Making progress on my calibration project. I have a question with regards to the merits of pure gamma calibration. The following graph shows the relationship between 8-bit input RGB numbers and measured output Luminance, from 0 to 255: https://1drv.ms/b/s!AkD78CVR1NBqktJmMSOB1tc6aOdiwg?e=5ujwEq The horizontal axis represents Input RGB numbers, from 0 to 255, as they would come out of Photoshop, and the vertical axis represent Output Luminance, as measured on the face of the monitor. There are two "curves" on this graph, a "blue" curve and a "red" curve. The blue curve represent the measured response of a Dell 17" laptop while the red curve represents a 2.2 gamma, as best as I can calculate it. Judging by the shape of the graph in the shadows, I am tempted to concluded that there is "poor separation of tones"? I would say, from 0 to 25, increasing RGB counts practically map to the same Luminance value? This "gamma calibration method" does not make sense to me. Whether 2.2 or 1.8, I don't see how the "response" could be improved at the shadows end? Which makes me wonder whether the other "popular" calibration schemes create better shadow separation? Like L* or sRGB? Worth investigating.. / Roger Breton
On Jan 12, 2020, at 3:13 AM, Roger Breton via colorsync-users <colorsync-users@lists.apple.com> wrote:
Judging by the shape of the graph in the shadows, I am tempted to concluded that there is "poor separation of tones"?
Hey Roger! This feels similar to looking at color gamut renderings. In both cases, while one can come up with a hypothesis, I think it’s important not to conclude anything by looking at the profile and/or it’s calibration curves. In order to make statements about final print quality one must make prints with the profiles and evaluate those prints, both visually and colorimetricially with measurements. Or in your example of display calibration, one must visually analyze evaluation images onscreen and take verification measurements with the final display profile. Again, visual and colorimetric evaluations with the final profile are essential to making statements / conclusions. After all, the calibration curves might look incredible and smooth but, in some situations, the final image quality could still be poor. The two don’t *necessarily* correlate. PS: if you want to see more examples and dialog about how color gamut comparisons can yield false conclusions, check out the "Polarized M3 Observations” section of my i1Pro3+ review. www.on-sight.com/xrite-i1pro3-review/ Scott Martin www.on-sight.com Precise color science for printmaking professionals
On Sun, Jan 12, 2020 at 01:44 Scott Martin via colorsync-users < colorsync-users@lists.apple.com> wrote:
On Jan 12, 2020, at 3:13 AM, Roger Breton via colorsync-users < colorsync-users@lists.apple.com> wrote:
Judging by the shape of the graph in the shadows, I am tempted to concluded that there is "poor separation of tones"?
[...]
PS: if you want to see more examples and dialog about how color gamut
comparisons can yield false conclusions, check out the "Polarized M3 Observations” section of my i1Pro3+ review. www.on-sight.com/xrite-i1pro3-review/ — Scott Martin
Hi Scott, read your writeup and the synopsis of the products features made overall sense, but I missed the justification per false conclusions: I saw the comparison of measurement plots but didn't follow how you think the changes revealed in the plots will or won't influence final print quality? It makes sense to me that taking into account fine points of distinction between the way the instrument sees and eyes see will affect the plots. This is elementary to the process. And it certainly makes sense that normalizing variables of perception results in more repeatable evaluations across scenarios... The review begs this question. What I'm wondering is are the optical qualities of texture and florescence part of the visual experience or not? How do you decide to include or omit these effects when evaluating the total system performance? And why do you draw the line here or there? Digression to context: Long ago I noticed that product reviews can be oblivious to progress. This first occurred to me reading car reviews that one year a magazine would report a model as being strong then in a subsequent year the same magazine would denigrate the same model as wanting, sometimes for the exact parameter that was before lauded. What the rags avoided was contextualizing and reconciling how or why the strength became a weakness, the advantage a liability. I realized the car business doesn't thrive on doing transportation well, in fact it avoids considering actual transportation metrics. It thrives on making you want something to replace this year what it told you to want last year. Now that we are well into the Anthropocene, this mentality of progress is seen to have disastrous geopolitical and environmental characteristics. But what can we do?! How could we know?! I love driving! The mentality of progress as being nothing more than incremental subjective advances that ignore legacies is now pervasive across industries, brought on hard by the personal computer industry, which sees fit to destroy the past in order to secure us into a future of relief from the horrendous defects of their previous products. Meanwhile deep fakes and fear that further progress will be even worse. If computer guys and technologists are so smart, why aren't San Francisco bay area and Seattle two of the finest metropolises in the world? Instead they are home to great problems of poverty and displacement, environmental distress in many forms. Why did Detroit collapse?! Getting back to this Xrite review: I notice that after 20 years of advances in ICC color measurement technology, the industry is still announcing—and reviewers enthusiastically reporting—that the promise of color management is about to been realized, and per your review, progress means you should want not only the old thing you may already have and the new thing that you should get to replace it, but both! In a couple years a new Xrite product will be out and you should want that too. With generous trade up allowances. Your transmissive scenario gains suggest that until now the world has still be struggling with poor white balance?! I suddenly understood the other poster's comment that wondered if maybe Xrite had already solved the transmissive media challenge with EZ color decades ago but this had not been noticed or was forgotten. But moreover, it's the repeatability of the new visual medium destroying the beauty of media? As the devices become perfected, they are ever more literal windows. The most perfect the medium is at replication, the most substanceless it becomes; its just a portal. What's on the other side? Do the replication well enough and we will become lost in house of mirrors. I was thinking about how such much of the current philosophical conversation is rehashing old stories about tech from eatlier dayz and how intellectual property and the web isn't helping us remember very well, because actually knowing is not economically energetic. Coming back around: So question for this Xrite product. It no doubt is the finest of its kind, but what about it leaves you wanting something that will be available in the next rev? IOW imagine your review saying 'this product gets some things right but these are gonna be meh compared to [insert future features]'. What will these future features be and might we just wait? Of course you can't have tomorrows features without todays churn! Put another way, our economy is predicated on not knowing what's going on. This is paradoxically weird considering everything we consume offers itself under a presupposition that the people who offer it know exactly what's going on. The motto of the World Bank is "Working for a poverty free world" Why do I get the sense this motto is their promise the job is never gonna get done... I was rewatching James Cameron's Avatar last nite w my teenage kids and marveling at the (almost obscene) colorz presented on a well aligned Sony projector. /wire
Dude, Wire, checkout my other site: www.martinphoto.com/road-verse/ and… you said "colorz" Scott Martin www.on-sight.com Precise color science for printmaking professionals
On Jan 12, 2020, at 3:40 PM, Wire ~ via colorsync-users <colorsync-users@lists.apple.com> wrote:
On Sun, Jan 12, 2020 at 01:44 Scott Martin via colorsync-users < colorsync-users@lists.apple.com> wrote:
On Jan 12, 2020, at 3:13 AM, Roger Breton via colorsync-users < colorsync-users@lists.apple.com> wrote:
Judging by the shape of the graph in the shadows, I am tempted to concluded that there is "poor separation of tones"?
