Luminous Landscape Forum
Raw & Post Processing, Printing => Colour Management => Topic started by: Rob C on March 23, 2017, 07:35:58 am
-
Hi!
A question for you technical minds out there (or in here, as the case may be).
When one calibrates a monitor, what exactly is being done: is the monitor itself being altered in any way, or is it the interaction between the monitor and computer that's being affected? In other words, does the way the monitor itself is functioning remain unchanged (apart from age-related decay), and the way that the computer works being changed, so as to allow the monitor, in its current condition, see the computer's output in a standardized way?
In the case of two computers working with one, common monitor, does that mean that the monitor has to be calibrated twice, once for use with each different computer? If so, then it would seem to me that it's the computers that are being calibrated, not the monitor, or you'd have to recalibrate every time you switched between computers.
I have a LaCie blue eye pro calibration device that came bundled with the LaCie monitor a few years ago. It works with the old Microsoft XP computer, but won't have sex or any other relationship with my current Windows 8.1 outfit.
If, indeed, the monitor is being calibrated and not the computer, then I could always calibrate the monitor using the old computer, but I'm sure that's not going to be the answer: just too sweetly convenient and inexpensive! Of course, I've already tried this out, but can't tell whether or not anything is being changed, especially as most of my own interest is in black/white photography.
I have to say, looking at Hans Fuerer's images, as well as those of other respected snappers I love, online, the colours seem absolutely perfect on my monitor, but who really knows - including myself - what version of perfection I think that I see?
So what's actually happening during calibration?
Rob C
-
My understanding (which is for sure incomplete and therefore open for discussion) is that the calibration tweak's the monitor's internal responses - usually in respect of white point, brightness and contrast ratio; and that the calibration sets these responses by one time sending instructions through calibration software; that software may or may not be compatible with the computer operating system to which the monitor is connected, so the user needs to assure this before trying it.
-
Hi Rob,
My understanding is "possibly both". A few monitors, such as some recent Benq models and those from the pricing stratosphere, allow "hardware calibration" of the monitor itself (of course it's really software, but software running in the monitor).
I've only ever used low-rent monitors, where the monitor does as it pleases other than for brightness, and the calibration is done by asking the computer to ask the video card to modify the outgoing signal appropriately. The standard calibration tools like Syder etc etc all work that way, although some of them can also be co-opted to do the hardware part of the "hardware"="in monitor" calibration.
-
At a high level, what is happening is the calibration software tells the video card to output a known combination of Red, Green, and Blue ( a colour) to an area spot on the monitor. The sensor reads this and passes back to the software what it read. If they match, then nothing happens. If they do not match, then an adjustment value is entered into a reference table for that colour. The software goes through all or many of the colours it thinks should be displayable on the monitor. The final adjustment table is then used to adjust the output to the monitor each time a colour pixel is sent to the monitor. The adjustment table can reside in the monitor or in the video card, but not both. With CRT, ie TV tube type monitors, most were dumb and only displayed what was sent to them. All adjustments were done in the video card. With LCD panels, it could be in the panel memory as there is a CPU controlling the display digitally. What colours can be output depends both on the colour space (sRGB, Adobe RGB, etc) that is assumed and what the video card and monitor are capable of. Most websites operate using the sRGB colour space since most users do not have calibrated systems nor devices capable of displaying a wider range of colours than the sRGB range.
-
............With LCD panels, it could be in the panel memory as there is a CPU controlling the display digitally. ............
This is the set-up I had in mind in my response. But it's correct not all displays work this way.
-
PS Keith's article on the new 32" Benq talks about in-monitor profiling:
http://www.northlight-images.co.uk/benq-sw320-32inch-4k-monitor-review/
Oh, to further confuse the issue, there is also a distinction between matrix and LUT (Look Up Table) calibration.
As described by degrub, it comes down to modifying the triplet of RGB signals sent from the computer to a corrected triplet. That can be done very efficient with a matrix of 9 values: each "new" value of R, G and B is a weighted combination of the old triplet. That works only if the required calibration is linear. An alternative is to have a large table of values in which you "look up" the computer RGB values, and read off the modified set to send to the screen. Since you can't do that for all possible values, there is a some linear interpolation (ie, my given RGB is halfway between two table entries, so I take the average of the two).
Conceptually then, a bigger LUT means less interpolation and more precision, so people sometime boast about how big their LUT is.
-
When a hardware calibration (the one using some software like ProfileMaker, Argyll etc and a colorimetric device like i1pro) is done, basically three "equalising" curves (for R, G and B channels) are calculated based on the calibration target values (white point, black point, gamma) and the measured RGB response along the gray axis. The calibration curves are then embedded into the color profile and are loaded into the RAM or in the LUT of the monitor.
-
Actually, calibration doesn't modify anything other than the display itself. By the very definition of the word, it is the act of putting the display into a specific state (in our case, that state is the starting point for characterisation/profiling).
Many people get confused between calibration and characterisation. The former is simply putting the display into a known state, a particular condition from which one can then go ahead and perform the latter process, namely characterising their display. Calibration is a physical process or procedure, done in hardware, not software. Software may control and greatly assist with setting the hardware, such as in Eizo CG displays whereby one tells the software what WP one would like, their desired brightness, how dark they want their BP to be set to, their chosen gamma and so on. But none of that has anything to do with profiling or characterising the display.
If one considers a set of digital scales, for example, the kind used in many science classes, which might be accurate to, say, 1/10,000 of a gram or 0.0001g, they would require frequent calibration as a rise in temperature of under 10 degrees centigrade would make the previous calibration invalid. Therefore, one would get the trusty 1.0g weight, place it on the platen to allow the scales to be calibrated to the new ambient temperature.
It's a very similar situation which many of us would be familiar with when one has to place their i1 spectro onto the supplied white tile to calibrate the device. This is simply allowing the spectro's firmware to account for temperature variations, any changes in the lamp's colour or intensity and so on. But none of that has anything to do with the process of characterisation. I think many people get somewhat confused by the two terms because for us, calibration and characterisation are most often so very closely linked.
