ColorEyes Display Pro + Apple 30" Cinema Display == Posterization Mania!

[robackja]

The ColorEyes forums provide no help and if I knew this before dropping $325 on CEDP I wouldn't have wasted my money. I mean no response in the forums. Not even, you're an idiot and doing it all wrong. So I don't know if its my problem, my hardware setup limitations, etc.

Anyone with a similar setup and similar experience?

Hardware Setup

* Apple Macbook Pro 17" (June 2009 model)
* Apple Cinema Display 30" (using mini-displayport to dual-link DVI adapter)

ColorEyes Calibration Setup

* ColorEyes Display Pro DTP-94 Bundle
* Software: CEDP v1.52r026
* Calibration #1: DTP-94, ICC v2, Matrix, D65, Max Luminance, L*, Relative Min
* Calibration #2: Spyder2Express, ICC v2, Matrix, D65, Max Luminance, L*, Relative Min

Spyder2PRO Calibration Setup

* Spyder2Express Calibration Puck
* Software: Spyder2PRO v2.3.1
* Calibration #3: Spyder2Express, ICC v2, 6500K

Problem: Posterization

When I am looking at gradients, especially in B&W photos, the dark areas of very blocky, posterized using any profile from the ColorEyes setup in Lightroom v2.4, Firefox, Safari, or Preview applications. The Mac OSX default profile or ones generated from the Spyder2PRO software do not exhibit this behavior.

I've also tried, LUT 16-bit ICC v4 profiles and they appear to be even worse. I've tried setting the Luminance using 16-bit v4 profile to various settings, 100,120,180,200,350,Max. 200cm/d^2 resulting in the best gradients, but still very blocky and not smooth like the Spyder2PRO profile. Choosing Gamma 2.2 or L* doesn't seem to matter much either.

DTP-94 + ColorEyes Calibration #1. The black jacket is basically one giant blob.

[Andrew Fee]

Use the DTP-94 instead of the Spyder, it's a better meter.

Try:
ICC v2
LUT based 16-bit
Apply White-Point Tuning

D65
Maximum Luminance
2.2 Gamma
Black Rendering: Relative
Minimum Luminance


One of the problems is that you have to calibrate Apple displays in the graphics card, rather than being able to adjust high bit-depth internal LUTs like you get with Eizo or other graphics monitors. (while the profile is 16-bit, only 8-bit is output from the graphics card)

[Pat Herold]

One of the *benefits* of Coloreyes Display normally is that it allows you to adjust your luminance beyond what your monitor's hardware can accomplish.  In other words, if your display is too bright, CEDPro will make use of the video card to reduce the luminance further until your aimpoint is reached.  If it has to bring this down a great deal you might be banding or posterization.

In your case, are you sure you have used the on -screen buttons or F-keys to bring down the backlighting on your Cinema display?  Have you been through the Pre-calibration procedure in CEDP?  You have to turn down the brightness "manually" before going on with the rest of the profiling procedure.  Otherwise you will likely get posterization or banding.

[Andrew Fee]

One of the *benefits* of Coloreyes Display normally is that it allows you to adjust your luminance beyond what your monitor's hardware can accomplish.  In other words, if your display is too bright, CEDPro will make use of the video card to reduce the luminance further until your aimpoint is reached.  If it has to bring this down a great deal you might be banding or posterization.

In your case, are you sure you have used the on -screen buttons or F-keys to bring down the backlighting on your Cinema display?  Have you been through the Pre-calibration procedure in CEDP?  You have to turn down the brightness "manually" before going on with the rest of the profiling procedure.  Otherwise you will likely get posterization or banding.

ColorEyes should automatically adjust the brightness of a Cinema display (or an Apple notebook's own screen) if it's running in OSX, so I'd be surprised if that was the issue.

Using L* rather than 2.2 gamma is a lot more likely to cause posterisation due to the linear segment near black.

Because the calibration is done on the video card's LUTs rather than the monitor, any adjustments are going to cause posterisation. How much there is, and if it's problematic depends on your settings and how accurate the monitor is.

As you said, if you use ColorEyes to lower the brightness of your display past its lowest backlight setting, the only way to reduce it further is to limit the RGB values being sent to the monitor, further reducing the steps of gradation available.


