Luminous Landscape Forum
Raw & Post Processing, Printing => Colour Management => Topic started by: rasterdogs on March 28, 2022, 09:21:35 pm
-
I've seen claims on the internet that Apple calibrates these so well that users don't need to do after-the-fact calibration.
I'm skeptical but since it is on the internet it must be true, right?
If I do need to do a basic calibration what are the recommended monitor profiling tools that folks are using?
My ancient X-rite Colormunki seems to have died.
-
Many (all?) newer Apple displays are calibrated at the factory. That's good. Unless the calibration isn't ideal for your needs. Then you need to recalibrate to those aim points.
What we also do not know is if the displays change behavior over time (most likely yes) so again, recalibration.
Get an i1Display Pro if you can afford one.
-
Many (all?) newer Apple displays are calibrated at the factory. That's good. Unless the calibration isn't ideal for your needs. Then you need to recalibrate to those aim points.
What we also do not know is if the displays change behavior over time (most likely yes) so again, recalibration.
Get an i1Display Pro if you can afford one.
Thanks Andrew, if funds are scarce is there a less expensive alternative?
-
I've seen claims on the internet that Apple calibrates these so well that users don't need to do after-the-fact calibration.
I'm skeptical but since it is on the internet it must be true, right?
If I do need to do a basic calibration what are the recommended monitor profiling tools that folks are using?
My ancient X-rite Colormunki seems to have died.
Haven't seen the Studio Display yet, but my MBP 16 M1 Pro has reference grade display, and you can calibrate it to any target without a calibrator - just by clicking desired white point, luminance and TRC (like in case of my NEC PA311D and MultiProfiler). I checked it with external sensor and it's always spot on.
Note that default "Apple XDR Display (P3-1600 nits) preset has a white point corrected from D65 x0.313 y0.329 to 10 deg 1964 D65 which is x0.311 y0.329 in case of this PFS WLED IPS, which gives more neutral look (2 deg 1931 D65 calibrated display has a bit of magenta tint).
-
Thanks Andrew, if funds are scarce is there a less expensive alternative?
No, especially not for PFS WLED IPS type displays
-
Haven't seen the Studio Display yet, but my MBP 16 M1 Pro has reference grade display, and you can calibrate it to any target without a calibrator - just by clicking desired white point, luminance and TRC (like in case of my NEC PA311D and MultiProfiler). I checked it with external sensor and it's always spot on.
Note that default "Apple XDR Display (P3-1600 nits) preset has a white point corrected from D65 x0.313 y0.329 to 10 deg 1964 D65 which is x0.311 y0.329 in case of this PFS WLED IPS, which gives more neutral look (2 deg 1931 D65 calibrated display has a bit of magenta tint).
Thanks, Where do I find the interface where these adjustment can be implemented?
For instance if I want to set display brightness to some where between 80 to 120 cd where do I go to make such a setting?
-
My ancient X-rite Colormunki seems to have died.
It's Alive! After a click fest I got to Colorbrite and followed the instructions on this page: https://support.xritephoto.eu/document2/
Lo and behold the old ColorMunki Display came alive. The documentation from Colorbrite says the software is updated for OSX Big Sur but doesn't mention that it works with OSX Monterey. I'm running Montery and all's well.
I'm impressed that this device is still supported as it's pretty old.
-
It's Alive! After a click fest I got to Colorbrite and followed the instructions on this page: https://support.xritephoto.eu/document2/
Lo and behold the old ColorMunki Display came alive. The documentation from Colorbrite says the software is updated for OSX Big Sur but doesn't mention that it works with OSX Monterey. I'm running Montery and all's well.
I'm impressed that this device is still supported as it's pretty old.
That's good, but its not the device you want to be using on the newer Apple displays due to the backlight. Czornyj pointed out why.
-
Czornyj pointed out why.
Not really. The ColorMunki Display is an i1d3 with the same HW to all the other i1d3's.
-
You can't tell the players without a scorecard folks!...
X-Rite ColorMunki Display (https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/798928-REG/X_Rite_CMUNDIS_ColorMunki_Display.html) (colorimeter) = X-Rite i1Display Studio (https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1506566-REG/x_rite_eodisstu_i1display_studio.html) = Calibrite ColorChecker Display (https://calibrite.com/us/product/colorchecker-display-monitor-profiling/)
All the same hardware with different branding, distribution, packaging, and/or software. Just like you will find with other X-Rite / Pantone / Calibrite branded instruments with the confusing mess made in marketing them in different flavors thru different channels. They especially like to use similar names for entirely different hardware or completely different names for exactly the same hardware or different brands of the same hardware with firmware variants to limit software compatibility.
Of course among X-Rite colorimeters, there is also the variant known as the X-Rite i1Display Pro (https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/798930-REG/X_Rite_EODIS3_i1Display_Pro.html?fromDisList=y) which = the Calibrite ColorChecker Display Pro (https://calibrite.com/us/product/colorchecker-display-pro-monitor-calibration/) or is also sold with firmware limits as an OEM product like the NEC MDSVSENSOR3 (https://www.sharpnecdisplays.us/products/sensors/mdsvsensor3) as well as other X-Rite OEM Flavors (https://www.xrite.com/service-support/oem_i1display_pro_devices) too confusing to be mentioned in polite company. For the adventurous with time to spare... this is a guide (https://www.displaycalibrations.com/x-rite_i1_measurement_solutions_info.html) to some of the variations X-Rite has created.
And here's a PDF from X-Rite (https://www.xrite.com/-/media/xrite/files/literature/l7/l7-500_l7-599/l7-507_colormunki_display_and_i1display_pro_comparison/l7-507_displaysolutions_en.pdf) comparing the ColorMunki Display with the i1Display Pro, each have been replaced by a new model with the same hardware but a different name. Confused yet?
Baseball season is starting up... get your scorecards!
(https://bulldogvintage.files.wordpress.com/2012/01/kgrhqfp8e63zwgz3bpeyjquw60_3.jpg?w=584)
Image from... bulldogvintage.wordpress.com (https://bulldogvintage.wordpress.com)
-
I've seen claims on the internet that Apple calibrates these so well that users don't need to do after-the-fact calibration.
Need is relative just like desire. If you're a one person operation, you can pretty much do as you like with regard to calibration and profiling. You can find a lot of opinions and assertions on forums regarding whether or not you need to calibrate from individuals based on their personal experience.
On the other hand, if you're working in a collaborative production environment, you're likely going to need to measure and calibrate every so often as a requirement of whoever is paying the bills or is in charge of production. In every production environment that I've encountered, I think it would generally be considered unprofessional, irresponsible, or plain nuts to assume that any hardware is performing as it should without measuring its output on occasion for either confirmation or correction of output behavior. In the case of a monitor, that's going to mean a device in front of the screen measuring what is actually coming out.
I'm skeptical but since it is on the internet it must be true, right?
I like your attitude! ;)
-
It's Alive! After a click fest I got to Colorbrite and followed the instructions on this page: https://support.xritephoto.eu/document2/
Lo and behold the old ColorMunki Display came alive. The documentation from Colorbrite says the software is updated for OSX Big Sur but doesn't mention that it works with OSX Monterey. I'm running Montery and all's well.
I'm impressed that this device is still supported as it's pretty old.
Good work!
-
If I do need to do a basic calibration what are the recommended monitor profiling tools that folks are using?
In addition to the Calibrite ccStudio software (https://calibrite.com/us/software-downloads/), another free option for your X-Rite ColorMunki Display (aka X-Rite i1Display Studio/Calibrite ColorChecker Display) would be DisplayCal (https://displaycal.net). DisplayCal provides a broad array of capabilities. It's a GUI designed to utilize the code from ArgyllCMS (http://www.argyllcms.com) (Color Management System).
The widely used and appreciated Argyll Color Management System is the result of the labors of Graeme Gill (aka GWGill on Luminous Landscape). He also happens to be participating in this thread. There's a player to note on your scorecard.
-
In addition to the Calibrite ccStudio software (https://calibrite.com/us/software-downloads/), another free option for your X-Rite ColorMunki Display (aka X-Rite i1Display Studio/Calibrite ColorChecker Display) would be DisplayCal (https://displaycal.net). DisplayCal provides a broad array of capabilities. It's a GUI designed to utilize the code from ArgyllCMS (http://www.argyllcms.com) (Color Management System).
The widely used and appreciated Argyll Color Management System is the result of the labors of Graeme Gill (aka GWGill on Luminous Landscape). He also happens to be participating in this thread. There's a player to note on your scorecard.
Thanks for all the great information!
I was calibrating my iMac and printing in an Epson Stylus Pro 3800 up until ~3 years ago.
The printer died and I started making photo books using Blurb.
Neglected to profile my display, used a profile I'd made using the Munki from 2017.
The resulting book photos were ok.
As I'm waiting to receive an Apple Studio Display I'm thinking I'll check the Apple included profiles and see what gives. Apple seems to have continued to evolve their display calibration and profiles over the past ~5 years.
Thanks for the pointer to DisplayCal, I'll check that out.
All of this is just so complex and wonderful. 8)
-
...As I'm waiting to receive an Apple Studio Display I'm thinking I'll check the Apple included profiles and see what gives. Apple seems to have continued to evolve their display calibration and profiles over the past ~5 years...
...All of this is just so complex and wonderful. 8)
Enjoy your new display! It has a great looking industrial design and I'm sure it will produce a pleasing viewing experience.
-
With regard to calibration... Given the continuous flow of magic, myth, and marketing hype being sold by manufacturers and by individuals populating the internet — often by misusing, conflating, or wowing you with terminology and sometimes by comparing an Apple to an orange (or to a reference monitor) — to amaze, confuse, and hold us spellbound... please allow me to clear up some terminology.
