RE: i1Pro and monitors
So, from the arguments presented, anything that "breaks" the incoming spectra into small bins is bound to receive "less photons", in all, in each bin? Whereas colorimeters are usually designed with "large collecting areas", which allow them to collect "more'" photons ", more rapidly or, at least, to collect whatever available photons more rapidly? / Roger -----Original Message----- From: colorsync-users <colorsync-users-bounces+graxx=videotron.ca@lists.apple.com> On Behalf Of Pat Herold via colorsync-users Sent: December 10, 2019 3:33 PM To: colorsync-users@lists.apple.com Subject: Re: i1Pro and monitors I would not choose to use the term “less reliable,” but I think I understand what they are trying to say. Spectrophotometers like the i1Pro measure all bands of human perception at 10 nm increments. Colorimeters measure 3 colors. This measuring of 36 bands instead of 3 is what’s blamed for the i1Pro not being able to measure as black as a quality colorimeter. There’s just more noise in attempting to measure light on a dark display. Every little wisp of light gets picked up by the spectro. This is one reason why the basICColor DISCUS was valid as an instrument for monitor profiling. At over $1000, it was a very good quality colorimeter - but it was a true colorimeter, not a spectrophotometer. http://www.colorwiki.com/wiki/Profiling_Devices_for_Monitors <http://www.colorwiki.com/wiki/Profiling_Devices_for_Monitors> Pat Herold CHROMiX
On Mon, Dec 9, 2019 at 4:34 AM Roger Breton via colorsync-users < colorsync-users@lists.apple.com> wrote:
I was up on some popular UK web site dealing with monitors galore (tftcentral) and I stumbled on this comment, which made me pause : "An X-rite i1 Display Pro colorimeter was also used to verify the black point and contrast ratio since the i1 Pro 2 spectrophotometer is less reliable at the darker end.". Does this make any sense to anyone, here?
I'm into metrology over my ears, these days. So I'm especially sensitive to comments like that.
/ Roger
_______________________________________________ Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored. colorsync-users mailing list (colorsync-users@lists.apple.com) Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription:
https://lists.apple.com/mailman/options/colorsync-users/wire%40lexiph anicism.com
This email sent to wire@lexiphanicism.com
_______________________________________________ Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored. colorsync-users mailing list (colorsync-users@lists.apple.com) Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription: https://lists.apple.com/mailman/options/colorsync-users/graxx%40videotron.ca This email sent to graxx@videotron.ca
Roger Breton via colorsync-users wrote:
So, from the arguments presented, anything that "breaks" the incoming spectra into small bins is bound to receive "less photons", in all, in each bin? Whereas colorimeters are usually designed with "large collecting areas", which allow them to collect "more'" photons ", more rapidly or, at least, to collect whatever available photons more rapidly?
Beware - many of the entry level colorimeters don't have very good sensitivity or low light resolution. Most rely on cheap L2F sensors, and without augmentation their sensitivity is modest. Something like the i1d3 adds a lens to increase the sensitivity a great deal, but it still doesn't match a high end colorimeter such as a Klien K10-A or similar. Comparing an i1d3 to an i1pro: Both need to use longer integration times to get the best low light resolution. The i1d3 is quantization limited (you can't get lower than one transition in 20 seconds), while the i1pro is noise limited. Accuracy could be poorer than resolution, but without running some tests against a reference instrument, I can't say much about that. Generally in the display calibration/profiling game the recommendation is to use the i1pro to create a calibration matrix for the i1d3, and then use the i1d3, since the result will be faster. Graeme Gill.
Pardon my ignorance, but what is a L2F sensor?
On December 15, 2019 at 10:33 PM Graeme Gill via colorsync-users <colorsync-users@lists.apple.com> wrote:
Roger Breton via colorsync-users wrote:
So, from the arguments presented, anything that "breaks" the incoming spectra into small bins is bound to receive "less photons", in all, in each bin? Whereas colorimeters are usually designed with "large collecting areas", which allow them to collect "more'" photons ", more rapidly or, at least, to collect whatever available photons more rapidly?
Beware - many of the entry level colorimeters don't have very good sensitivity or low light resolution. Most rely on cheap L2F sensors, and without augmentation their sensitivity is modest. Something like the i1d3 adds a lens to increase the sensitivity a great deal, but it still doesn't match a high end colorimeter such as a Klien K10-A or similar.
Comparing an i1d3 to an i1pro: Both need to use longer integration times to get the best low light resolution. The i1d3 is quantization limited (you can't get lower than one transition in 20 seconds), while the i1pro is noise limited. Accuracy could be poorer than resolution, but without running some tests against a reference instrument, I can't say much about that.
Generally in the display calibration/profiling game the recommendation is to use the i1pro to create a calibration matrix for the i1d3, and then use the i1d3, since the result will be faster.
Graeme Gill.