I think using matrix profiles and L* as the target are going to be what was causing this problem. If using a 16-bit LUT profile and 2.2 gamma doesn't improve things enough, the only option is a new monitor that has adjustable LUTs.

[robackja]

ColorEyes should automatically adjust the brightness of a Cinema display (or an Apple notebook's own screen) if it's running in OSX, so I'd be surprised if that was the issue.

yea, ColorEyes has an Apple Monitor Kernel extension it installs and it dims the monitor setting automatically for Apple Monitors as long as the USB cable is connected directly from the monitor to the computer, no hubs in between. If I up the brightness and then load the profile using the LUT Loader.app or the Calibration software, the display dims and if I check the OSD or the System Preferences panel it adjusts to the luminance value I set it to.

I think using matrix profiles and L* as the target are going to be what was causing this problem. If using a 16-bit LUT profile and 2.2 gamma doesn't improve things enough, the only option is a new monitor that has adjustable LUTs.

Yea, I figured the Apple monitor isn't anywhere near a good Eizo, but its unusable with the profiles I am currently generating. I will generate some new profiles with your suggestions when I get home from work.

Thanks. I appreciate all your help

[robackja]

Have you been through the Pre-calibration procedure in CEDP?

I've done the guided tour, advanced way. There are just so many combinations to try and it takes about 8 min per calibration + validation. So i'll try Andrew's recommendations and see how it all turns out.

[robackja]

ColorEyes should automatically adjust the brightness of a Cinema display (or an Apple notebook's own screen) if it's running in OSX, so I'd be surprised if that was the issue.

Using L* rather than 2.2 gamma is a lot more likely to cause posterisation due to the linear segment near black.

Because the calibration is done on the video card's LUTs rather than the monitor, any adjustments are going to cause posterisation. How much there is, and if it's problematic depends on your settings and how accurate the monitor is.

As you said, if you use ColorEyes to lower the brightness of your display past its lowest backlight setting, the only way to reduce it further is to limit the RGB values being sent to the monitor, further reducing the steps of gradation available.


I think using matrix profiles and L* as the target are going to be what was causing this problem. If using a 16-bit LUT profile and 2.2 gamma doesn't improve things enough, the only option is a new monitor that has adjustable LUTs.

Ok, I've tried this settings and things are looking much better I believe. I also found out that using the "Camera" profiles in Lightroom also caused extra loss in the shadows. After recalibration, I switched my most problematic photos from Camera Standard to Adobe Standard, and instantly, shadow details appeared.. funny. I currently away until August 24th, but when I return home, its time for the real test. A good old fashioned print test

Sucks that Adobe Standard or ACR 4.3/4.4 give skin tones such a poor pinkish hue to them compared to Camera Standard.

[jackbingham]

There are plenty of references on the ICC forum about L* being a problem with Lightroom. So for the time being I would stick with 2.2
And just for the record you posted your question on the 8th which was a Saturday and I responded on the 13th with a list of questions and screen capture requests to which we have gotten no response.

[robackja]

There are plenty of references on the ICC forum about L* being a problem with Lightroom. So for the time being I would stick with 2.2
And just for the record you posted your question on the 8th which was a Saturday and I responded on the 13th with a list of questions and screen capture requests to which we have gotten no response.

Yes, i was going out of town on the 15th, i won't be back until the 24th, and as much as I would like to carry my cinema display on the airplane and have it where-ever I go, I can't  I was planning on posting upon my return to double check with you. thanks.

[Jeremy Payne]

I also found out that using the "Camera" profiles in Lightroom also caused extra loss in the shadows. After recalibration, I switched my most problematic photos from Camera Standard to Adobe Standard, and instantly, shadow details appeared.. funny. I currently away until August 24th, but when I return home, its time for the real test. A good old fashioned print test

Sucks that Adobe Standard or ACR 4.3/4.4 give skin tones such a poor pinkish hue to them compared to Camera Standard.

I completely agree ... I've recently come to the same conclusion.  I like the color rendition out of the box of my camera profiles, but for the same reason - shadow detail - I've switched to Adobe Standard.

I find that when the skin or other colors aren't pleasing using Adobe Standard out-of-the-box, I can fix that more easily than undoing the 'curve' applied by the camera profiles, or at least with less 'damage'.