Calibration and configuration are not the same thing. Selecting a preset "display reference mode (https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT210435)" or creating a "custom refernce mode (https://support.apple.com/guide/mac-help/create-custom-reference-modes-mchl50ecf3c4/mac)" is configuration of the display for a selected set of reference values. Calibration (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calibration) of the display requires measuring the actual display output and comparing that to the standard reference values you've selected in your preset or custom configuration. Configuration is a selection process for the targets that you want to achieve. Calibration is a measurement and comparison process to evaluate actual performance in meeting those targets.
The essential ingredients are measurement of actual output, comparison to a standard, and any needed correction to meet the standard's tolerance for error. That's calibration. This is often followed by remeasuring for verification of the calibration.
-
Thanks, Where do I find the interface where these adjustment can be implemented?
For instance if I want to set display brightness to some where between 80 to 120 cd where do I go to make such a setting?
You just enter System Preferences > Display > Presets > Customize Presets > +, then you just choose gamut, white point, TRC and brightness value. In case of my Macbook Pro 16 it autocalibrates itself to chosen targets very precisely, I had checked it with my i1D3's, and there's virtually nothing to correct. And in fact you even can't make standard calibration with vcgt, nor create a profile, there's simlply no such option in MacOS for Macbook Pro 14/16 and Studio displays.
-
You just enter System Preferences > Display > Presets > Customize Presets > +, then you just choose gamut, white point, TRC [Tone Response Curve, also referred to as Electro-Optical Transfer Function (EOTF) or Display Gamma] and brightness value. In case of my Macbook Pro 16 it autocalibrates itself to chosen targets very precisely...
That isn't calibration (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calibration). The display was calibrated at the factory before you began using it. They measured a variety of display output characteristics with a calibration device and compared those measurements to target values (calibration standards) and made any corrections needed to bring the display within their set of acceptable manufacturing tolerances.
When you change the settings (brightness, gamma, etc.) adjustments are calculated and applied by software and firmware which reference the measurements from the previous calibration at the factory. What it does not do is perform a new calibration of the display.
A set of calibrations was completed at the factory. A new calibration isn't going to be performed unless you choose to do so with your own measuring device or hire someone to calibrate it with their measuring device.
...I had checked it with my i1D3's [X-Rite i1Display Pro/Calibrite ColorChecker Display Pro colorimeter]...
That's calibration.
...and there's virtually nothing to correct.
Then you're good to go, unless you choose to correct whatever falls outside of virtually.
-
And in fact you even can't make standard calibration with vcgt [Video Card Gamma Table], nor create a profile, there's simlply no such option in MacOS for Macbook Pro 14/16 and Studio displays.
Apple has gone out of their way to make the latest MacBook Pro XDR and Studio Displays very unfriendly to users that want or need to calibrate their display from time to time. There are options for calibrating and for creating profiles, Apple has just hidden them or made them inconvenient for users. What Apple offers are two pretty ridiculous options. One is a digital Stone Age method and the other resembles a science fair project.
The primitive calibration method is pretty much the same visual comparison method that has been around forever — Apple's Display Calibrator Assistant (https://support.apple.com/guide/mac-help/calibrate-your-display-mchlp1109/mac). This uses your eyes as the measurement device and your visual cortex for comparisons with a visual reference displayed on the screen as the standard. If Display Calibrator Assistant isn't readily accessible thru System Preferences › Displays › Color › Calibrate, it's because Apple decided to hide it from you in Macintosh HD › System › Library › ColorSync › Calibrators (https://forums.macrumors.com/attachments/screen-shot-2021-10-27-at-5-41-55-pm-png.1881203/) where it continues to live. It functions pretty much the way it has for decades and is usually best avoided. The options available will vary somewhat depending on what you're calibrating (computer/ display/ macOS) but will look something like this (https://www.maketecheasier.com/calibrate-mac-display/). It's not how you'd normally want to calibrate any respectable display for use in serious color editing.
The science fair method provided by Apple to "fine-tune the calibration" (white point and luminance only) for the Apple Studio Display (https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT213072) or Liquid Retina XDR MacBook Pro (https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT212851) is to download QuickTime movie test patterns from Apple's AVFoundation website for developers. Then "use your in-house spectroradiometer to measure" and then manually enter the white point x/y and luminance readings measured and target values desired into boxes as shown in the links. Not a real user friendly method for those wishing to calibrate their display occasionally.
There are other software calibration options like DisplayCal. To change or confirm the profile in use, you may need to use ColorSync Utility (https://support.apple.com/guide/colorsync-utility/change-a-devices-color-profile-csync005/mac) which would look like this (https://forums.macrumors.com/attachments/screen-shot-2021-10-27-at-5-50-41-pm-png.1881205/).
Of course, all of the above only matters if you want or need to calibrate your display. If that is of little or no concern, then you can ignore the calibration limitations and inconveniences imposed by Apple and happily enjoy your viewing with an excellent display that was well calibrated at the factory.
-
That isn't calibration (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calibration). The display was calibrated at the factory before you began using it. They measured a variety of display output characteristics with a calibration device and compared those measurements to target values (calibration standards) and made any corrections needed to bring the display within their set of acceptable manufacturing tolerances.
When you change the settings (brightness, gamma, etc.) adjustments are calculated and applied by software and firmware which reference the measurements from the previous calibration at the factory. What it does not do is perform a new calibration of the display.
A set of calibrations was completed at the factory. A new calibration isn't going to be performed unless you choose to do so with your own measuring device or hire someone to calibrate it with their measuring device.
That's calibration.
Then you're good to go, unless you choose to correct whatever falls outside of virtually.
Apple has gone out of their way to make the latest MacBook Pro XDR and Studio Displays very unfriendly to users that want or need to calibrate their display from time to time. There are options for calibrating and for creating profiles, Apple has just hidden them or made them inconvenient for users. What Apple offers are two pretty ridiculous options. One is a digital Stone Age method and the other resembles a science fair project.
The primitive calibration method is pretty much the same visual comparison method that has been around forever — Apple's Display Calibrator Assistant (https://support.apple.com/guide/mac-help/calibrate-your-display-mchlp1109/mac). This uses your eyes as the measurement device and your visual cortex for comparisons with a visual reference displayed on the screen as the standard. If Display Calibrator Assistant isn't readily accessible thru System Preferences › Displays › Color › Calibrate, it's because Apple decided to hide it from you in Macintosh HD › System › Library › ColorSync › Calibrators (https://forums.macrumors.com/attachments/screen-shot-2021-10-27-at-5-41-55-pm-png.1881203/) where it continues to live. It functions pretty much the way it has for decades and is usually best avoided. The options available will vary somewhat depending on what you're calibrating (computer/ display/ macOS) but will look something like this (https://www.maketecheasier.com/calibrate-mac-display/). It's not how you'd normally want to calibrate any respectable display for use in serious color editing.
The science fair method provided by Apple to "fine-tune the calibration" (white point and luminance only) for the Apple Studio Display (https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT213072) or Liquid Retina XDR MacBook Pro (https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT212851) is to download QuickTime movie test patterns from Apple's AVFoundation website for developers. Then "use your in-house spectroradiometer to measure" and then manually enter the white point x/y and luminance readings measured and target values desired into boxes as shown in the links. Not a real user friendly method for those wishing to calibrate their display occasionally.
There are other software calibration options like DisplayCal. To change or confirm the profile in use, you may need to use ColorSync Utility (https://support.apple.com/guide/colorsync-utility/change-a-devices-color-profile-csync005/mac) which would look like this (https://forums.macrumors.com/attachments/screen-shot-2021-10-27-at-5-50-41-pm-png.1881205/).
Of course, all of the above only matters if you want or need to calibrate your display. If that is of little or no concern, then you can ignore the calibration limitations and inconveniences imposed by Apple and happily enjoy your viewing with an excellent display that was well calibrated at the factory.
For many years high end displays like NEC PA and EIZO CG have image processors (called SpectraView Engine in case of NEC) and double 3DLUTs that are pedantically, factory calibrated with high end Konica-Minolta spectroradiometers and colorimeters (CS-2000, CA-310, CA-2500) worth well over 100k$, and have internal autocalibration sensors to maintain stability of displayed parameters. When you set target brightness, white point, contrast, TRC or gamut using OSD, NEC Multiprofiler or EIZO ColorNavigator, they achieve selected target in a second with higer accuracy than after calibration with external toy-colorimeter.
Apple did exactly the same (or similar) trick in Macbooks Pro XDR and Studio Displays. There's no need and no way to improve it using primitive vctg calibration and toy sensors.
(https://i.imgur.com/al7Jn6C.jpg)
(https://i.imgur.com/YpmcyGW.jpg)
(https://i.imgur.com/gSJr3bW.jpg)
-
For many years high end displays like NEC PA and EIZO CG have image processors (called SpectraView Engine in case of NEC) and double 3DLUTs that are pedantically, factory calibrated with high end Konica-Minolta spectroradiometers and colorimeters (CS-2000, CA-310, CA-2500) worth well over 100k$, and have internal autocalibration sensors to maintain stability of displayed parameters. When you set target brightness, white point, contrast, TRC or gamut using OSD, NEC Multiprofiler or EIZO ColorNavigator, they achieve selected target in a second with higer accuracy than after calibration with external toy-colorimeter.
Apple did exactly the same (or similar) trick in Macbooks Pro XDR and Studio Displays. There's no need and no way to improve it using primitive vctg calibration and toy sensors.
Believe whatever you like for as long as you like and stay well and happy.
It will remain a fact that:
• Only thru calibrating a device under test will you get a calibration.
• Internal component stabilization — with or without a sensor — is not device calibration.
• Color signal processing is not device calibration.
