger
__________ Information from ESET Smart Security, version of virus signature
database 3708 (20081220) __________
The message was checked by ESET Smart Security.
http://www.eset.com
_______________________________________________
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