[...]
PS: if you want to see more examples and dialog about how color gamut
comparisons can yield false conclusions, check out the "Polarized M3 Observations” section of my i1Pro3+ review. www.on-sight.com/xrite-i1pro3-review/ — Scott Martin
Hi Scott, read your writeup and the synopsis of the products features made overall sense, but I missed the justification per false conclusions: I saw the comparison of measurement plots but didn't follow how you think the changes revealed in the plots will or won't influence final print quality?
It makes sense to me that taking into account fine points of distinction between the way the instrument sees and eyes see will affect the plots. This is elementary to the process.
And it certainly makes sense that normalizing variables of perception results in more repeatable evaluations across scenarios... The review begs this question.
What I'm wondering is are the optical qualities of texture and florescence part of the visual experience or not? How do you decide to include or omit these effects when evaluating the total system performance? And why do you draw the line here or there?
Digression to context: Long ago I noticed that product reviews can be oblivious to progress. This first occurred to me reading car reviews that one year a magazine would report a model as being strong then in a subsequent year the same magazine would denigrate the same model as wanting, sometimes for the exact parameter that was before lauded. What the rags avoided was contextualizing and reconciling how or why the strength became a weakness, the advantage a liability. I realized the car business doesn't thrive on doing transportation well, in fact it avoids considering actual transportation metrics. It thrives on making you want something to replace this year what it told you to want last year. Now that we are well into the Anthropocene, this mentality of progress is seen to have disastrous geopolitical and environmental characteristics. But what can we do?! How could we know?! I love driving!
The mentality of progress as being nothing more than incremental subjective advances that ignore legacies is now pervasive across industries, brought on hard by the personal computer industry, which sees fit to destroy the past in order to secure us into a future of relief from the horrendous defects of their previous products. Meanwhile deep fakes and fear that further progress will be even worse. If computer guys and technologists are so smart, why aren't San Francisco bay area and Seattle two of the finest metropolises in the world? Instead they are home to great problems of poverty and displacement, environmental distress in many forms. Why did Detroit collapse?!
Getting back to this Xrite review: I notice that after 20 years of advances in ICC color measurement technology, the industry is still announcing—and reviewers enthusiastically reporting—that the promise of color management is about to been realized, and per your review, progress means you should want not only the old thing you may already have and the new thing that you should get to replace it, but both! In a couple years a new Xrite product will be out and you should want that too. With generous trade up allowances. Your transmissive scenario gains suggest that until now the world has still be struggling with poor white balance?! I suddenly understood the other poster's comment that wondered if maybe Xrite had already solved the transmissive media challenge with EZ color decades ago but this had not been noticed or was forgotten.
But moreover, it's the repeatability of the new visual medium destroying the beauty of media? As the devices become perfected, they are ever more literal windows. The most perfect the medium is at replication, the most substanceless it becomes; its just a portal. What's on the other side? Do the replication well enough and we will become lost in house of mirrors.
I was thinking about how such much of the current philosophical conversation is rehashing old stories about tech from eatlier dayz and how intellectual property and the web isn't helping us remember very well, because actually knowing is not economically energetic.
Coming back around:
So question for this Xrite product. It no doubt is the finest of its kind, but what about it leaves you wanting something that will be available in the next rev? IOW imagine your review saying 'this product gets some things right but these are gonna be meh compared to [insert future features]'. What will these future features be and might we just wait?
Of course you can't have tomorrows features without todays churn! Put another way, our economy is predicated on not knowing what's going on. This is paradoxically weird considering everything we consume offers itself under a presupposition that the people who offer it know exactly what's going on.
The motto of the World Bank is "Working for a poverty free world"
Why do I get the sense this motto is their promise the job is never gonna get done...
I was rewatching James Cameron's Avatar last nite w my teenage kids and marveling at the (almost obscene) colorz presented on a well aligned Sony projector.
/wire _______________________________________________ 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/scott%40on-sight.com
This email sent to scott@on-sight.com
participants (3)
-
graxx＠videotron.ca
-
Scott Martin
-
Wire ~