_______________________________________________ Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored. colorsync-users mailing list (colorsync-users@lists.apple.com) Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription: https://lists.apple.com/mailman/options/colorsync-users/waynebretl%40cox.net
This email sent to waynebretl@cox.net
WAYNE BRETL wrote:
Pardon my ignorance, but what is a L2F sensor?
Light to Frequency. See <https://ams.com/light-to-frequency> Graeme Gill.
Graeme Gill said:
Beware - many of the entry level colorimeters don't have very good sensitivity or low light resolution. Most rely on cheap L2F sensors, and without augmentation their sensitivity is modest. Something like the i1d3 adds a lens to increase the sensitivity a great deal, but it still doesn't match a high end colorimeter such as a Klien K10-A or similar.
Why the word of caution? Is there a mismatch between low-cost colorimeters and current display tech? Points about speed are well taken, regarding how a more precise instrument can be used to characterize a lower precision instrument and speed up calibration. But this is begging the question. There's an aspect of this stuff which for graphics customers (users) borders on the absurd. What users want are displays with well-defined characteristics and performance. But for some reason, this isn't practical, like CRT TVs use physics and circuits that drift and the whole analog thing is super smooshy from a thermodynamic POV. So what the user must discover he needs is to specifically measure and characterize his display using colorimeter tech!.But this also isn't practical, for other reasons, such as the colorimeters themselves are smooshy. So what the user needs is a higher-end colorimeter which he will use to characterize his lower-end colorimeter, but... probably for some other reasons this also isn't practical, etc. I jest. It's obvious that displays are improving heroically. So what is it about today's displays that makes them so variant that speed is required to calibrate? Sure time is money for some people, like say professional calibrators. But if you were in this business, why would you want reliable displays? They'll put you out of business! If you are just a plain user, is a commodities colorimeter like the new i1d3 a sufficiently good instrument to deal with typical quality displays? Why can't the industry just make a reliable display and leave the colorimeter stuff up to the engineers that design these things? Say, like, maybe LG and Apple? Idk :) I'm not really complaining. But the topic often feels a bit circular. So again, why the word of caution in this context? Do entry-level colorimeters have enough sensitivity to get the job done? And if they don't, why are they on the market? On Mon, Dec 16, 2019 at 2:17 PM Graeme Gill via colorsync-users < colorsync-users@lists.apple.com> wrote:
WAYNE BRETL wrote:
Pardon my ignorance, but what is a L2F sensor?
Light to Frequency. See <https://ams.com/light-to-frequency>
Graeme Gill. _______________________________________________ Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored. colorsync-users mailing list (colorsync-users@lists.apple.com) Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription:
https://lists.apple.com/mailman/options/colorsync-users/wire%40lexiphanicism...
This email sent to wire@lexiphanicism.com
Wire ~ via colorsync-users wrote:
Why the word of caution? Is there a mismatch between low-cost colorimeters and current display tech?
Because the story that keeps being told (and the one that I was responding to) is that Colorimeters have better sensitivity than Spectrometers. And it isn't true with the sorts of Colorimeters that most people own.
There's an aspect of this stuff which for graphics customers (users) borders on the absurd. What users want are displays with well-defined characteristics and performance. But for some reason, this isn't practical, like CRT TVs use physics and circuits that drift and the whole analog thing is super smooshy from a thermodynamic POV.
They never will have well-defined characteristics when price is the bottom line.
So what the user must discover he needs is to specifically measure and characterize his display using colorimeter tech!.But this also isn't practical, for other reasons, such as the colorimeters themselves are smooshy.
Some less so than others.
So what is it about today's displays that makes them so variant that speed is required to calibrate? Sure time is money for some people, like say professional calibrators. But if you were in this business, why would you want reliable displays? They'll put you out of business!
Many TV's change their responses quite markedly with time, due to various power saving and display saving technologies. Plasma was bad, OLED is even worse in this respect. Some people like to characterize their display with full grids too - i.e. 5000 measurements or more. (TV calibrators can be kind of crazy in that regard.)
If you are just a plain user, is a commodities colorimeter like the new i1d3 a sufficiently good instrument to deal with typical quality displays?
Mostly. But it still lacks the low end sensitivity to usefully measure an OLED black.
Why can't the industry just make a reliable display and leave the colorimeter stuff up to the engineers that design these things?
See above. Mass production of a consistent product makes it not the lowest possible cost. And low cost is what the majority of customers most value. Features such as wide gamut and HDR have become a thing, meaning that there is more variations in this aspect than there ever was before. The other thing is that each model is different, and you can't rely on the manufacturer to characterize it correctly. (They can't even code a legal EDID most of the time!)
I'm not really complaining. But the topic often feels a bit circular.
Only because people want the impossible. Graeme Gill.
participants (4)
-
Graeme Gill
-
graxx＠videotron.ca
-
WAYNE BRETL
-
Wire ~