RE: UGRA/UDACT-conforming displays [was: i1Display x i1Pro]
RE: UGRA/UDACT-conforming displays [was: i1Display x i1Pro]
- Subject: RE: UGRA/UDACT-conforming displays [was: i1Display x i1Pro]
- From: Roger <email@hidden>
- Date: Sat, 28 Mar 2009 12:16:33 -0400
Eric,
I agree fully on L* transfer function, it is most logical. D50 is still good
and 120 cd/m2 minimum is also very good. Although, I remember calibrating a
LaCIE 324 to 160 cd/m2 this week, as it didn't impress me as appearing too
bright at that luminance and, since IDEAlliance's recommended luminance for
soft proofing is also 160, I figured I'll start experimenting with that
value with selected clients.
As for L* calibration, I believe it's also an option in Argyll. L* is
becoming ubiquitous. Isn't eciRGBv2 also L*-based? Which is also D50-based?
I really like eciRGB's "design".
Thank's for clarification regarding the yummy score ;-)
I'll make a point to revisit iMatch soon to witness this for myself...
Best / Roger
> Whilst I feel that the ACD's are perfectly fit for purpose they appear
> unable to conform to the numbers for the UDACT certification on an
> individual basis, Ugra are very clear on what is and isn't acceptable
> for soft proofing, Gamma 2.2 for instance is ruled out in favour of
> L*. D50 whitepoint and a minimum luminance of 120cd/m2. Which means
> for conformance we will have to use a calibration software such as
> ColorEyes or basiCColor that provides L* settings.
>
> And no, the yummy figures are not UDACT, I was referring to the
> validation score through the Monitor validation tool in i1Match.
_______________________________________________
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