So, just remember, calibration is putting the display into a known starting condition - characterisation is the profiling procedure and where LUTs and so forth come into play. But they are two completely different and seperate processes that don't necessarily have to be linked in any way. It's just that often the same software application will perform both operations.
FYI: back in the old days, one had to alter the RGB guns of a crt display by twiddling some knobs at the back of the display. And the same action also adjusted the brightness. These were all physical changes performed to get the display to the same starting condition as the last time on chose to build a profile or to ensure that a soft proof was indeed correct because without calibrating the display, how could one have any idea of what they were viewing was even close to what the final output would look like.
Hope that doesn't add too much more confusion for you. Don't worry though, there are a number of excellent books on these processes which explain everything step by step and in detail.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
Here's what happens with an EIZO using Colornavigator. It combines characterization and calibration in one process.
The user selects their desired brightness (cd/m^2) and white point. The white point can be selected by either CIE xy coordinates, temperature, or D (like D50, D55, D65).
The user can also select the RGB xy coordinates if they prefer a slightly different white point tint. Some do this to match a slight tint on the printer viewing station.
Also, one can select either the native R, G, and B emission colors (in CIE xy coordinates) but it is usually best to use "native" which offers the widest possible color gamut. These settings have no affect at all on any image that is within their gamut. Essentially, it determines the position of the three, triangular edges of the display gamut. While one can select xy coordinates that are outside those of the physical monitor, the colors will be clipped at the native edges.
The software then generates a profile that matches those selections and programs the monitor to produce the desired colors, gamma, and intensity of that profile.
Some EIZOs can use 30 bits instead of 24 which can reduce subtle banding in gradients. But the monitor and display controller as well as the application program have to support it. If one doesn't it reverts to 24 bits (8 bits per channel).
You can have as many monitor setups as you wish and just right click the Colornavigator icon and select the one you want. Very handy for switching between, say, sRGB, Adobe RGB, and D50 (for print matching) setups.
-
All clear now, Rob?
;-)
First good giggle of my day!
But seriously, Yes and No:
Yes: yes, I shall probably have to buy a new calibration device after all;
No: no, I am not bright enough to get into deep discussions on matters digital or electronic!
On the latter point, it reflects why I sometimes wonder if I'd even have thought about becoming a photographer had film not been the route into it; had I been faced with only digital, it would have put me right off without trying. Like building my own tv set, for example.
That's not to say that I currently don't enjoy digital photography, but that I do it at all is because I was very familiar with film, and so the learning curve was relegated to processing the files, not how to get them in the first place.
I could never be a geek. Or a hacker.
However, thanks to all of you who have stepped up to bat!
;-)
Rob
-
First good giggle of my day!
Mine, too. Thanks, Klaban! :)
Rob 'n me, all we had to do was look at the thermometer and make sure the Rodinal was at 20C.
-
When one calibrates a monitor, what exactly is being done:
Well, I don't think that you are calibrating the monitor. That was pretty much done when it left the factory. Things may have been different in the CRT days.
Using the scales analogy, you calibrate a set of scales using a standard weight. You put the say 1kg weight on the scales and if the value is wrong then you adjust the scales to read 1Kg. You don't adjust the weight so the scales read 1Kg. If however the maximum weight that the scales take is only 500g, then no amount of calibration will fix it, you have to adjust the input weight to be 500g or less.
However when you "calibrate" a monitor, to me you are adjusting the input the make the appearance correct, as measured by the Spyder etc. If it is too far out then you may need to adjust the brightness, but the colours themselves are just adjusted by making a profile of the monitors response to certain inputs. So to me all that you are doing in calibrating a monitor is making a new profile for the monitor.
At the end of which it usually says, "your new profile is stored at Library/Colorsync/Profiles/newprofile.icc"
-
Well, I don't think that you are calibrating the monitor. That was pretty much done when it left the factory. Things may have been different in the CRT days.
Using the scales analogy, you calibrate a set of scales using a standard weight. You put the say 1kg weight on the scales and if the value is wrong then you adjust the scales to read 1Kg. You don't adjust the weight so the scales read 1Kg. If however the maximum weight that the scales take is only 500g, then no amount of calibration will fix it, you have to adjust the input weight to be 500g or less.
However when you "calibrate" a monitor, to me you are adjusting the input the make the appearance correct, as measured by the Spyder etc. If it is too far out then you may need to adjust the brightness, but the colours themselves are just adjusted by making a profile of the monitors response to certain inputs. So to me all that you are doing in calibrating a monitor is making a new profile for the monitor.
At the end of which it usually says, "your new profile is stored at Library/Colorsync/Profiles/newprofile.icc"
aaron125 got it right. In my original response I was of course referring to calibration - as Aaron says, putting the monitor into a known state before profiling it, which for photographic purposes will almost always differ from the calibration done in the factory. Profiling it creates an information set (based on that calibration) giving the colour management system in your computer the data it needs to correct differences between the monitor response relative to the reference values in the profiling application (those patches it throws up and your colorimeter reads when making the profile). Both processes, whether combined in one operation or separate, are necessary for reliable colour management. Where exactly they operate is hardware dependent, but one thing for sure: the monitor, the video card, the profiling application and the colorimeter all need to be compatible with each other for these processes to be feasible and reliable.
-
Calibration is a physical process or procedure, done in hardware, not software.
the mere fact that firmware and data (LUTs that for example make the "working" gamut of your output device to sRGB or AdobeRGB) reside in a chip in your monitor does not actually make it "done in hardware" as in some actually physical operation dialing a knob on some analog rheostat by hand
---
http://argyllcms.com/doc/calvschar.html
.
-
Pandora had nothing on this in her box of many tricks!
Now some may understand why digital photography would never have had that inital appeal to me of the film version. Digital is too science-minded, technically based when compared with the visceral simplicity of film and wet darkroom work. You can't escape it with digital, but with film it wasn't one's place to be a chemist: all you had to do was know about two films intimately and, perhaps, a basic soup like D76 and you were on your way, needing little more. D163 for prints, and you had it all.
