UGRA/UDACT-conforming displays [was: i1Display x i1Pro]
UGRA/UDACT-conforming displays [was: i1Display x i1Pro]
- Subject: UGRA/UDACT-conforming displays [was: i1Display x i1Pro]
- From: Marco Ugolini <email@hidden>
- Date: Fri, 27 Mar 2009 18:30:50 -0700
- Thread-topic: UGRA/UDACT-conforming displays [was: i1Display x i1Pro]
In a message dated 3/27/09 5:02 PM, eric@poem wrote:
> Initial results suggest that whilst the ADC perform well, they would
> be relegated to 'layout purposes" only by this test. They fail on
> variation in grey balance that is outside tolerance.
They would probably also fail a screen uniformity test (many ACDs exhibit
distinctly perceptible variations in luminous intensity across the display's
surface, exceeding the 10% or so that is usually considered "acceptable").
> My feeling at the moment that a practical solution is that each art
> team will have to have at least one display that conforms as suitable
> for full soft proofing under the UDACT criterion, so that softproofs
> can be signed off on a certified display by the art editor.
>
> And as Apple no longer support the complete installed hardware base
> with a possible conforming display (!) the client will have to look
> to the Eizo/NEC/Quato range.
Sorry, what does that mean? That Apple does not make displays that would
pass the UGRA/UDACT test? If that's what you intend, you're probably right,
by and large (with possible exceptions).
In my opinion -- and based on what I see in the places that I frequent for
my graphic design production, imaging and color management work -- quality
control on the ACDs has taken a turn for the worse over the last few years.
I think that Apple Studio Displays were much more reliable.
Marco Ugolini
_______________________________________________
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