• Configuration is not device calibration.
• It's useful for consumers to learn what terms actually mean to avoid being misled by marketing hype.
• Colorimeters are not cheap toys because they cost less than another device.
• Relatively inexpensive colorimeters are used every day by professionals in color critical environments as one component in their quality control measures.
• Colorimeters, like other types of measuring devices, have specific parameters for which they are designed and within which they perform well.
• Production environments require routine display calibration to maintain quality control and insure consistency.
• Production environments need to perform routine display calibrations regardless of how accurately the device was calibrated at the factory or how much the measuring instruments used in manufacturing cost.
• Production environments need to perform routine display calibrations even when using relatively stable devices because even well behaved and stable devices can become unstable or misbehave.
• Most people don't know or care anything about calibration of their display and there's no reason that they should.
• Some people outside of production environments want to calibrate their displays on occasion and there's no reason why they shouldn't do so.
-
Believe whatever you like for as long as you like and stay well and happy.
It will remain a fact that:
• Only thru calibrating a device under test will you get a calibration.
• Internal component stabilization — with or without a sensor — is not device calibration.
• Color signal processing is not device calibration.
• Configuration is not device calibration.
• It's useful for consumers to learn what terms actually mean to avoid being mislead by marketing hype.
• Colorimeters are not cheap toys because they cost less than another device.
• Relatively inexpensive colorimeters are used every day by professionals in color critical environments as one component in their quality control measures.
• Colorimeters, like other types of measuring devices, have specific parameters for which they are designed and within which they perform well.
• Production environments require routine display calibration to maintain quality control and insure consistency.
• Production environments need to perform routine display calibrations regardless of how accurately the device was calibrated at the factory or how much the measuring instruments used in manufacturing cost.
• Production environments need to perform routine display calibrations even when using relatively stable devices because even well behaved and stable devices can become unstable or misbehave.
• Most people don't know or care anything about calibration of their display and there's no reason that they should.
• Some people outside of production environments want to calibrate their displays on occasion and there's no reason why they shouldn't do so.
Actually I believe in nothing.
I simply measured displays that I own - 2021 Macbook Pro 16 Retina XDR and NEC PA311D with my i1Display Pros, 5nm FWHM spectrometer, and draw obvious conclusions. Both displays work in production environment, match with each other as well as with prints from my Canon imagePROGRAF PRO-4000, imagePRESS C600i, FUJIFILM DX-100, standardised offset presses, and countless digital production presses, printers and minilabs I calibrate and profile for my customers. Contrary to most people I calibrate and profile s..t for a living.
-
That is impressive! It doesn't change what the term calibration means or why it's performed, but it's impressive.
I wish you nothing but success in your professional endeavors.
-
It's great that Apple has developed new displays that look really cool, are well calibrated at the factory, produce accurate color, and are generally quite stable. This is all to the benefit of consumers looking for those qualities. They will enjoy an excellent viewing experience from an impressive device with style.
Some content creators will also enjoy using the latest Apple displays. An Apple display might be the right choice for your content creation or it might not depending on what, where, how, and by whom or for whom the content is produced. Every user will have their own needs, desires, priorities, and preferences.
As good as the new Apple displays look and perform, they are still Apple products that carry with them Apple's reality distortion field (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reality_distortion_field) marketing and Apple's design philosophy for their ecosystem which may limit or discourage some choices and options to end users. Longtime users of the Mac and other Apple products know that comes with the territory when buying into the system.
Buying into the system is fine. I bought into the Apple and Mac ecosystem decades ago. Like a lot of relationships, my Apple experience has at times been a love/hate affair and occasionally required going outside their system to meet my personal and professional needs—like with monitors for instance. I bought into the system capabilities but not the marketing of it.
One example that's illustrative and relevant to the topic at hand is Apple's introduction of the Pro Display XDR. During the announcement event, the presenter compared the Pro Display XDR to a Sony BVM-HX310 professional broadcast/cinema reference monitor costing several times the price. Now if you tilt your head at just the right angle and squint your eyes while looking at some specs and ignoring others, I guess you can get away with the comparison... or maybe not, if you really compare them in detail. Naturally, someone (https://www.hdtvtest.co.uk) did just that...
https://www.youtube.com/Apple Pro Display XDR Review (vs Sony Reference Monitor) (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rtd7UzLJHrU)
In the end, all I'm suggesting is that buyers should be wary of hyperventilating comparisons, smoke and mirrors, and impressive sounding terminology and branding. Buy and compare with your eyes open for your own priorities and preferences. If that's Apple, great! If not, that's fine too! After you've decided what's right for your needs, enjoy your new device and ignore the noise online.
-
For anyone looking for reliable information regarding calibration of displays and the measuring instruments used for that task, the concise white paper linked below is a very solid and informative introduction to the subject. Written by color scientist Karl Lang some years ago, it is well worth reading today. In just five illustrated pages, it covers the most important fundamental concepts of display calibration and measuring devices.
http://www.lumita.com/whitepapers/Display Calibration Devices: Methods, Accuracy, and Cost (http://www.lumita.com/site_media/work/whitepapers/files/xrite-wp-3a.pdf) **Link may no longer work, but is archived here (https://web.archive.org/web/20220814212300/http://www.lumita.com/site_media/work/whitepapers/files/xrite-wp-3a.pdf) thanks to the good folks at Internet Archive.
-
Resurrecting an older thread but this one caught my curiosity. Cutting to the chase for those of you have had experience with the Apple Studio Display can it effectively be used in a color critical environment such as proofing artwork, paintings etc. Its my understanding it only displays 86% of the Adobe RGB color space, which to my way of thinking is a mark against it.
For the last several years I have been using an NEC PA 271W monitor, but it is getting long in the tooth and I am starting to notice irregularities in brightness across the screen. From my understanding NEC/Sharp has discontinued these types of monitors which only leaves the Eizo Color Edge or perhaps this Apple Studio Display as an alternative. Many years ago I had an extremely bad experience with Eizo and while not worth describing that scenario it certainly left a very bitter taste for every purchasing another one of their products.
Thanks and I look forward to some informed opinions.
-
Resurrecting an older thread but this one caught my curiosity. Cutting to the chase for those of you have had experience with the Apple Studio Display can it effectively be used in a color critical environment such as proofing artwork, paintings etc. Its my understanding it only displays 86% of the Adobe RGB color space, which to my way of thinking is a mark against it.
For the last several years I have been using an NEC PA 271W monitor, but it is getting long in the tooth and I am starting to notice irregularities in brightness across the screen. From my understanding NEC/Sharp has discontinued these types of monitors which only leaves the Eizo Color Edge or perhaps this Apple Studio Display as an alternative. Many years ago I had an extremely bad experience with Eizo and while not worth describing that scenario it certainly left a very bitter taste for every purchasing another one of their products.
Thanks and I look forward to some informed opinions.
Apple Studio Display can work in a color critical environment with flying colors. The gamut difference to my PA311D is negligible, and mostly in unprintable range so in the real world you won't see any difference while softproofing.
-
Well crap I just learned my existing older Mac Pro 5,1 will not work with the Apple Studio Display. Not sure why, but its also the same with the newer OS's such as Catalina through Monterey. If I do one of these looks like I will be needing to upgrade my Mac computers as well.
Just curious too, since the Studio Display is not true 10 bit, has anyone who has used these monitors seen issues with banding on gradients and other things.
Thanks
-
Cutting to the chase for those of you have had experience with the Apple Studio Display can it effectively be used in a color critical environment such as proofing artwork, paintings etc.
While I haven't used an Apple Studio Display, I've looked at its calibration capability and compatibility. I do have a good deal of professional experience in the field of art reproduction (flat art, textiles, sculpture) and other color critical environments (primarily commercial advertising photography). Given the current limitations of the Apple Studio Display for hardware calibration, I cannot imagine any experienced user choosing this model for editing or "proofing" in a repro environment. Frankly, I wouldn't use any display that isn't easily calibrated as my capture monitor in that environment either. When it comes to color critical, art reproduction is especially critical.
I think its a fine choice for consumers looking for a monitor with great aesthetic appeal in its design, accurate color, wide color gamut, good sound, and ease of use. So, if it has good color accuracy and a reasonably wide gamut, why would I not consider it appropriate for the kind of art repro use you describe? Because faith doesn't cut it in a color critical environment.
The color accuracy, neutrality, brightness, and contrast of the display's actual output need to be verified thru calibration measurements. In a professional color critical environment, there will likely be a schedule for calibration and validation as well as record keeping that accompany those calibrations. Software that can produce display calibration which is validated to set standards and which will record and maintain a calibration history make those tasks easier.
As I've said before, if you're working in a closed loop environment of your own — capturing, editing, and printing your own work — you can do as you like in whatever way works for you. You can choose to operate on faith in receiving a display with good factory calibration that's accurate for the life of the display. If that works to your satisfaction then it's all good.
Where others are involved with your work like: artists, or pre-press and press operators, art directors, producers, editors, etc. then you will most likely want and need regular verification thru calibration measurements of the display's actual output. Apple marketing and claims made in online forums notwithstanding, that's been my experience as to how it works in real life. In my personal opinion, its a great display for a great many people and uses; but, it has limitations which make it less desirable for other applications like the ones that I've described.
-
From my understanding NEC/Sharp has discontinued these types of monitors which only leaves the Eizo Color Edge or perhaps this Apple Studio Display as an alternative. Many years ago I had an extremely bad experience with Eizo and while not worth describing that scenario it certainly left a very bitter taste for every purchasing another one of their products.
Sorry to hear that you had a bad experience with Eizo. My own have been positive, but I have no doubt that others have had a different experience from time to time.