Times change, and with them, people.
;-)
Rob
-
just upgraded to an i1 Display Pro
I have two EIZO monitors one is a Color Edge CS240 the other an Color Edge CG222W
Eizo provides Color Navigator software and xrite iProfiler software
Which tool should I use?
-
All clear now, Rob?
;-)
Haha, might as well add to the confusion then:
The calibration software creates a small file called an ICC profile. It resides on your computer and at startup the computer will read the file and set up the monitor for you.
Theoretically you should be able to copy that file to your other computer, newer system but same monitor, and when properly selected that ICC profile should give you the same monitor experience.
Unfortunately, the "copy & properly selected" part usually is harder than simply recalibrating on the newer system IF your software would work there.
Since your software doesn't seem very cooperative, your choice is either pay your neighbour's 11 year old 30 bucks to tell you how to properly copy and select, or you pay 300 bucks for new software...
-
just upgraded to an i1 Display Pro
I have two EIZO monitors one is a Color Edge CS240 the other an Color Edge CG222W
Eizo provides Color Navigator software and xrite iProfiler software
Which tool should I use?
I also have two EIZO CGs, a 301 and 318. I use Colornavigator and disabled the X-Rite monitor profile management. I also run 30 bits on the 318.
-
Haha, might as well add to the confusion then:
The calibration software creates a small file called an ICC profile.
You are perhaps adding to the confusion. The ICC profile comes from the characterization, not the calibration, though the same software handles both.
-
I think it's important to stress the independence of the calibration state and the subsequent characterisation - also known as the ICC profile. They are not one and the same, and if the calibration is different then the profile is essentially invalid. Hence forth, it should (hopefully?) appear obvious as to why a single profile will not be suitable for a display calibrated to both 5000K, g1.8 and also 6500K, g2.2. If the calibration is different then so to will be the character of the display. This is what's meant by characterisation - one is telling the profiling software about the physical character and properties of the display. Only then can a valid profile start to be built.
But there's absolutely no reason why one couldn't place a single profile in the correct place on two separate systems, as long as EVERYTHING on those two systems is identical. And that goes right down to the way the OS, drivers and various software packages are installed. Any differences between the two systems can lead to your outcome of paying an 11 year old to fix something or wasting much more money on something else.
It's a very familiar situation, that if the essential basics of a particular process are not thoroughly understood then why would one hope that said process would work as intended?
And I'd also stick with ColorNavigator as I can absolutely guarantee that Eizo knows their displays better than X-Rite or anyone else, so therefore the best performance should happen when using their software to control their own hardware.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
You are perhaps adding to the confusion. The ICC profile comes from the characterization, not the calibration, though the same software handles both.
It says: The calibration software creates a small file called an ICC profile
The software is generally known as calibrationsoftware, and its result is an ICC profile. What's the problem?
-
It says: The calibration software creates a small file called an ICC profile
The software is generally known as calibrationsoftware, and its result is an ICC profile. What's the problem?
OK, not to start a whole big deal on semantics, but it's generally known as profiling software, which for displays has two components: calibration followed by profiling (characterization). The ICC profile results most directly from the profiling stage, which first requires setting the parameters (characterization).
-
No idea which software package you're referring to there but it's somewhat messed up when it comes to the boundaries of what it should be doing and the terminology being used.
Perhaps that's another very important factor with which people in general seem to have such great difficulty is comprehending the fact that if one changes a single word in a sentence, then to a computer or support technician (a field in which I've worked for about 15 years, on and off) the sentence can, and almost always will, have an entirely different meaning. Most people tend to not say exactly what they mean and also don't mean *exactly* what they say. I always Rd to do the exact opposite so that there's no point trying to read between the lines as there is nothing to be found.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
Since we can't see the color of white light according to the chosen D65/6500K green/magenta variant, the measuring instrument measures and defines what that color is and tweaks sections of each RGB curve (on the 8 bit video card or 10bit display LUT) to neutralize according to the color of white throughout the entire black to white gray scale.
This is calibrating to a standard (not a standard that matches any real daylight except as defined by what the colorimeter sees and compares against D65/6500K standard). Most modern display's white out of the box are pretty close to the D65/6500K standard at least it was for my LG 27" as measured at the factory by a $10,000 Minolta Color Analyzer, a much more precise instrument than an X-rite colorimeter.
Now that the neutrality of the entire RGB grayscale combo is established by those small tweaks to the curves the measuring instrument measures what those tweaks do to a number of individual color patch targets and builds an ICC profile describing the slight variances which the color management systems uses to render profile tagged image previews.
-
Well, OP is distinctly calling it "calibration" in his post, and I have no problem with his choice of words or with comprehending his question.
What do you guys call a "calibratorpuck" these days?
-
What do you guys call a "calibratorpuck" these days?
if it is a "puck" shaped then it is most probably а colorimeter (spectrometers tend to have a different shape in real life)... colorimeters do not measure spectrum (they like a digital camera with CFA in front of a sensor have 3-4+ colored filters) and hence require correction matrices for each monitor/LCD panel type to account for various spectrum emitted = those matrices either supplied with calibration/characterization software or DIY built if you have a spectrometer or software must be able to extract them either from device or from monitor itself - absent either of these 3 options your "puck" can't be properly used... example = wide gamut monitors and ancient colorimeters (where the OEM software did not have any proper matrices to account for spectrum from CCFLs or *LEDs used to achive gamut above ~sRGB)
-
All clear now, Rob?
;-)
Hi Rob,
This whole discussion reminds me of what the father of one of my childhood friends said when asked how an automobile works.
His answer wa, "Your pour water in the front and gasoline in the back and they mix in the middle and make the car go."
:D
Eric
-
Beautiful Eric! :)
-
Beautiful Eric! :)
My personal variant having more to do with calibration is: "I wave the Munki around my monitor and it makes the colors come out better." ;)
-
Indeed - periodically we need to take an irreverent view of all this stuff - can drive one crazy otherwise! But when serious is serious, good materials properly used produce reliably good results. Right? (I hope.)
