Would graphics card upgrade need new printer profile?

[MarkJohnson]

Would upgrading the ATI Radeon HD 4870 512 MB graphics card on my early 2009 Mac Pro 4.1 necessitate reprofiling my Epson SP 7900 printer, or just my Eizo ColorEdge display? I would rather put up with slow rendering in secondary display than have to replace Eric Chan's printer profiles. (RAM is 16 GB and apps are on an SSD.)

[Mark D Segal]

Only the display.

[MarkJohnson]

As I thought - thanks very much.

[torger]

And really, not the display either right? These days the signal is digital so I don't think colors will change if you change graphics card, it will still send the same digital colors to the screen as the old card.

[Mark D Segal]

And really, not the display either right? These days the signal is digital so I don't think colors will change if you change graphics card, it will still send the same digital colors to the screen as the old card.

If there is any uncertainty about that, it takes little effort to re-profile a display just to be sure.

[daicehawk]

And really, not the display either right? These days the signal is digital so I don't think colors will change if you change graphics card, it will still send the same digital colors to the screen as the old card.

I guess it depends only on the freedom of the calibration curves format. If there is a strict format, then neither display profiles have to be remade if we are talking about digital connection. 

[torger]

Yes probably safest as suggested to redo screen calibration. It doesn't cost any paper and is generally fully automatic anyway, unlike printer profiling

[Alexey.Danilchenko]

If there is any uncertainty about that, it takes little effort to re-profile a display just to be sure.

The OP said he has Eizo ColorEdge - that has DVI-D 24 pin, DisplayPort, HDMI which are all digital interfaces. No reprofiling is necessary.

To OP: As it is with any profiling it helps to understand what is being profiled here and since the days of analogue interfaces are thing of the past it is the end device only (as in monitor) not the graphics card, CPU, harddisk etc.

[MarkJohnson]

Alexey,thanks. I understand only the most essential essentials of colour management. The graphics card itself has colour look-up tables, I gather, so I don't know if/how they involve themselves in display calibration. Eizo states that its ColorNavigator calibration software interfaces with the LUT of the monitor itself.

[Alexey.Danilchenko]

Alexey,thanks. I understand only the most essential essentials of colour management. The graphics card itself has colour look-up tables, I gather, so I don't know if/how they involve themselves in display calibration. Eizo states that its ColorNavigator calibration software interfaces with the LUT of the monitor itself.

Since you have hardware LUT in monitor - graphics card lut is not even used.

[Doug Gray]

Since you have hardware LUT in monitor - graphics card lut is not even used.

Yep. I have the same setup with LUTs in the monitor. Graphic's card is irrelevant. Even when it is there is rarely an issue unless it's being used in an analog mode like with the old VGA type adapters. Haven't seen those in well over a decade.

[fdisilvestro]

Wouldn't it be necessary to recalibrate if you are upgrading from a 8-bit per channel capable graphics card to a 10-bit per channel?

[daicehawk]

Wouldn't it be necessary to recalibrate if you are upgrading from a 8-bit per channel capable graphics card to a 10-bit per channel?

Definitely it is since the physical output of the display changes IMO.

[Doug Gray]

Wouldn't it be necessary to recalibrate if you are upgrading from a 8-bit per channel capable graphics card to a 10-bit per channel?

No. All 10 bit monitors are calibrated by the monitor's internal LUTs. You can switch them back and forth between 8 bit and 10 bit video cards without any problem. A 10 bit card often operates in 8 bit mode anyway. The profile and card are 8 bit/10 bit agnostic.