Any wise words regarding calibrating the new LED MacBookPros?

[Mosccol]

Just purchased a MOR MBP 15". Very nice and quick.

The default calibration is not nearly as bad as on the old machines but I obviously have to calibrate the screen if I want to use Lightroom. Here is my question: what is the default screen intensity for calibration? Should I go full blast and then tone down in everyday use?

I have a Spyder 2 with original software.

Many thanks

[michaelnotar]

Just purchased a MOR MBP 15". Very nice and quick.

The default calibration is not nearly as bad as on the old machines but I obviously have to calibrate the screen if I want to use Lightroom. Here is my question: what is the default screen intensity for calibration? Should I go full blast and then tone down in everyday use?

I have a Spyder 2 with original software.

Many thanks

i have one too, a few weeks old. love looking at photos dont like editing on it. i recommend lowering the brightness of the screen 2-3 blocks with the brightness key. and calibration helps. i have an eye1 basic unit. my background is the earth from space with clouds and i use the clouds as a guide for brightness.

it is a very vivid screen. very well color corrected out of the box. i still prefer the ACD monitors.

[Wayne Fox]

I've had all three of the unibody macbook pros, the 15", the 17", and now just bought the new 13".

They all calibrated just fine, my brightness to get to around 120 cd/m2 is around 50-60% brightness level.  I actually leave it there most of the time unless room brightness or sunlight dictate a higher level.  Getting around 4.5 to 5 hours of battery out of my new 13".  Smallish screen but clear and sharp ...  a dream to travel with.

[Mosccol]

I've had all three of the unibody macbook pros, the 15", the 17", and now just bought the new 13".

They all calibrated just fine, my brightness to get to around 120 cd/m2 is around 50-60% brightness level.  I actually leave it there most of the time unless room brightness or sunlight dictate a higher level.  Getting around 4.5 to 5 hours of battery out of my new 13".  Smallish screen but clear and sharp ...  a dream to travel with.

Thanks Wayne

How do you get to 120? I don't see any control on the Mac itself and I don't remember seeing anything on the Spyder software either.

[Wayne Fox]

Thanks Wayne

How do you get to 120? I don't see any control on the Mac itself and I don't remember seeing anything on the Spyder software either.

F1/F2 on the PowerBooks control screen brightness. Depending on your settings you may need to hold the fn key down while pressing them.

For finer control you can use the brightness slider in the displays preference pane.

[Mosccol]

F1/F2 on the PowerBooks control screen brightness. Depending on your settings you may need to hold the fn key down while pressing them.

For finer control you can use the brightness slider in the displays preference pane.

Ahem, I know this...

My question is how do you get a measurement of 120?

[Jeremy Payne]

Thanks Wayne

How do you get to 120? I don't see any control on the Mac itself and I don't remember seeing anything on the Spyder software either.

Not sure if the Spyder2 software is different than the Spyder3 ... but on the 3, if you indicate in the wizard that you have backlight control and RGB sliders or a Kelvin setting, it takes you through a calibration sequence before profiling wherein there is a "check" that includes luminance.

Or you could just do what Wayne said and take it down to 50-60%.  There really is no magic to being at exactly 120 ... the right number/setting is the one that suits your purpose(s).

Are you trying to match prints?

[Wayne Fox]

Ahem, I know this...

My question is how do you get a measurement of 120?

sorry, misunderstood your question. Guess I shouldn't read forums and post messages while at the airport on my iPhone

 The calibration software should have a step where it is measuring the luminance dynamically as you modify the brightness.  I've only used xRite's software and that step is pretty obvious.

Jeremy makes a good point ... I actually set the brightness by placing an unprinted sheet of Epson Premium Luster in my viewing station, and open a blank white image in photoshop.  I adjust the brightness of the monitor until the two appear about the same brightness to my eye.  I'm not even positive what the final setting is other than around 60% on my MacBook Pro screen, around 50% on my 24" LED ACD screen, and around 55% on my 30" ACD screen.  I think I did measure it once and it was around 115 cd/m2.  Personally I think this is really the best way to set your brightness if you are trying to match your prints to your screen.

[Mosccol]

sorry, misunderstood your question. Guess I shouldn't read forums and post messages while at the airport on my iPhone

 The calibration software should have a step where it is measuring the luminance dynamically as you modify the brightness.  I've only used xRite's software and that step is pretty obvious.

Jeremy makes a good point ... I actually set the brightness by placing an unprinted sheet of Epson Premium Luster in my viewing station, and open a blank white image in photoshop.  I adjust the brightness of the monitor until the two appear about the same brightness to my eye.  I'm not even positive what the final setting is other than around 60% on my MacBook Pro screen, around 50% on my 24" LED ACD screen, and around 55% on my 30" ACD screen.  I think I did measure it once and it was around 115 cd/m2.  Personally I think this is really the best way to set your brightness if you are trying to match your prints to your screen.