-
The main thing is whatever works
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
Hi Rob,
This whole discussion reminds me of what the father of one of my childhood friends said when asked how an automobile works.
His answer wa, "Your pour water in the front and gasoline in the back and they mix in the middle and make the car go."
:D
Eric
That's what I liked about film photography: it worked at that level of need of understanding; you had no need to understand why, just how!
But my problems run deep: I have no 11-year-old neighbours - at the moment I have no neighbours at all. The holIday season starts around Easter. So consulting an expert will have to wait. But even then, being older, my experts will generally know less, and by the time they reach my age, they will know nothing at all. I believe that Mr Leiter reached that conclusion first.
Rob
-
Well, OP is distinctly calling it "calibration" in his post, and I have no problem with his choice of words or with comprehending his question.
What do you guys call a "calibratorpuck" these days?
Well thank goodness for that! Hanging on to sanity in a relative vacuum is not an easy daily task; a lesser man than myself would have given up years ago.
The thing is basic, though: Windows screws about and prevents my previous calibrating 'device'(?) from connecting with the later computer with the later Windows, for which I can blame, directly, neither LaCie's monitor nor their calibrating 'device'.
I do have to wonder, though, whether or not Windows and the puck-makers are all in collusion to sell more units. What else could they possibly have to talk about with one another during their lunch hours in the shiny glass and steel temples?
-
I thought the technical term for "device" was "thingy."
-
Just a thought, but if your previous colorimeter (puck?) doesn't connect, how do you come to the conclusion that a new colorimeter will either a)be able to connect or b)solve the problem? Without explaining exactly what you mean by "windows screws about" how you've determined that windows is actually preventing "previous calibration device (what is "previous" about your device?)" then, what is a "later computer"? and which version of windows is "the later windows" about which you mention?
I'm completely perplexed by all of this as I've never ever had any problems ever connecting at least 1/2 a dozen or more individual devices, spectrophotometers, colorimeters, etc, from connecting to any computer I've built or worked on (I must have personally built, from an empty computer case to a fully functional and *all* peripheral devices working exactly as they should computers, in the past 20 years, maybe 200-300 or more individual computers, both for my own use, for sale to retail customers and supplied with standard 12 month warranties (so they HAVE to work as intended as we would lose serious amounts of revenue by having to troubleshoot and determine exactly what is causing the customer's problems and supply them with a fully functioning and working computer, and, finally, computers built for use in-house in companies ranging from about 5-20 employees and 1/2-2/3 that number of PCs to Victoria's largest call centre operator, where their network consisted of over 5000 individual PCs and employees and around 120 servers of almost every imaginable flavour.
But back to your issue, I can almost guarantee that no company which produces and/or designs colour measurement hardware works in "the shiny glass and steel temples". They'd have labs and huge open floor space setup with specific areas dedicated to hardware design, software design, various individual areas for designing specific aspects of said hardware and software, labs where they would test their own devices against their new products, test the new products against $100,000+ spectrophotometers and spectroradiometers, test their new devices against there competition's devices and so on.
And Microsoft, I'd imagine, couldn't care less about colour management and the companies involved, even though they were at one time (and possibly still are one of the companies who contribute to and create the various ICC specifications for all areas colour management) part of the initial committee who created the first ICC profile specifications but regardless, being that Bill is still one of the wealthiest persons on the planet, I very much doubt that he or his company really care about a tiny, very specific industry, of which Bill's company has very little interaction even through their hundreds of products they sell as it would be a minuscule contribution to his bottom line profit.
Honestly, it's really not very difficult to get almost any half decently designed hardware and drivers/software to work with one's computer. There are certain steps which must be performed, often in a specific order, to allow one device or many devices to work with one or many PCs and OS versions.
If you need help, please be specific and elaborate on every detail and exactly when the problem arose, exactly what you were doing before it happened, how long it was since the device was last used, etc. Without such information, anyone who gives you advice would have to be guessing because you've not given any actual detail as to just exactly what the problem even is or what device you're referring to.
I'm not trying to talk down to you, so please, please do not think that I am. It's just that in IT technical support of any flavour, exact detail of the issue at hand is required to solve the problem as quickly and painlessly as possible.
Please start a new thread regarding your issue and I'll certainly do my best to try and solve the prblem
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
I also have two EIZO CGs, a 301 and 318. I use Colornavigator and disabled the X-Rite monitor profile management. I also run 30 bits on the 318.
Thank you Doug. I was hoping that was what you would say.
cheers elo
-
Just a thought, but if your previous colorimeter (puck?) doesn't connect, how do you come to the conclusion that a new colorimeter will either a)be able to connect or b)solve the problem? Without explaining exactly what you mean by "windows screws about" how you've determined that windows is actually preventing "previous calibration device (what is "previous" about your device?)" then, what is a "later computer"? and which version of windows is "the later windows" about which you mention?
I'm completely perplexed by all of this as I've never ever had any problems ever connecting at least 1/2 a dozen or more individual devices, spectrophotometers, colorimeters, etc, from connecting to any computer I've built or worked on (I must have personally built, from an empty computer case to a fully functional and *all* peripheral devices working exactly as they should computers, in the past 20 years, maybe 200-300 or more individual computers, both for my own use, for sale to retail customers and supplied with standard 12 month warranties (so they HAVE to work as intended as we would lose serious amounts of revenue by having to troubleshoot and determine exactly what is causing the customer's problems and supply them with a fully functioning and working computer, and, finally, computers built for use in-house in companies ranging from about 5-20 employees and 1/2-2/3 that number of PCs to Victoria's largest call centre operator, where their network consisted of over 5000 individual PCs and employees and around 120 servers of almost every imaginable flavour.
But back to your issue, I can almost guarantee that no company which produces and/or designs colour measurement hardware works in "the shiny glass and steel temples". They'd have labs and huge open floor space setup with specific areas dedicated to hardware design, software design, various individual areas for designing specific aspects of said hardware and software, labs where they would test their own devices against their new products, test the new products against $100,000+ spectrophotometers and spectroradiometers, test their new devices against there competition's devices and so on.
