Re: ProfileMaker 5500K Monitor Profile
Re: ProfileMaker 5500K Monitor Profile
- Subject: Re: ProfileMaker 5500K Monitor Profile
- From: Roger Breton <email@hidden>
- Date: Sun, 27 Jan 2008 11:37:11 -0500
Ken,
iMatch 3.6.2 is bullet-proof.
As for your question of ACD "hardware adjustments" -- sorry for prolonging
your agony Edmund with this thread --, I guess it would be possible through
hacking the monitor hardware (don't know how, actually) to adorn it with
pseudo "gain" controls, similar to those found on most other LCD monitors
out there (I agree, Apple really dumbed their ACD lineup down,
hardware-wise, by not supplying OSDs). Then, you'd be able to use
ProfileMaker to hardware-calibrate the display just like on my cheapo
Samsung 254BW. Would it work? Of course. But I never heard of anyone selling
"mod" ACDs or modding them for a living, just like there is a market for
modded PS3, modded Xbox and what have you (that would kind of void the
warranty).
Speaking of ACDs, I was at a photographer client site yesterday, to
calibrate and profile his new ACD 30" display. We first tried iMatch 3.6.2
with his i1d2 at the recommended 120 cd/m2. It worked OK. But when we
displayed a horizontal gradient from left=0 to right=100, in Lab, in
Photoshop, there were large visible bands, shifting in chromaticity along
the way. We surmised part of this banding came from having dumbed down the
native luminance of the display from whathever it was (300+) to 120, the
default recommended setting in iMatch. Also, the fact that we brought the
CCT all the way down to D50 from the native, what 6600? -- that really
offsetted the top of the blue curve down considerably relative to the green
and red. Anyhow, we redid our little experiment at 160 cd/m2, in the hope of
reducing quantization (is that the right word?), and the resultant gradient
was much smoother, still exhibiting some level of banding, but much more
bearable for my horrified client. I guess if we would have continued
increasing the luminance target up to 200+ we would have gotten less and
less banding, to the point of hitting the software's alogorithms limit or
the monitor inherent uncalibratability limit (or a combination of the two).
But this client is used to work in a dim environment AND there are many
sites that seem to get good result around 160. So we didn't want to crank it
up too high, also to prolong the monitor's life. 160 Seems to be a more or
less "natural" calibrated point settings to compare with a desktop viewing
booth set at the P2 level.
Last but not least, we tried the white screen acid test in Photoshop (I'll
never thank Adobe enough for making Photoshop!).
We created a new RGB document with a white background and just blew it up to
fill the entire screen. Then we shift+F to hide all Photoshop's palettes and
menus and saw how relatively non-uniform this particular ACD 30" was. It was
like radiating circles of white shades emanating from the center of the
screen with distinctly clear bluish bands on both sides, running vertically.
Would that be a cause for returning the display to Apple, in the
distinguished opinions of the members of this List, or are all of these ACD
30" more of less like that?
Appologize for the lenghty post ;-)
> That is a good suggestion and I have considered it, but I wanted to rule out
> PMP first since we spent a lot of money on it. It looks like the latest
> version is 3.6.2. Does anyone know of any issues with this software on an
> Intel Mac? (I can't check which OS version it is until Monday morning...).
>
>
> --
> Ken Fleisher
Roger Breton
_______________________________________________
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