Thanks Wayne!

[Mosccol]

I have now done my first calibration (2.2 + Native) and I found that the results were somewhat different from those achieved with my older MacBookPro (non LED). The difference out of the box is much narrower compared to the calibrated screen and the factory setting is actually slightly warmer than the calibrated one. With the old machine it was almost impossible to do a D65: way too warm. So I had settled on 2.2 + Native; this worked OK.

Any recommendations in terms of white point and temperature for the new LED screens?

Thanks

François

[Czornyj]

I have now done my first calibration (2.2 + Native) and I found that the results were somewhat different from those achieved with my older MacBookPro (non LED). The difference out of the box is much narrower compared to the calibrated screen and the factory setting is actually slightly warmer than the calibrated one. With the old machine it was almost impossible to do a D65: way too warm. So I had settled on 2.2 + Native; this worked OK.

Any recommendations in terms of white point and temperature for the new LED screens?

Thanks

François

I had calibrated the new MBP with i1pro to native and D65 white point - at D65 it showed strong posterization (a matter of 6 bit panel, I guess), so I left it at native.

[digitaldog]

I had calibrated the new MBP with i1pro to native and D65 white point - at D65 it showed strong posterization (a matter of 6 bit panel, I guess), so I left it at native.

At the outset, I'd try Native/Native as this is hardly a high bit display. The EyeOne Pro Spectrophotometer should have no issues with the LED backlight. Some (most) Colorimeters may.

[Jack Flesher]

I've profiled three late LED MacBook Pros and they've all profiled just fine with my i1Pro to 120, D65 and 2.2, all with no posterization or other weirdness.

[jerryrock]

A good article on the subject:

http://www.robgalbraith.com/bins/content_p...cid=7-8741-9027

[lauphoto]

A good article on the subject:

http://www.robgalbraith.com/bins/content_p...cid=7-8741-9027

There is a updated review of the just released MacBook Pros on Galbraith site. Read it here http://www.robgalbraith.com/bins/multi_pag...d=7-10041-10146

Also Apple has an anti-glare solution for the 15 inch MacBook pro. Read that here. http://www.robgalbraith.com/bins/content_p...d=7-10042-10218

john

[Czornyj]

I've profiled three late LED MacBook Pros and they've all profiled just fine with my i1Pro to 120, D65 and 2.2, all with no posterization or other weirdness.

No posterization on 8 bit LUT calibrated 6 bit TN matrix? With all respect, I doubt it.

[digitaldog]

Ol' Rob sure loves to use the term accurate or accuracy (13 times on page one alone) but doesn't define what he's talking about or how he's deciding what's accurate or by what amount. Heck, we don't even know the deltaE let alone which formula for deltaE if he's even got some test matrix.

[Mosccol]

Interesting articles... So 6000K is the sweet spot eh?

I went back to my Spyder and had a Doh! moment: the software only offers fixed temperature... So it's 6500K or nothin'

So I ran a 6500 and again it's way too warm (and even slightly magenta) to be usable. So we're back to 2.2/Native, unless somebody has an idea on how to operate the Spyder2 harware with a different software...

[Czornyj]

Interesting articles... So 6000K is the sweet spot eh?

I went back to my Spyder and had a Doh! moment: the software only offers fixed temperature... So it's 6500K or nothin'

So I ran a 6500 and again it's way too warm (and even slightly magenta) to be usable. So we're back to 2.2/Native, unless somebody has an idea on how to operate the Spyder2 harware with a different software...

Spyder2 will not calibrate the white point of LED-backlit display properly with any software - there's no slightest chance and I wouldn't even try it. Actually I also wouldn't even trust it when it comes to gamma calibration and profiling. There's a chance that instead of calibrating, it makes things worse - this chart is grey when viewed on a gamma 2,2 calibrated display, at 1:1 magnification:
http://members.chello.pl/m.kaluza/rzeznik_lcduf.png
The more saturated RGB and CMY color casts can be seen, the worse. Check if it's not better without gamma calibration.

[Mosccol]

There's a chance that instead of calibrating, it makes things worse - this chart is grey when viewed on a gamma 2,2 calibrated display, at 1:1 magnification:
http://members.chello.pl/m.kaluza/rzeznik_lcduf.png
The more saturated RGB and CMY color casts can be seen, the worse. Check if it's not better without gamma calibration.

Interesting, the charts appear with dominant gray but visible striping. Calibration only seems to affect the RGB banding; the CMYK remains fairly constant

- Under the original calibration (out of the box), you get a fairly light gray and light stripes
- Under 2.2 Native you get a much more intense gray and slightly more contrasted RGB banding
- D65 remains a joke

As I'm note sure what I am looking for it's hard to tell if calibration makes things worse or not!