And Microsoft, I'd imagine, couldn't care less about colour management and the companies involved, even though they were at one time (and possibly still are one of the companies who contribute to and create the various ICC specifications for all areas colour management) part of the initial committee who created the first ICC profile specifications but regardless, being that Bill is still one of the wealthiest persons on the planet, I very much doubt that he or his company really care about a tiny, very specific industry, of which Bill's company has very little interaction even through their hundreds of products they sell as it would be a minuscule contribution to his bottom line profit.
Honestly, it's really not very difficult to get almost any half decently designed hardware and drivers/software to work with one's computer. There are certain steps which must be performed, often in a specific order, to allow one device or many devices to work with one or many PCs and OS versions.
If you need help, please be specific and elaborate on every detail and exactly when the problem arose, exactly what you were doing before it happened, how long it was since the device was last used, etc. Without such information, anyone who gives you advice would have to be guessing because you've not given any actual detail as to just exactly what the problem even is or what device you're referring to.
I'm not trying to talk down to you, so please, please do not think that I am. It's just that in IT technical support of any flavour, exact detail of the issue at hand is required to solve the problem as quickly and painlessly as possible.
Please start a new thread regarding your issue and I'll certainly do my best to try and solve the prblem
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Hi Aaron,
"Talking down" to me is not a problem (for me): I have almost no understanding of computers and never imagine that I will reach a state of grace where I will have! They scare the hell out of me!
No need for a new thread: this one was started explicitly in the hope of solving my problem. Which is as follows:
I bought a new LaCie monitor some years ago (LaCie 319) and bundled with it came a LaCie blue eye pro that says, on the front of its box:
Automatic hardware calibration for LaCie 300 Series Monitors
Timesaving test & report module
One-click colorimetric environment switching
On the rear of the box it says:
An essential complement to LaCie 300 Series Monitors, the LaCie blue eye pro is a single-click hardware calibration and ICC profiling solution designed for the most demanding graphics professionals. Organized around a simple yet effective monitor calibration flow, it also offers the complete set of functions that professionals expect.
Complete Calibration and profiling Tool
Automatic calibration to target gamma, white point temperature & brightness
Match your monitor calibration to another reference monitor
Manually fine-tune your profile to reach more pecise results
Test & Report Module
Extensively verify the accuracy of your profile
Save gamut measurement & Delta-Es in PDF, HTML or text reports
Advanced Features
Switch between colorimetric environments without recalibrating
Ambient light analysis
Matrix or LUT profiling
Choice of ICC v2 or v4 profiling
Blackpoint adjustment, chromatic adaptation
It goes on to state in a corner of the box:
LaCie blue eye pro seamlessly integrates with ColorSync and applications such as Photoshop, Illustrator, InDesign and QuarkXPress.
....................
With it come two CDs.
The first one is called LaCie Color Utilities
blue eye pro. verison 4
Windows: blue eye pro software installer for Windows XP and Windows 2000
Mac: blue eye pro installer for Mac OS X
..........................
The second CD is:
300 Series LCD Monitor
Utilities CD-ROM
Macintosh and Windows Compatible
blue eye pro Calibration Software
Monitor ICC Profiles
Drivers. User Manuals
...........................
Now, this setup was originally used when I installed it into my Windows XP computer, which I still have, works, but I no longer use. I had no problems using it to do its job with that old computer.
My troubles began when I bought a new, more powerful computer with Windows 8.1.
As I remember it at the time, I tried to install the CDs and nothing happened. I E-mailed LaCie as well as Windows, and if memory serves, LaCie simply suggested the two were now incompatible and Windows didn't even reply.
From the details I've offered, which is all I have apart from the Quick Install Guide, if you think there's something I can try, even perhaps the order in which I should attempt again to install the CDs, I'd be very happy to follow the advice!
But just to touch on this 'talking down' thing: I think that it works in the opposite direction sometimes: experts assume far too much knowledge on the part of the person with the question! Of course, I understand there's a delicate line between a client who knows something about the topic and may take offence if you oversimplify, but in things of this nature I am usually to be found in the innocents enclosure.
;-(
Rob
P.S. The 'device' is what I imagine is meant by a puck: it resembles an ultra-streamlined Weston Master exposure meter that is hung in front of the sceen against a target area that runs the gamut of white, colours and so on during the process.
P.P.S. My system: MS Windows 8.1 64-bit6, Intel Core i5 - 4570 CPU @ 3.20 GHz, 8.0GB RAM, NVIDIA GeForce GTX 650.
-
Rob,
"Windows" is of course Microsoft - that's who should have replied. But you were correct to approach LaCie because Microsoft will not necessarily be aware of the compatibility of every single device out there from one version of Windows to the next; but is annoying when these companies just don't respond. The important question in this respect is whether the LaCie service rep told you about an upgrade path for the software. Normally, but not always, one would find that the device vendor updates their software to remain compatible with the evolution of computer operating systems. So step one is to find out - perhaps easiest on the LaCie website - whether they would have a newer version of the various software components allowing you to update the software and carry on as before. Microsoft has been pretty good about maintaining backward compatibility of their ICM (colour management module) from one version of windows to the next, but not all device manufacturers necessarily update their software to be compliant with updated OSs.
Now, if LaCie does not offer up-graded software for their colorimeter, it is possible that a third-party calibration/profiling vendor such as BasicColor does support it in their application. You could check their website should that become necessary.
-
Thanks, Mark; I'll have another look at the LaCie website. I have not been back for a couple of years, so it is possible that they did do something to change the situation some time after I fell foul of it. Thanks, too for the BasicColor name: I didn't know about the company.
On printing: I had a brief look at my old HP B 9180 black/white prints the other day, on heavy Hanne. paper, and they were quite beautiful to see there, in their nice polyester archival sleeves... I wasn't actually feeling nostalgic as I've given myself another project - I was just looking for a file number I couldn't trace but that I knew had been written on the back of one of those prints.