It's just a thought, but you might consider giving Eizo a call to explain your past experience and your hesitation in giving them a second chance to earn your business. They might be able to arrange for you to get a display to evaluate for some period or point you in the direction of someone that could make that happen.
It only comes to mind because I've known Eizo to supply an evaluation unit in the past when I was working in a corporate environment. That was done in the hope of securing a multi-unit purchase from us. Whether they can arrange that or offer it for an individual, I have no idea. I'm pretty sure that they would be happy to talk with you though and hear what you have to say, including any past problems you've experienced. They have customer service people to speak with before or after purchasing a monitor.
-
Well crap I just learned my existing older Mac Pro 5,1 will not work with the Apple Studio Display. Not sure why, but its also the same with the newer OS's such as Catalina through Monterey. If I do one of these looks like I will be needing to upgrade my Mac computers as well.
Limiting compatibility or access to hardware configuration is a part of Apple's desire to control the user's product experience. To varying degrees, it's been that way for the decades over which I've purchased and used their products. I'm not expecting that to change and I've (grudgingly) learned to (mostly) live with it over the years.
Just curious too, since the Studio Display is not true 10 bit, has anyone who has used these monitors seen issues with banding on gradients and other things.
That's one thing that wouldn't concern me. I expect that Apple's implementation of 8-bit + FRC (Frame Rate Control) dithering to emulate native 10-bit is so good that it would be extremely difficult to tell the difference. Many professional graphics displays have used 8-bit + FRC to emulate native 10-bit with extremely good results.
-
Thanks @TeckTalk and @Czornyj for the replies and helpful information. I do understand the situation having been working in the digital domain for well over 20 years. Planned obsolescence is part of the MO for many of these companies including Apple unfortunately. For now both my monitor and Mac Pro are still working so this is not a decision I have to jump into with possible regrets later on.
This afternoon I have been experimenting with my M1 Mac Mini which has been used for other purposes than photography for the past year. Its not surprising (given other reviews) that it seems to be outperforming my Mac Pro/3.46 Ghz 6 Core/48 MB RAM/OWC Accelssior 1M2 SS PCI HD, and dead quiet as a church mouse.
Lots to consider and cogitate on.
-
Good work!
Calibrite ccStudio allows me to use my 12 year old ColorMunki to calibrate an LG Ultrafine 27" 5k monitor connected to my Mac Studio with no issues.
Regards,
Bud James
Please check out my fine art and travel photography at www.budjames.photography.
-
Thanks @TeckTalk and @Czornyj for the replies and helpful information. I do understand the situation having been working in the digital domain for well over 20 years. Planned obsolescence is part of the MO for many of these companies including Apple unfortunately. For now both my monitor and Mac Pro are still working so this is not a decision I have to jump into with possible regrets later on.
This afternoon I have been experimenting with my M1 Mac Mini which has been used for other purposes than photography for the past year. Its not surprising (given other reviews) that it seems to be outperforming my Mac Pro/3.46 Ghz 6 Core/48 MB RAM/OWC Accelssior 1M2 SS PCI HD, and dead quiet as a church mouse.
Lots to consider and cogitate on.
For me M1 is a true game changer - stunningly fast, responsive, absolutely silent, super power efficient and relatively inexpensive.
Since many years high end displays like EIZO CG and NEC PA series are factory calibrated with super accurate (and super expensive), lab grade Konica-Minolta spectroradiometers and colorimeters, so they are simply more accurate than toy colorimeters like X-Rite i1D3 etc. They also have built in autocalibration sensors connected to image processors, so they are completly stable during the lifespan. For example my NEC PA311D since day one and after 7800h of use is stil perfectly calibrated - I have a huge collection of various display and printer calibration devices, but never calibrated it with external sensor, only check it by validating calibration every few months. In case of such display all you have to do is to set a target in NEC Multiprofiler, and the display auto calibrates itself to the desired imaging parameters in a second, then recalibrates every second using built-in RGB and thermal sensors connected to SpectraView Engine processor.
Exactly the same or similar solution is used in Apple XDR display in my Macbook Pro 16 M1 Pro, and it works the same since I bought it 5 months ago. And exactly the same or similar solution is used in Apple Studio Display.
As a result you don't really need an external calibration sensor, and recalibration of such display is completely pointless waste of time and even not recommended, as many calibration sensors are much less accurate than factory auto calibration of such display.
Of course you can't go wrong with EIZO, but Apple Studio Display looks better, has higher 5k resolution, unique antireflex coating, 3 port TB3 hub, really good speakers, web cam, microphone, and it's way much cheaper, so - contrary to common misbelieves - it's really a strong contender.
-
Since many years high end displays like EIZO CG and NEC PA series are factory calibrated with super accurate (and super expensive), lab grade Konica-Minolta spectroradiometers and colorimeters, so they are simply more accurate than toy colorimeters like X-Rite i1D3 etc. They also have built in autocalibration sensors connected to image processors, so they are completly stable during the lifespan. For example my NEC PA311D since day one and after 7800h of use is stil perfectly calibrated - I have a huge collection of various display and printer calibration devices, but never calibrated it with external sensor, only check it by validating calibration every few months. In case of such display all you have to do is to set a target in NEC Multiprofiler, and the display auto calibrates itself to the desired imaging parameters in a second, then recalibrates every second using built-in RGB and thermal sensors connected to SpectraView Engine processor.
Exactly the same or similar solution is used in Apple XDR display in my Macbook Pro 16 M1 Pro, and it works the same since I bought it 5 months ago. And exactly the same or similar solution is used in Apple Studio Display.
As a result you don't really need an external calibration sensor, and recalibration of such display is completely pointless waste of time and even not recommended, as many calibration sensors are much less accurate than factory auto calibration of such display.
Of course you can't go wrong with EIZO, but Apple Studio Display looks better, has higher 5k resolution, unique antireflex coating, 3 port TB3 hub, really good speakers, web cam, microphone, and it's way much cheaper, so - contrary to common misbelieves - it's really a strong contender.
Interesting comments and conclusions. It does however beg the following question. If factory set calibration is so good, then why does Eizo still offer calibration software and built-in hardware devices for their CG monitors, such as the CS2740?
Clearly you and @TeckTalk are at opposite ends of this discussion regarding the accuracy and validity of self calibrating monitors and by no stretch of the imagination am I trying to agitate or elevate the argument. Like TechTalk having been at this for a very long time traditionally I have also placed regular calibration as part of my workflow for accurate results but am also open minded enough to realize technology changes and as a rule improves over time… usually.
It took me awhile to find the hours of use on my PA271W, but apparently it has 20,996 hours on this monitor, which I assume this to be a calculated "working hours" because there was also a number listed for "off hours" 62,222 hours. The display is rarely turned off but it does go into sleep mode which I assume this to mean the "off" hours.
Agreed these new M1 Macs are truly mind blowing in their capabilities and I love their energy efficiency. The M1 working full bore tilt uses less energy than my Mac Pro at idle. Many thanks again for your real world experiences posted.
-
I'll give you my two cents on self calibrating displays. IF (big if) the calibration targets (aim points) are what you want or need, fine. Mine are not. My PA 271Q aim points were created with trial and error such they produce a match to my prints under a specific and controlled viewing booth. If I can't get that with a self calibration of a target, the self calibration is useless for me.
-
The target for calibration may be based on an industry standard or one that you define. The better calibration applications will let you create custom targets in which you define your own aim points. You can then calibrate to your own set of defined aim points contained within your custom target. Once the target is defined, whether the calibration process is performed with user involvement or done entirely by the device being calibrated makes no difference in the calibration result.
Calibration — which is simply measuring a device and comparing the result to a defined value (aim point) or target (defined goal you're trying to achieve) — is limited to the aim point or points of your target. Calibration measurement of specific parameters only give you information on the state of your device for those specific parameters and may not be the end of your process to achieve your desired result. Calibration only provides a consistent foundation or base from which to begin any further refinement if required.
If the hardware and/or software you're using offer the capability, further manual adjustments may be carried out to refine your device for improved accuracy—for display to print matching for instance. The video linked below provides a concise demonstration of manual fine-tuning of a display for a more accurate screen to print match in soft proofing.
This video is under six minutes and is worth watching if you are not already familiar with this process...
https://www.youtube.com/Advanced Soft Proofing Monitor Calibration (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ddl8d2VdS2k)
-
If factory set calibration is so good...
Factory calibration is often extremely good for better quality monitors.
...then why does Eizo still offer calibration software and built-in hardware devices for their CG monitors, such as the CS2740?
1) Because even well made, well calibrated, well behaved, and stable devices can become unstable or misbehave. The best current displays, while amazingly accurate and stable, are still a complex combination of digital and analog electronic components. Stuff happens. 2) Because some use environments require routine display calibration as a quality control measure and to insure consistency over time and throughout the entire production chain. 3) Because it is unwise to assume and sensible to verify when working in a critical environment.
* As a small footnote: Currently, Eizo CG monitors have a built-in calibrator, other ColorEdge monitors, like the CS series, do not.
-
Notwithstanding the various perspectives on the capabilities and/or deficiencies of the Studio Display 8), ArtisRight on YouTube has some informative videos about how to access the complex wonderful world of color profiles and calibration on the Studio Display.
ArtisRight on Mac Studio Display Settings (https://youtu.be/bJuruNqxiP4)
-
Notwithstanding the various perspectives on the capabilities and/or deficiencies of the Studio Display 8), ArtisRight on YouTube has some informative videos about how to access the complex wonderful world of color profiles and calibration on the Studio Display.
ArtisRight on Mac Studio Display Settings (https://youtu.be/bJuruNqxiP4)
Detailed information on using Apple display reference modes and custom reference modes, demonstrated in the helpful video which you linked, are also available in illustrated text form. The linked text form may be a handy reference for explanation or definition of the various presets and options available.
