Pages: [1]   Go Down

Author Topic: My gamut is wider than my head.  (Read 1681 times)

KirbyKrieger

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 422
    • Kirby Krieger Pictures
My gamut is wider than my head.
« on: May 09, 2011, 01:38:36 pm »

This is a beginner-to-color-management question.  I wouldn't mind at all if is were moved to the Beginner's Forum -- but I thought it specific and better posted here.

Mac OS X, MacBook Pro 13" '09 (2.26 GHz Intel Core 2 Duo w. NVIDIA GeForce 9400M w. 32-bit pixel depth on all monitors).  Main use is Aperture, also Safari, etc.  All software up-to-date.
NEC Multisync 2490WUXi2
NEC Multisync PA271W
SpectraView II v. 1.1.07
ColorMunki Photo
(Epson 3880, printing almost entirely on Epson Hot Press Natural with matte black ink.  Have recently been printing with an Epson 9900 as well.)

Since I've hooked up the PA271W -- wide gamut -- my color management has gone out of whack.  Prior to that, I was using the 2490WUXi2 and had successfully set the monitor (using SpectraView II and the ColorMunki) and the printer to match well.  I suspect my problem is relatively simple, and may be related to color space and/or the default values assigned to JPG images.

I have several times calibrated the PA271W (using SpectraView II and the ColorMunki).  I have created new targets with lower luminance values (the default is 140, which I found much too bright).  The calibration goes well, but the luminance value does not seen to change enough.  I've got it set to 100 now, and it is still too bright.  I am calibrating to the "Photo Editing" target.  I have made no changes other than luminance.

The highest resolution I get for the PA271W is 1920 x 1080 @ 60 Hz (it can go to 2560 X 1440).  I assume this is limited by my GPU.

All hues are much too saturated, especially reds and greens (but that may be a sampling error based on images of people and plants).  JPGs, in both Aperture and Safari, seem much more effected than the RAW images rendered in Aperture (but RAW is still looking too saturated).  Web pages look terrible.  System colors vary -- sometimes they show overly saturated, over times they are dulled (under-saturated) -- again, much more visible in reds than any other hue.  Print matching is now impossible.

What steps should I take to regain control of my color management?  Is there a standard way to start from scratch and calibrate everything?  Is the monitor simply too much for my computer?

Thanks, as always, much.   :)

artobest

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 287
Re: My gamut is wider than my head.
« Reply #1 on: May 12, 2011, 05:09:16 pm »

As a Windows user I can't really help with your colour problems, but that low maximum resolution might be caused by using a single-link DVI cable instead of dual-link or DisplayPort. Just a thought, sorry if I'm way off base.
Logged

KirbyKrieger

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 422
    • Kirby Krieger Pictures
Re: My gamut is wider than my head.
« Reply #2 on: May 12, 2011, 05:39:25 pm »

Quote
... that low maximum resolution might be caused by using a single-link DVI cable instead of dual-link or DisplayPort. Just a thought ...

Almost exactly correct -- at least it seems so.  The problem wasn't the cable itself, but was the throughput.  Apple sells a USB-powered Mini-DisplayPort to DVI (dual link) adapter for $100.  The one I had been using is not powered, and apparently was not up to the job.

NEC techs diagnosed the problem and suggested a better, cheaper solution.  NEC overnighted a Mini-DisplayPort to DisplayPort cable to me (I paid $30 for it).  I'm just now testing various calibration targets -- but I seem to now have full access to the monitor I purchased.  Will update with more information if this isn't a full solution, but I can already report that the luminance is being properly set for the targets chosen, the color looks to be, well,  not all screwed up, and I am currently running the external monitor at 2650 x 1440.  The difference may not literally be "night and day" but is certainly close to "Mickey Mouse" vs. reality.

Many thanks for the reply.  I might still be balding myself over this one.
Pages: [1]   Go Up