Thanks again,
Rob
-
Do you have the ability to reinstall Windows, or have someone you know help you perform a reinstall? Preferably windows 7, 64bit or windows 10, 64bit. Windows 8 and 8.1 are somewhat similar in status to that of windows vista, on that for some years, windows xp, x64 (that means 64bit, x86 is 32bit) performed far better in gaming, photoshop benchmarks, various encoding/decoding benchmarks and the like. It even outperformed widows 7 for some months after the initial release of windows 7.
This is similarly true of windows 8/8.1. In fact, there was such an uproar and so many complaints and support calls from windows 8 users that many simply went back to windows 7 and stuck with it until windows 10 came out and many still do use widows 7, by preference over windows 10. I'm one of those users, I actually quite dislike the myriad changes to parts of the GUI which had stated the same or changed extremely little since windows 2000 and windows xp. That's a good 7-10 years of knowing exactly where to go to perform certain tasks that in windows 8/10 have, for seemingly no logical reason whatsoever, actually, the changes are really quite illogical and nonsensical, to say the least. These changes are very similar to the way Microsoft changed the extremely familiar layout of literally hundreds of commands and settings in office 2013. These things had been unchanged since, very likely office 97 or 2000. There is no reason to have made these changes and actually served to alienate their customers, who have simply decided to stick with office 2010 as there are very few updates that improve anything at all for the massive majority of microsoft's installed user base.
I'm just trying to elaborate upon my reason for advocating your reinstall to be windows 7 x64, but if you actually prefer the windows 10 layout and design, by all means, go for it. Just get away from windows 8/8.1 if at all possible.
And I'd say that there would definitely have been many updates to Lacie's software and drivers compared to those on the CDs you mentioned. I actually almost never even bother using the CDs provided with any hardware I use as it's always several updates behind whatever is the latest on a company's website. This is due to the lead time needed to produce the CDs, package the hardware, ship it to various parts of the world, get it on shelves and into the hands of retail customers.
The best part of reinstalling windows from an actual widows installation disc, definitely not the repair partitions which are now provided with almost all new computers because there is just SO MUCH unnecessary and useless software which is installed, and the user has just about zero ability to completely remove all traces of said software due to my initial comments on the lack of reliable uninstall procedures (and the subsequent huge number of so-called 'super-thorough uninstalling applications).
This might be a lot to take in but you'd be very surprised by how much more responsive your most used applications and parts of windows will work without all the left-over rubbish tying them down and unneeded processes stealing your cpu's time.
I'm more than happy to help in any way possible.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
Aaron,
I do have a machine with Vista installed, that I'd bought because I wanted to keep the XP solely for photography, disconnected from, and not at risk of itself getting screwed via the Internet. Consequently, the newer Vista machine was used for communication with the great out-there, though I did try to load PS6 into it, off the CD, but it wouldn't take PS6. Thus, I never tried the calibration device with it either. But it became very slow, and still is when I use it sometimes for old-time's sake. I get a notice telling me the battery is very low... The W8.1 now does the lot: photography and communication - I stopped being scared as I keep the important stuff that I can on a pair of external drives just in case!
Regarding the newer computer with Windows 8.1, when it arrived I was horrified: I couldn't work it at all, the desktop and everything to do with it was totally alien. Somebody on LuLa did me a great service and told me about Classic Shell, which I could download and would convert the system to 'look' like an older model of computer, and that's what made the thing workable for me. However, sometimes, if the pointer is swung off to the extreme right, up pops the damned original 8.1 interface untiil I move rapidly back across the screen. For a long time Microsoft was offering free upgrade to W 10 but I refused to bite: I was scared about what the hell next would become incompatible.
Now here's a question: is it possible to copy an entire C drive onto a second, spare C drive and thus have a working copy of everything, including one's version of Photoshop? I ask, because I've heard that solid drives are more likely to pack up than the old-fashioned type I have in the old computers. It would be reassuring to think that, in a disaster, I could simply have the drives replaced without losing anything and all the trouble involved in getting it all anew. Now you understand why I have no worries about feeling 'talked down' to: it's impossible. I do pictures, and not a lot beyond that.
;-)
Rob
-
Now here's a question: is it possible to copy an entire C drive onto a second, spare C drive and thus have a working copy of everything, including one's version of Photoshop? I ask, because I've heard that solid drives are more likely to pack up than the old-fashioned type I have in the old computers. It would be reassuring to think that, in a disaster, I could simply have the drives replaced without losing anything and all the trouble involved in getting it all anew. Now you understand why I have no worries about feeling 'talked down' to: it's impossible. I do pictures, and not a lot beyond that.
;-)
Rob
Rob, I'm not Aaron, but I was a Windows user till 2010 when I left it for good. At the time I used "Acronis", which provides a complete disk imaging solution for Windows operating systems. I believe it is still prominent. A disk image is essentially your whole computer on another drive.
-
I use windows 10 on most of my computers. It's pretty robust and all my apps work find on it. I also use Win 7 and XP for some really old stuff on a virtual system.
Making an image copy of any disk is pretty easy and Win 10 can mount them where they just look like another drive or you can create VHDs for backup. I have several rotating USB drives for that.
https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/windows/desktop/dd323654(v=vs.85).aspx
-
Absolutely - Acronis True Image is still the premier backup and imaging app for Windows users. It makes the fastest and smallest images of hard drives when compared against other prominent backup apps.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
Absolutely - Acronis True Image is still the premier backup and imaging app for Windows users. It makes the fastest and smallest images of hard drives when compared against other prominent backup apps.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Acronis is fine as long as you never try to remove it. I could tell you a pretty good horror story about that.
Rand
-
I used Acronis for years, but Macrium's Rapid Delta Restore(RDR)
https://blog.macrium.com/2015/03/17/focus-on-macriums-rapid-delta-restore-rdr-3/
convinced-me. (The free version does not have this feature.)
Macrium is also more friendly to the operational system...
-
You are perhaps adding to the confusion. The ICC profile comes from the characterization, not the calibration, though the same software handles both.