See links below...
Selecting a preset "display reference mode (https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT210435)" or creating a "custom reference mode (https://support.apple.com/guide/mac-help/create-custom-reference-modes-mchl50ecf3c4/mac)" is configuration of the display for a selected set of reference values.
-
The internet and online forums being what they are — equally good at providing accurate information and misinformation — I would suggest that individuals take it upon themselves to learn what terminology tossed around online actually means and investigate topics of interest outside of online forum chatter.
If you are interested in the topic of display calibration, linked below is a white paper from highly respected color scientist Karl Lang (https://www.avinteractive.com/features/interviews/karl-lang-colour-scientist-lumita-21-12-2015/). It's a 5-page concise introduction to the topic of display calibration and the various instruments used for measurement. It's a good place to start in developing an understanding of the underlying principles of measurement and calibration.
http://www.lumita.com/whitepapers/Display Calibration Devices: Methods, Accuracy, and Cost (http://www.lumita.com/site_media/work/whitepapers/files/xrite-wp-3a.pdf) *Link may no longer work, but is archived here (https://web.archive.org/web/20220814212300/http://www.lumita.com/site_media/work/whitepapers/files/xrite-wp-3a.pdf) thanks to the good folks at Internet Archive.
* I just realized that I posted this same link on the previous page. I'm going to leave this link duplication. Since myth and misinformation are so often repeated online, it can't hurt to duplicate reliable and accurate information on occasion.
-
At the other end of the spectrum, those wanting to dive into the deep end of the metrology (measurement sciences) pool... The International Committee for Display Metrology has an 800+ page free download available titled: Information Display Measurements Standard. Karl Lang is both a contributor and Subcommittee Chair for the committee's work in developing industry standards. Thanks Karl for continuing to advance color science understanding and technology!
https://www.sid.org/Standards/ICDM - Information Display Measurements Standard (https://www.sid.org/Standards/ICDM#8271483-idms-download)
-
Notwithstanding the various perspectives on the capabilities and/or deficiencies of the Studio Display 8), ArtisRight on YouTube has some informative videos about how to access the complex wonderful world of color profiles and calibration on the Studio Display.
ArtisRight on Mac Studio Display Settings (https://youtu.be/bJuruNqxiP4)
Thanks for sharing this, great video and very informative! Apparently an individual can calibrate this display to any target they want or need. This certainly eases any concern about its capabilities. The methodology at first glance certainly seems a bit more convoluted and complex than the Spectra View/Multi Profiler software from NEC but it appears to get the job done.
-
While I haven't used an Apple Studio Display, I've looked at its calibration capability and compatibility. I do have a good deal of professional experience in the field of art reproduction (flat art, textiles, sculpture) and other color critical environments (primarily commercial advertising photography). Given the current limitations of the Apple Studio Display for hardware calibration, I cannot imagine any experienced user choosing this model for editing or "proofing" in a repro environment. Frankly, I wouldn't use any display that isn't easily calibrated as my capture monitor in that environment either. When it comes to color critical, art reproduction is especially critical.
While I use an Eizo in 30 bit mode, I don't pay much attention to the monitor settings doing repro printing. For that the critical issue is how accurate the captured image is, and how accurate it can be printed. The monitor has nothing to do with that path. Rather, I need a good scene referred image and a printer that has a gamut that encompasses the image's gamut. For really accurate repro where the image gamut exceeds the printer, let alone the monitor, I run the image through Matlab and create a OOG mask then tweak that part in Photoshop because Photoshop's OOG is not very precise (6 dE typical on a printer profile).
That said, I do depend on an accurate, well calibrated Eizo for soft proofing regular photos not used for repro. A good softproofing environment is valuable and that's the large majority of printing.
-
This video is under six minutes and is worth watching if you are not already familiar with this process...
https://www.youtube.com/Advanced Soft Proofing Monitor Calibration (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ddl8d2VdS2k)
Good video, had not realized Eizo had taken soft proofing this far. However it was easy to see at least on my existing monitor he did NOT have everything precisely dialed in from print to display soft proof. Close but not dead on.
Thanks
-
Thanks for sharing this, great video and very informative! Apparently an individual can calibrate this display to any target they want or need.
You can configure the display within the range of options provided. Calibrating the display is not the same thing. Calibration requires measuring the output with some kind of measuring device.
I understand that color management can quickly become somewhat difficult to fully grasp. It isn't made any easier to understand when the terminology is often misused.
Perhaps at some point I'll put together an FAQ to clarify some of this and to break down some of the more confusing terminology. For now within the current context...
Configuration is a selection process to target a device to a desired set of output values.
Calibration is a measuring process to determine specific output values of a device under test and comparing those measurements to the desired target values.
Once you have configured the desired target values, you can measure (calibrate) a device to determine how accurately your device output compares to your selected values. Depending on the device, you may be able to adjust the device output (perform hardware calibration) to more accurately conform the device to your desired output value parameters.
-
You can configure the display within the range of options provided. Calibrating the display is not the same thing. Calibration requires measuring the output with some kind of measuring device.
I understand that color management can quickly become somewhat difficult to fully grasp. It isn't made any easier to understand when the terminology is often misused.
Perhaps at some point I'll put together an FAQ to clarify some of this and to break down some of the more confusing terminology. For now within the current context...
Configuration is a selection process to target a device to a desired set of output values.
Calibration is a measuring process to determine specific output values of a device under test and comparing those measurements to the desired target values.
Once you have configured the desired target values, you can measure (calibrate) a device to determine how accurately your device output compares to your selected values. Depending on the device, you may be able to adjust the device output (perform hardware calibration) to more accurately conform the device to your desired output value parameters.
Yes I realize all of this, thanks for the continued discussion.
However the Apple Studio Display IS calibratable as illustrated by the two videos presented by Arts Right in the link above. The actual link provided only goes through the various display settings and how to modify those, but the video just after the one linked above performed by the same fellow takes you through the entire process of creating a target then profiling to match that target using an X-Rite colorimeter and CalBrite (think this is correct) software. And as I stated previously the process is a bit convoluted compared to NEC's Spectraview/Multi Profiler software but it does get the job done. I would encourage you to watch both videos, not that you need education on color management or profiling monitors but it is an excellent in depth tutorial of the Apple Studio Display's capabilities which not only far exceed what I thought was possible with this display but which I also suspect is largely unknown to the general public and color management experts.
So is the Apple Studio Display the equal of the say an Eizo Color Edge? From my perspective it has some advantages such as potentially higher resolution if needed, while the Eizo in theory appears to have some color tuning advantages the ASD does not touch on. Keeping in mind this statement is only theoretical not empirical based upon actual use of either. Regardless I am inclined to believe the Apple Display has far more potential and versatility than previously thought.
-
While I use an Eizo in 30 bit mode, I don't pay much attention to the monitor settings doing repro printing. For that the critical issue is how accurate the captured image is, and how accurate it can be printed. The monitor has nothing to do with that path. Rather, I need a good scene referred image and a printer that has a gamut that encompasses the image's gamut. For really accurate repro where the image gamut exceeds the printer, let alone the monitor, I run the image through Matlab and create a OOG mask then tweak that part in Photoshop because Photoshop's OOG is not very precise (6 dE typical on a printer profile).
That said, I do depend on an accurate, well calibrated Eizo for soft proofing regular photos not used for repro. A good softproofing environment is valuable and that's the large majority of printing.
The repro process is both an art and a science, which makes it interesting. It's always a process in which the pursuit is achieving the best compromise because in the end it is never perfect. Done well, it's a best achievable representation of the artist's work.
I've never been involved in any repro process that doesn't involve someone at some point editing the captured image in an effort to achieve the best compromise in color accuracy and varying degrees of specific color correction for the creation of a master digital archive file. For that, an accurate monitor is essential. When printing, I have no doubt that you've mastered a process with further printer and media specific corrections to achieve the best possible printed output result.
Most of the time, I've been the person capturing the image to hand off to someone else for editing. Still, I want an accurate capture monitor because lighting is being adjusted to capture the desired amount of texture or surface qualities. All of which is another set of creative and artistic compromises and judgement calls for which an accurate display has proved to be essential.
Achieving a satisfying reproduction done to high standards isn't easy. It's a specialty requiring both some knowledge of the underlying science and some artistic skills and judgement in lighting, editing, and printing.
-
Yes I realize all of this, thanks for the continued discussion.
My pleasure. Like many people involved in photography, I enjoy polite discussions regarding the technology that forms the basis for creating images. The better we understand it, the better we are able to control it to produce satisfying results.
I'll respond to the rest of your reply in small bites to try and prevent issues from getting mixed together unnecessarily.
-
Good video, had not realized Eizo had taken soft proofing this far. However it was easy to see at least on my existing monitor he did NOT have everything precisely dialed in from print to display soft proof. Close but not dead on.
"Close but not dead on" is as much as one should expect. You're not likely to achieve more than that when comparing a transmissive image from a display to a reflective print.
The purpose of the video is to give a brief introduction to manually fine tuning color in a display thru software like Eizo ColorNavigator, NEC SpectraView II, or basICColor display 6 Pro. Hopefully, it was enlightening for you and will be for others.
-
I've never been involved in any repro process that doesn't involve someone at some point editing the captured image in an effort to achieve the best compromise in color accuracy and varying degrees of specific color correction for the creation of a master digital archive file. For that, an accurate monitor is essential. When printing, I have no doubt that you've mastered a process with further printer and media specific corrections to achieve the best possible printed output result.