Perhaps it's a bit pedantic but characterization can be stored in either the ICC profile, typically in the VCGT tag, or the monitor. The data in the VCGT is loaded into the video card LUTs but is otherwise unused in color management. When the monitor characterization data is stored in the profile's VCGT, it remaps the RGB values in an 8 bit system to ones that result in the desired RGB response. The rest of the profile contains that response as well as the xy coordinates of the RGB colors adapted to D50 and the XYZ values of the white point which is often not D50.
When the characterization data is stored in the monitor, the only portion of this stored in the ICC profile is, typically, only the RGB primary xy coordinates and white point info. For best coverage one choses native for these and the profile then is set for the maximum possible color gamut.
One can even use a standard colorspace, such as sRGB or Adobe RGB if the monitor's color gamut encompasses it. Then the system can be set for the monitor to use that working space.
There are some monitors with built in colorimeters that can be set up to automatically re-calibrate/characterize the monitor to a standard working space. those monitors contain the entire characterization data within the monitor.
-
Perhaps it's a bit pedantic but characterization can be stored in either the ICC profile, typically in the VCGT tag, or the monitor.
No - that's not characterization, that's calibration. It represents a transformation from some desired per channel response to the native per channel response.
Characterization (i.e. profile) data is stored in the ICC profile proper, as a matrix or cLUT data, and doesn't represent any particular transformation of the device behavior.
Displays with color management hardware may allow either per channel calibration curves or colorspace emulation. In neither case is characterization data send to the hardware.
-
No - that's not characterization, that's calibration. It represents a transformation from some desired per channel response to the native per channel response.
Characterization (i.e. profile) data is stored in the ICC profile proper, as a matrix or cLUT data, and doesn't represent any particular transformation of the device behavior.
Displays with color management hardware may allow either per channel calibration curves or colorspace emulation. In neither case is characterization data send to the hardware.
That's my understanding too.
The three 1-dimension tables in the video card (the Video Card Gamma Tables - VCGT) are used to map the tone curve to a specific curve (typically a gamma curve) and set the colour temperature. They can't alter the colour space that the monitor displays. That requires a 3D transformation - usually done in monitors that support this - to map RGB values from one colour space to another. Clearly a monitor is limited in what it can display by the dyes or phosphors in the screen, but potentially a monitor can emulate any colour space that is entirely contained within its native colour space. This means that wide-gamut monitors, that typically have a colour space of about Adobe RGB or perhaps a bit wider, can emulate sRGB. An sRGB monitor can't emulate anything except sRGB or something narrower still.
When one calibrates and profiles a monitor, the software does two things, and then puts the resulting information into a newly-created profile:
- The software calibrates the display - adjusts the tone curve (e.g. to a 2.2 gamma) and white point (e.g. to 6500K) by means of generating a Look Up Table. This information is loaded into the vcgt field of the profile (though technically it isn't profile information).
- The software then characterises (profiles) the display by measuring the tone curve, white point, colour space etc, and putting the resulting measurement into the profile.
When the computer boots up, software reads the profile, extracts the vcgt info and loads it into the video card, which henceforth adjusts all video information sent to the monitor. All programs - whether colour-managed or not - benefit from the adjusted tone curve and white point.
Colour managed programs (only) read the profile for colour space info, and map colours from image colour space to the monitor's colour space (as recorded in the profile) for display. Only colour managed programs will get the right colours (because other programs don't map colours to the monitor's colour space).
For those more advanced monitors with internal 3-D LUTs that can emulate colour spaces other than their native colour space, the calibration/profiling software also creates a colour space mapping table during calibration, and that is loaded into the monitor. Again, all programs will "see" that emulated colour space (but non colour-managed programs won't necessarily get the right colours unless the image colour space happens to be the same as the colour space the monitor is emulating).
-
No - that's not characterization, that's calibration. It represents a transformation from some desired per channel response to the native per channel response.
Characterization (i.e. profile) data is stored in the ICC profile proper, as a matrix or cLUT data, and doesn't represent any particular transformation of the device behavior.
Displays with color management hardware may allow either per channel calibration curves or colorspace emulation. In neither case is characterization data send to the hardware.
Is this a correct interpretation?
The characterization data results from a process and becomes part of the profile, producing transforms available to the color management software. The use of that profile on any system with a monitor in an identical state of calibration would produce the same displayed image.
Device calibration is normally described as that which is only done within the device itself to place it into a known state. The "calibration" data, when stored in the VCGT, is special. It is, in a sense, calibration that is offloaded to piggyback on the monitor's ICC profile. It doesn't participate in color management software. I don't really like to think of this as "calibration" because it isn't something that travels with the monitor. One may consider VCGT tables as sui generis.
However, that same information could, instead, be stored within the color management profile tables and not use VCGT modification at all. Then it is visible to the color software and can be properly called characterization data.
Alternately, the information, specific to that monitor, could be stored internally by the monitor and hence becomes calibration. It travels with the monitor.
-
The VCGT as I've understood it since my first Mac in '98 and explained in my previous response in this thread tweaks each RGB curve in order to neutralize the entire black to white gray scale as it is defined (XYZ) by what the colorimeter measures of the displays actual native color of white which may be on the green or magenta side of a 6500K standard.
This explains why on my old fluorescent backlit Dell if I chose a target 6500K instead of native the VCGT RGB curves would be a lot more distorted and my white would turn a bit pinkish. These tweaks to this VCGT are not to be taken lightly especially the green channel which you can emulate tweaking in Photoshop's point curve. The green channel greatly influences overall density and gamma contrast appearance and is very sensitive to subtle adjustments which play a larger role in controlling banding of gradients within the VCGT especially on 8 bit video cards.
So if your native white that can't be seen by eye what exact color it is, better be pretty damn neutral because if the colorimeter sees too much green (that you can't see) in the white typical of native states of some fluorescent backlit displays then there's the likelihood you're going to get banding relying on VCGT on an 8 bit video card.
Calibrating neutrality in higher bit hardware LUT displays don't have this problem I'm guessing. For my 8bit video VCGT I painstakingly make sure the white of my display is as neutral as possible slightly tweaking my display's RGB gains.
-
Is this a correct interpretation?
Yes it is.
The characterization data results from a process and becomes part of the profile, producing transforms available to the color management software. The use of that profile on any system with a monitor in an identical state of calibration would produce the same displayed image.
Unfortunately it's not clear whether you are referring to the (non-ICC) VCGT tag, or the ICC profile. If the latter, then no - the transforms the profile contains are from/to PCS (i.e. device independent CIE) colorspace, so the device profile sets no targets, and by itself is not capable of producing a particular displayed image. In fact it is not the device profile that determines what the image will look like, it is the source device profile that must be linked with the destination display profile that determines this.
Device calibration is normally described as that which is only done within the device itself to place it into a known state. The "calibration" data, when stored in the VCGT, is special. It is, in a sense, calibration that is offloaded to piggyback on the monitor's ICC profile. It doesn't participate in color management software. I don't really like to think of this as "calibration" because it isn't something that travels with the monitor. One may consider VCGT tables as sui generis.
Yes. It is used to transform the behavior of the display into a calibrated state. This is the difference between calibration and characterization. Calibration is done relative to a desired response, Characterization has no desired response. The mechanisms to store and implement the calibration are irrelevant - it just happens that it is the video display card that always has per channel curves, so some mechanism to save this state on the computer is logical. The fact that the profile depends on the display being in a particular calibration state also makes it useful that the profile can contain the calibration curves, so that the calibration state and matching profile will switch together.
However, that same information could, instead, be stored within the color management profile tables and not use VCGT modification at all.
Yes - but (ignoring ICC V4 absolute colorimetric intent madness) that is exactly the same as profiling the display without calibration curves applied.
i.e. it is only that fact that the VCGT curves are applied outside profiling and the application of the profile, that makes them affect the profiling data.
Then it is visible to the color software and can be properly called characterization data.
Actually it is the opposite - it is then invisible to the color software and may as well not exist. But if the poor state of ICC absolute display colorimetry is taken into account. it does form a useful purpose either way in changing the white point and improving the display behavior by modifying the display behavior in more detail than a profile can conveniently achieve.
-
However, that same information could, instead, be stored within the color management profile tables and not use VCGT modification at all. Then it is visible to the color software and can be properly called characterization data.
Actually it is the opposite - it is then invisible to the color software and may as well not exist. But if the poor state of ICC absolute display colorimetry is taken into account. it does form a useful purpose either way in changing the white point and improving the display behavior by modifying the display behavior in more detail than a profile can conveniently achieve.
Agreed. Another useful purpose of having a calibrated monitor (rather than characterising/profiling the monitor in an uncalibrated state) is that non colour-managed programs will benefit from the calibrated tone curve and white point. As you say, it makes little difference to colour-managed software.
I think it can also help to get the monitor in roughly the right state by manual controls (or automatic display control, if monitor and calibration software support that). That minimises the arithmetic rounding errors that can arise with LUTs.
-
Now here's a question: is it possible to copy an entire C drive onto a second, spare C drive and thus have a working copy of everything, including one's version of Photoshop? I ask, because I've heard that solid drives are more likely to pack up than the old-fashioned type I have in the old computers. It would be reassuring to think that, in a disaster, I could simply have the drives replaced without losing anything and all the trouble involved in getting it all anew. Now you understand why I have no worries about feeling 'talked down' to: it's impossible. I do pictures, and not a lot beyond that.
;-)
Rob
I don't know what the term "pack up" means. If it means "drive failure" that is incorrect as solid state drives are far more reliable than mechanical drives. There are a number of software approaches to protecting yourself from disaster. Some were mentioned by other posters. I happen to use the one that came with NovaBackup which I use as my cloud storage solution. It has a disaster recovery program built in that can restore everything pretty easily.
Addressing your original question about the LaCie colorimeter, it is their responsibility to make sure that it is compatable with future software operating systems. Any disc you have contains drivers that are very old and that's why it won't work with Windows 8.1 (BTW, I've been running 8.1 for over a year now and it's has been rock solid stable. I got this version for my new workstation; the old one ran Win7.) You need to look on line to see if you can find the new driver. It may be that this is old technology that LaCie is no longer supporting in which case you are out of luck.
-
To summarize, there's:
Display Calibration - define display contrast, white balance, brightness set points - either done on the display or the video card. The latter more often. If the calibration is done in the video card different calibration parameters must be used for different screens.
Display Profiling - a set of mapping curves [look-up-tables (LUTs) or a simple matrix set] for the primary colors to correct display deviations from a desired contrast (gamma) curve.
For those who use monitor calibration tools (sensor + software) both calibration and profiling are taken care by that system implementation.
-
To summarize, there's:
Display Calibration - define display contrast, white balance, brightness set points - either done on the display or the video card. The latter more often. If the calibration is done in the video card different calibration parameters must be used for different screens.
Yes that's part of it.
Display Profiling - a set of mapping curves [look-up-tables (LUTs) or a simple matrix set] for the primary colors to correct display deviations from a desired contrast (gamma) curve.
No, this is also part of calibration. The LUTs that alter the Tone Response Curve to a defined curve (typically a gamma curve) are loaded in the video card's gamma table (VCGT) in a combined table that also deals with white point and so on.
Tone Response Curve affects the contrast; there's no specific "contrast" calibration.
For those who use monitor calibration tools (sensor + software) both calibration and profiling are taken care by that system implementation.
Profiling is another stage after calibration, and in that stage the monitor's colour space is measured (not altered). The TRC and white point are also measured. That measurement goes in the profile (along with the LUT data for the VCGT, although strictly VCGT info is not really part of the profile - it just goes in the same file for convenience).
When the system boots up, a utility looks up the profile, extracts the vcgt field, and loads it into the VCGT in the video card. This affects all information sent to the card, so all programs, whether colour-managed or not, get the corrected white point and tone response curve.
The profile information is used only by colour-managed programs, which use the profile to map colours from the image's colour space (sRGB, Adobe RGB or whatever) into the monitor's colour space (as measured during the profiling stage, and unique to that monitor).