I only do repro work where the print medium is reasonably close to that being reproduced. For instance, a water color repro on a matte print. For those it's pretty much science. Image capture consists of capturing the art as well as a set of several thousand printed patches with measured colors. Additionally, if available, a small set of colors made with the same media as the artwork and are measured with a spectro. Then a profile is made for the capture image and possibly adjusted by the metameric error that shows up on the small set's measurements against the photo image*. Goal is to make a print that, hung beside the original in the same light, looks exactly the same.
For other repro work I would expect more artistic effort. Getting something that most closely resembles an artwork is clearly more complicated. Vision variation with different media can be quite hard to manage and people may have different preferences as to what comes the closest to a good repro.
* I've come across some research out of RIT that significantly reduces metameric error by using multiple captures with either different lens filters or a set of different spectral illuminants but I haven't pursued that myself.
-
Actually, I considered bringing up watercolors vs oils vs mixed media (which may contain metallics), but I didn't want to get too deep in the weeds. Plus, I have a bad tendency to become too wordy for forums like this.
The RIT research is interesting. You're probably aware of the Sinar CTM system (https://sinar.swiss/portfolios-en-us/ctm-en-us/) developed with RIT along the lines that you mentioned.
* https://sinar.swiss/products/cameras/ctm (https://sinar.swiss/products/cameras/ctm/)
** It's hard to find very much about it on Sinar's website anymore, but this gives more detail...
http://www.capturescanprint.com/_pdf/Sinar_CTM-Information_EN.pdf (http://www.capturescanprint.com/_pdf/Sinar_CTM-Information_EN.pdf)
-
However the Apple Studio Display IS calibratable as illustrated by the two videos presented by Arts Right in the link above. The actual link provided only goes through the various display settings and how to modify those, but the video just after the one linked above performed by the same fellow takes you through the entire process of creating a target then profiling to match that target using an X-Rite colorimeter and CalBrite (think this is correct) software.
That the Apple Studio Display has some ability for some degree of hardware calibration has not been in dispute. I'm sorry if that was unclear.
There are options for calibrating and for creating profiles, Apple has just hidden them or made them inconvenient for users.
In addition to the Calibrite ccStudio software (https://calibrite.com/us/software-downloads/), another free option... would be DisplayCal (https://displaycal.net). DisplayCal provides a broad array of capabilities.
That the Apple Studio Display lacks any comprehensive user friendly calibration software and has inherent limitations in its hardware calibration has been pointed out. Those are legitimate considerations for anyone that wants or needs those functions and features, but not everyone does.
-
Actually, I considered bringing up watercolors vs oils vs mixed media (which may contain metallics), but I didn't want to get too deep in the weeds. Plus, I have a bad tendency to become too wordy for forums like this.
Funny you mention that. To some degree one can simulate specular material by a combination of special processing and lighting. If you increase the illumination on a print in such a way that observers can't tell what you are doing, you can make parts of a print appear to be emitting light. For instance, a print with a window in a room that appears unnaturally bright. As if the window was actually there casting light on a subject.
This requires some pretty special lighting, measurements, and image processing but the effect is quite stunning. Trick is to blend things and mask the lighting so what you are doing is hidden. Similar techniques might work for metallic media or anything with specular components. Very tricky to do right. I've done the former at home where I can control things as a cool experiment as I rather enjoy the math/science behind it. Not my main thing, just a lark.
-
Art reproduction is a challenge. Water colors by their nature tend to be somewhat easier to please everyone with in reproducing. Oils, not so much as everyone seems to have a different opinion on how flat the lighting should have been. Mixed media can be really difficult at times. Textiles can be difficult as well with their own unique challenges.
It took some years of digging my way thru other digital imaging trenches before I felt comfortable to begin tackling repro work. Doing laborious catalog work taught efficiency and precision. Moving into commercial advertising allowed more time and exploration into technique along with the higher quality demands. The final challenge on a technical level has been art repro. But, I do enjoy the challenges it presents.
-
And as I stated previously the process is a bit convoluted compared to NEC's Spectraview/Multi Profiler software but it does get the job done.
It is a convoluted process. It gets the job done within the limitations imposed.
I would encourage you to watch both videos, not that you need education on color management or profiling monitors but it is an excellent in depth tutorial of the Apple Studio Display's capabilities which not only far exceed what I thought was possible with this display but which I also suspect is largely unknown to the general public and color management experts.
I actually watched all of his videos on the Apple Studio Display shortly after he posted them to YouTube. He has at least five of them on that display. I also looked into other online information about the display, including what Apple has on their site. Unfortunately, the display has far less in terms of calibration capabilities than what I would have hoped for in a display in its price range.
It looks great, it apparently has good speakers, and as I've repeatedly said appears to have excellent factory calibration, color, and stability. It's a great display for a lot of people. Ease and depth of calibration capabilities is not its strong suit, however. So, like every other product I've ever encountered, it's not ideal for everyone.
-
Art reproduction is a challenge. Water colors by their nature tend to be somewhat easier to please everyone with in reproducing. Oils, not so much as everyone seems to have a different opinion on how flat the lighting should have been. Mixed media can be really difficult at times. Textiles can be difficult as well with their own unique challenges.
Yep. Thats the sort of thing one learns by lots of experience. People and taste varies. And there really is no way to create an exact repro of an oil unless one is going to look at it under identical lighting conditions of the original. So doing the best that most like is more the goal and one needs lots of experience. Change lighting directions even small amounts and things no longer match exactly.
Not for everyone including me. I'd not be good at it.
-
So is the Apple Studio Display the equal of the say an Eizo Color Edge?
Sorry, I didn't mean to ignore the last part of your reply.
No. The Apple Studio Display is not the equal of an Eizo ColorEdge monitor and an Eizo ColorEdge monitor is not the equal of the Apple Studio Display. They are two different products designed with a different set of priorities for target markets that have some overlap, but are still distinctly different.
The Apple Studio Display is designed for a broad market desiring cool industrial design, high resolution and brightness, multi-speaker sound system, video conferencing features (camera and multiple mics), and excellent color performance. For many consumers and some content creators, it will be much appreciated for everything it offers.
Eizo ColorEdge monitors are designed for a very specific market looking for the highest levels of consistency, uniformity, and accuracy; widest gamut; and maximum user options and control over color, contrast, and calibration. The market that ColorEdge models target appreciate the additional options, control, and ease of calibration they offer.
Users for whom the unique features offered by an Apple Studio Display are a priority should buy an Apple Studio Display. Users for whom the unique features offered by Eizo ColorEdge monitors are a priority should buy an Eizo. All the online chatter and comparisons should then just be put aside and the monitor chosen used and enjoyed.
-
Had to temporarily abandoned the conversation, do to yet another issue which I still cannot resolve. Had my Mac Mini M1 working perfectly with my existing older NEC PA 271W, then changed back to my Mac Pro for a quick photo shoot at which point I can no longer get the Mac Mini to hand shake with the NEC monitor. Tried different cables, eliminated the docking station all the usual suspects of narrowing down the culprit all to no avail. The Mini works perfectly via other monitors just not now with the NEC. As my wife always says, "its always something". Starting to think she is right.
Back to color management, monitors and other things related since my last post. First for those of you who still might want an NEC Spectraview Monitor I have found at least one vendor who still has 4 of the PA271Q models in stock and that is DTG Web down in Florida. Given that NEC is no longer supporting these at this point I am some what reticent to buy one however, still cogitating on this one. I did ask their resident expert on monitors at DTG about this issue of self calibrating monitors and his response effectively yes as good as these newer monitors are he felt periodic calibration is just as important for a litany of different reasons which have been described extensively in this discussion.
At this point I felt it was in my best interest to give Eizo another try. Called yesterday and this conversation went demonstrably different than my issues with the company some 10 or so years ago with a tech support guy who knew the products and shared a wealth of information not only about the various monitors Eizo makes but also in comparison with other brands and did this in a way it wasn't trash talk about the competitor. Understand the Eizo CG 2730 is no longer avialble as that line of monitor is being replaced with the newer 2700S and 2700X series. Neither of those are currently available but the 2700S is due to be released either in late June or perhaps early July and the X version much later in the year around Q3. There might be some vendors who still have some of the older models in stock.
Have not had a chance to look at the other videos by Art is Right but will do so just to leave no stone unturned. Thanks for the heads up on that one, which I had not noticed.
Agreed art copy work is a science project with a little bit of art thrown in. Not everyone is up to the task, not everyone sees color acutely enough especially the subtle variations, and not everyone knows how to properly color correct. Like others have stated this endeavor always without exception requires some post production tweaking to dial things in correctly and most importantly those corrections (assuming excellent success) are only good for the space within which the original art and proof are created. Granted modern printers have come a long way to eliminate metamerism (sp?) but it still exist to some degree. My situation is a one many show, in that I photograph, edit and proof and print (when required) the entire enchilada unless handing files off to offset printers for articles, promotion and that sort of thing, but then that is always a crap shoot at best.
From my perspective I don't find one type of media to be more problematic than another, ie watercolor, oils, acrylics but rather the type or individual pigments used within the media. A perfect example would be the use of cobalt blue which under any lighting will turn purple or reddish blue due to its exhibiting of infrared wavelength. In the older days with the Betterlight system the fix would be to double up on the infrared filters which of course cuts the light volume down considerably, not idea for the scan back. Other blues can demonstrate this to lesser and varying degrees but none as detrimental as cobalt. Like many of you I have done extensive product photograph especially in the outdoor recreation industry where synthetic cloth and synthetic dyes are used extensively for the products clothing etc. Talk about some serious metamerism! Before the days of digital imaging while working on one project for a company that made backpacks with a brilliant jade-teal colored pack cloth regardless of the film, regardless of the light source that cloth always rendered a sky blue. We literally tried every color film available on the market at that time regardless of light source required to work with and got the same exact results more or less within the constraints of the the color palette of a particular film. Filters were a mixed blessing because they obviously created a color cast where you didn't want them. In the digital domain some 20 or 30 years later this would be easily correctable, not so with film. If I recall correctly the world was on the origin Photoshop 2 or 3, its come a long ways since them.
-
Whoops, forgot to mention with the Eizo rep I also asked him about automated color calibration. He minced no words in stating while the CG color edge monitors can automatically color calibrate at chosen times as far as hew know none of the Eizo were self monitoring to the point no calibration was ever needed. Said he had been working for Eizo for 16-17 years. I figured he knew what he was talking about. He used the term of "self evaluating".
-
Sorry, I didn't mean to ignore the last part of your reply.
Not a problem and FWIW wasn't necessarily asking you directly more like asking myself. Regardless good answer and description for the different uses of the two monitors.
-
From my perspective it has some advantages such as potentially higher resolution if needed...
No question about it and it's brighter too. Pixel density for an Apple Studio Display is 218 ppi (pixels per inch) and 600 cd/m2 (nits) maximum brightness. The recently announced Eizo CG2700X is 164 ppi and 500 cd/m2 maximum.
...while the Eizo in theory appears to have some color tuning advantages the ASD does not touch on. Keeping in mind this statement is only theoretical not empirical based upon actual use of either. Regardless I am inclined to believe the Apple Display has far more potential and versatility than previously thought.
There are many options available with an Eizo ColorEdge (and other similar monitors) for controlling monitor output and managing color that don't exist for the Apple Studio Display. It's a line of monitors for specialized applications and a narrow range of users.
I'm repeating myself, but it bears repeating. Many users don't want or need the kind of extensive range of options and control that high-end graphics monitors provide. The few that do will naturally find and select the tools that they require for their needs.
-
Whoops, forgot to mention with the Eizo rep I also asked him about automated color calibration. He minced no words in stating while the CG color edge monitors can automatically color calibrate at chosen times as far as hew know none of the Eizo were self monitoring to the point no calibration was ever needed. Said he had been working for Eizo for 16-17 years. I figured he knew what he was talking about. He used the term of "self evaluating".
I'm happy that you found someone helpful to speak with there. Thanks for the follow up reply.
Please don't feel that I've repeated myself at times for your benefit. It's for others that may wander thru here reading.
One of the things that I've repeated is what calibration means and what it does not mean. I do so to try to prevent people from being misled by misuse of terminology. Display calibration — which once more, simply means measuring light emitted from the front of the display for comparison to a target — is really only needed when a specific situation requires it. Calibration requirements are not determined by the accuracy or stability of the display, but by the situation in which they are used and by whom.
What is not display calibration are internal sensors which monitor and compensate for fluctuations or aging of component parts to enhance stability. Anything that improves stability is a good thing, but it is not the same thing as actual display calibration. If anything "recalibrates every second", as I've seen it described, it's a component of the display and not the display itself.
What is not display calibration are algorithms that allow you to select different modes comprised of different parameters. Apple calls these Reference Modes, Eizo Color Modes, and NEC Picture Modes. These convenient controls alter the output based on a previous calibration (either from the factory or a custom calibration) and your selected target configuration, but they are not "auto calibrating" the display or even changing the display calibration — on which the algorithms rely — in any way. Programmed algorithms are simply using a previously measured calibration as a basis to make calculated changes for the mode selected. The calibration will remain the same until the display output is once again measured and calibrated as a new basis for the calculated mode selections and output variations.
One final note... Calibration does not require any changes to the device. If you measure the device and validate that the desired parameters are still accurate and no changes are needed, you have just calibrated the display.
Thanks again for putting up with long-winded replies that are for a broader public to prevent any misunderstanding of how these complex devices work and accurately describe what terms actually mean which they may have seen misrepresented.
-
Whoops, forgot to mention with the Eizo rep I also asked him about automated color calibration. He minced no words in stating while the CG color edge monitors can automatically color calibrate at chosen times as far as hew know none of the Eizo were self monitoring to the point no calibration was ever needed. Said he had been working for Eizo for 16-17 years. I figured he knew what he was talking about. He used the term of "self evaluating".
For what it's worth my Eizo has a self calibrating puck. It's reasonably good but can also be calibrated using spectros like I1Pro 2. I also have a cheap second monitor for manuals and such. I adjust the white point xy chromaticity as well as luminance of the monitors to match each other and the white of an unprinted, canson matte paper which measures very neutral in it's viewing box. I use Photoshop and custom profiles for the matte paper with soft proof on so the luminance level of both monitors (in soft proof mode for the Eizo and slightly lower luminance for the side monitor) matches the viewing box. This works quite well with different papers that have slightly different tints and lower L* for whites. Soft proof matches these changes and I don't have to tweak the monitor for different papers.
One caveat. This only works for papers w/o OBAs. Those are a different kettle of fish best avoided.
-
Had to temporarily abandoned the conversation, do to yet another issue which I still cannot resolve. Had my Mac Mini M1 working perfectly with my existing older NEC PA 271W, then changed back to my Mac Pro for a quick photo shoot at which point I can no longer get the Mac Mini to hand shake with the NEC monitor. Tried different cables, eliminated the docking station all the usual suspects of narrowing down the culprit all to no avail. The Mini works perfectly via other monitors just not now with the NEC. As my wife always says, "its always something". Starting to think she is right.
Back to color management, monitors and other things related since my last post. First for those of you who still might want an NEC Spectraview Monitor I have found at least one vendor who still has 4 of the PA271Q models in stock and that is DTG Web down in Florida. Given that NEC is no longer supporting these at this point I am some what reticent to buy one however, still cogitating on this one. I did ask their resident expert on monitors at DTG about this issue of self calibrating monitors and his response effectively yes as good as these newer monitors are he felt periodic calibration is just as important for a litany of different reasons which have been described extensively in this discussion.
At this point I felt it was in my best interest to give Eizo another try. Called yesterday and this conversation went demonstrably different than my issues with the company some 10 or so years ago with a tech support guy who knew the products and shared a wealth of information not only about the various monitors Eizo makes but also in comparison with other brands and did this in a way it wasn't trash talk about the competitor. Understand the Eizo CG 2730 is no longer avialble as that line of monitor is being replaced with the newer 2700S and 2700X series. Neither of those are currently available but the 2700S is due to be released either in late June or perhaps early July and the X version much later in the year around Q3. There might be some vendors who still have some of the older models in stock.
Have not had a chance to look at the other videos by Art is Right but will do so just to leave no stone unturned. Thanks for the heads up on that one, which I had not noticed.
Agreed art copy work is a science project with a little bit of art thrown in. Not everyone is up to the task, not everyone sees color acutely enough especially the subtle variations, and not everyone knows how to properly color correct. Like others have stated this endeavor always without exception requires some post production tweaking to dial things in correctly and most importantly those corrections (assuming excellent success) are only good for the space within which the original art and proof are created. Granted modern printers have come a long way to eliminate metamerism (sp?) but it still exist to some degree. My situation is a one many show, in that I photograph, edit and proof and print (when required) the entire enchilada unless handing files off to offset printers for articles, promotion and that sort of thing, but then that is always a crap shoot at best.
From my perspective I don't find one type of media to be more problematic than another, ie watercolor, oils, acrylics but rather the type or individual pigments used within the media. A perfect example would be the use of cobalt blue which under any lighting will turn purple or reddish blue due to its exhibiting of infrared wavelength. In the older days with the Betterlight system the fix would be to double up on the infrared filters which of course cuts the light volume down considerably, not idea for the scan back. Other blues can demonstrate this to lesser and varying degrees but none as detrimental as cobalt. Like many of you I have done extensive product photograph especially in the outdoor recreation industry where synthetic cloth and synthetic dyes are used extensively for the products clothing etc. Talk about some serious metamerism! Before the days of digital imaging while working on one project for a company that made backpacks with a brilliant jade-teal colored pack cloth regardless of the film, regardless of the light source that cloth always rendered a sky blue. We literally tried every color film available on the market at that time regardless of light source required to work with and got the same exact results more or less within the constraints of the the color palette of a particular film. Filters were a mixed blessing because they obviously created a color cast where you didn't want them. In the digital domain some 20 or 30 years later this would be easily correctable, not so with film. If I recall correctly the world was on the origin Photoshop 2 or 3, its come a long ways since them.
Did you do the FW update of PA271W?
https://www.sharp-nec-displays.com/dl/en/dp_soft/pa_fm_update/select.html
PA271Q is decent and it works with M1, but it's only QHD. If you can find PA311D i highly recommend it as I own it and really love it.
EIZO has some quality issues with UHD model CG2700X, so it won't be available until they'll resolve them with AUO. You can only get UHD EIZO CS2740 which is also not bad, but it has no OCF and auto calibration. CG2700S is also QHD only
Apple Stuido Display is really a worth considering. If you want to believe in Holy Calibration Almighty and use "Art is Right" trick I'm fine with that, but remember that Art is wrong, as the spectral calibration for i1Display Pro he uses is not optimal and gives erratic results. X-Rite doesn't provide good PFS spectral calibration with i1D3 API as a standard, but they made very good custom PFS calibration for HP, so it's actually a very good idea to use it instead of standard PFS characterisation:
https://forum.luminous-landscape.com/index.php?topic=139594.msg1229110#msg1229110
-
It's reasonably good but can also be calibrated using spectros like I1Pro 2
i1Pro2 has too small FWHM resolution for W-LED PFS (~2-3 ∆E*00 error for white)
-
EIZO has some quality issues with UHD model CG2700X...
Is there evidence of "some quality issues" instead of ordinary supply issues perhaps which are common these days... or is this gossip and rumor? This is a new display which has not begun shipping and so there may be any number of supply issues or production issues (including getting volume production of components that meet quality standards) to resolve before shipments begin.
so it won't be available until they'll resolve them with AOC.
What would AOC have to do with a new Eizo display? I think that you mean display panel manufacturer AU Optronics Corporation (AUO).
-
For what it's worth my Eizo has a self calibrating puck. It's reasonably good but can also be calibrated using spectros like I1Pro 2.
The built-in calibrators have evolved and improved over the years. A very useful feature of Eizo ColorNavigator is the sensor correlation feature. This allows sensors, like the built-in automatic calibrator, to be correlated to a master instrument. It's especially useful in multi-monitor production environments and often used in broadcast and motion picture production facilities.
An example of sensor correlation is shown in this video...
https://www.youtube.com/ColorNavigator 7 Calibration for PostProduction (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wGNKSTCBtk8)
-
Is there evidence of "some quality issues" instead of ordinary supply issues perhaps which are common these days... or is this gossip and rumor? This is a new display which has not begun shipping and so there may be any number of supply issues or production issues (including getting volume production of components that meet quality standards) to resolve before shipments begin.
What would AOC have to do with a new Eizo display? I think that you mean display panel manufacturer AU Optronics Corporation (AUO).
Excuse me, I meant AUO. You can call it whatever you like, fact is the CG2700x won't be available soon.
-
Excuse me, I meant AUO. You can call it whatever you like, fact is the CG2700x won't be available soon.
I'm not characterizing anything about any announced products or their delivery time table. I don't have non-public knowledge and wouldn't pretend to or care to speculate. Delivery delays with any new product no longer surprise me or seem unusual.
-
Did you do the FW update of PA271W?
https://www.sharp-nec-displays.com/dl/en/dp_soft/pa_fm_update/select.html
PA271Q is decent and it works with M1, but it's only QHD. If you can find PA311D i highly recommend it as I own it and really love it.
EIZO has some quality issues with UHD model CG2700X, so it won't be available until they'll resolve them with AUO. You can only get UHD EIZO CS2740 which is also not bad, but it has no OCF and auto calibration. CG2700S is also QHD only
Apple Stuido Display is really a worth considering. If you want to believe in Holy Calibration Almighty and use "Art is Right" trick I'm fine with that, but remember that Art is wrong, as the spectral calibration for i1Display Pro he uses is not optimal and gives erratic results. X-Rite doesn't provide good PFS spectral calibration with i1D3 API as a standard, but they made very good custom PFS calibration for HP, so it's actually a very good idea to use it instead of standard PFS characterisation:
https://forum.luminous-landscape.com/index.php?topic=139594.msg1229110#msg1229110
Did not know about the FW update for the PA 271, thanks for the info and link. Just did the update. Not sure it make any difference though. Depending on what you're doing QHD resolution can be a good thing vs 4K let alone 5 or 8K. Not sure what the acronym OCF refers to, regardless for the work I do QHD is probably the better screen resolution unless someone can prove me wrong.
"Art is wrong", apparently you have some empirical knowledge regarding this and other statements. I am willing to listen but how can you prove such statements? BTW read the link, still not 100% convinced but thanks again.
-
i1Pro2 has too small FWHM resolution for W-LED PFS (~2-3 ∆E*00 error for white)
That's absolutely true. Unfortunately, normal human vision person-person has an even larger dE variation between "whites" of a monitor and "whites" of a broad-spectrum lamp that has the same chromaticity.
This can be demonstrated by two side-by-side monitors with different tech that have been adjusted for a white match by one person then viewed by others. In a group of 10 people only some will have a match.
I've occasionally thought some enterprising biz could produce a special device that could be used to characterize the human variation numerically which could then be used as a secondary calibration input.
But for my case, matching print viewing with the monitors by adjusting chromaticity of the two monitor's whites against print viewer also fixes this. But I'm the only one using them.
-
That's absolutely true. Unfortunately, normal human vision person-person has an even larger dE variation between "whites" of a monitor and "whites" of a broad-spectrum lamp that has the same chromaticity.
This can be demonstrated by two side-by-side monitors with different tech that have been adjusted for a white match by one person then viewed by others. In a group of 10 people only some will have a match.
I agree with both statements. Before acquiring the NEC MDSV SENSOR3 by X-Rite I used the i1Pro sensor to calibrate my PA271W and the difference was night and day with Delta E's but it was in the darkest values where this became so apparent rather than the lighter values.
While I don't doubt for a second different people perceive different whites, truth is this carries through the entire color gamut. Long before calibration came into existence via hardware/software solutions just for grins and giggles I routinely asked interns and other associates to profile my monitor with the the rather crude on screen methods based upon human visual perception. As you might guess no ever came close to getting anywhere near close enough including myself. This experiment became nearly comical once hardware/software solutions became available for comparison.
-
I agree with both statements. Before acquiring the NEC MDSV SENSOR3 by X-Rite I used the i1Pro sensor to calibrate my PA271W and the difference was night and day with Delta E's but it was in the darkest values where this became so apparent rather than the lighter values.
Spectros are noisier than colorimeters and so they get worse as luminance decreases. Even taking longer samples only helps somewhat because there is also a significant drift issue.
-
"Art is wrong", apparently you have some empirical knowledge regarding this and other statements. I am willing to listen but how can you prove such statements? BTW read the link, still not 100% convinced but thanks again.
1) Here's evaluation of my PA311D's factory calibration accuracy - I used a 6nm FWHM spectrometer to check the effect of setting chromatic coordinates in Multiprofiler/OSD menu:
(https://i.imgur.com/al7Jn6C.jpg)
(https://i.imgur.com/YpmcyGW.jpg)
As you can clearly see the achieved white point is deadly accurate colorimetrically, with no slightest ∆E*00 error.
2) After I confirmed that the white point of my PA311D can be considered as reference I measured it and my MBP16's Retina XDR, both set to x0,313 y 0,329 (D65) using standard PFS Phosphor .edr that contains one SPD curve measurement of Panasonic PFS IPS panel in Lenovo P70, and had checked that the measurement results were different, with smaller or bigger errors for various i1D3 samples (that depends of how close to standard CMF an actual copy of i1D3 is)
3) Then I swiched the standard PFS .edr to PFS Family .edr custom made for HP, that contains a couple of SPD curves - after the switch the measurements were back spot on, for both PA311D, Retina XDR, and all my i1D3s samples.
-
Thanks @Czornyj for the additional info, understood part 1, but Part 2 & 3 is a bit more confusing. The introduction of the Lenovo seems to muddy the waters, not sure how this one relates.
At the end of the day I don't really know what to make of this given the adamant opposite points of view regarding monitor calibration and associated workflows.
-
Not sure what the acronym OCF refers to...
OCF could refer to Off-Camera Flash, Obsessive-Compulsive Foundation, or dozens of other things (https://www.acronymfinder.com/OCF.html). In this case, it's a reference to Optical Compensation Films (https://link.springer.com/referenceworkentry/10.1007/978-3-319-14346-0_209) of which there are a variety.
LCD displays consist of several complex components. When you start to examine the component parts, you find that there are layers of complexity within each component. There are polarizers sandwiched into an LCD panel and if you examine their structure, you find that a simple sheet of polarizing film has several individual component layers in a combined stack (http://dev.informationdisplay.org/IDArchive/2011/January/DisplayMarketplaceGettingtheLightThroughTF.aspx). [Fortunately, in this link most of the acronyms are defined as they arise. It's a helpful way of writing for readers that may not be familiar with acronyms which don't enjoy widespread use.]
...regardless for the work I do QHD is probably the better screen resolution unless someone can prove me wrong.
What's right is what works for you based on your individual methods and preferences.
-
At the end of the day I don't really know what to make of this given the adamant opposite points of view regarding monitor calibration and associated workflows.
I'm not sure if I'm included in the adamant points of view regarding monitor calibration and associated workflows. I think that I've described situations where calibration is typically required by the situation — 1) the person in charge of production requires calibration for quality control and consistency throughout the production chain or 2) a specialized use has critical tolerances which leads to a greater need for verifying the accuracy of all devices used. I've indicated that few fall into those categories where calibration would be required, and for those that do; it is the use situation that dictates calibration and not the quality or stability of the device.
An example of a specialized use with critical tolerances would be medical diagnostic monitors. I mention it as an example and a bit of Eizo history trivia, because the Eizo ColorEdge line is an outgrowth of their medical products line. Their medical monitor product line existed prior to their creative line and most of what we associate with ColorEdge products (uniformity equalizer, stability enhancements, self-calibration, etc.) originated in their medical diagnostic monitors.
The one thing that I have been adamant about is that people expressing an interest in the topic of calibration should first understand what it is and what it isn't and should not be misled by the misuse of terminology. I've tried to accomplish that without adding to any confusion which may exist.
-
...If you want to believe in Holy Calibration Almighty...
I don't know what Holy Calibration Almighty is, but I'm guessing that it's where you go to have your calibration measuring instruments blessed. It may be something like a NIST (National Institute of Standards and Technology) Certificate of Calibration.
-
Many (all?) newer Apple displays are calibrated at the factory. That's good. Unless the calibration isn't ideal for your needs. Then you need to recalibrate to those aim points.
What we also do not know is if the displays change behavior over time (most likely yes) so again, recalibration.
Get an i1Display Pro if you can afford one.
I have been calibrating a 2017 iMac with an i1Display Pro and have been unable to see any difference between the before and after views, even after a month or more. This applies to color and brightness.
-
I have been calibrating a 2017 iMac with an i1Display Pro and have been unable to see any difference between the before and after views, even after a month or more. This applies to color and brightness.
So your point is?
-
So your point is?
That the monitor seems very stable.
-
That the monitor seems very stable.
Seems; now let's see the measurement trending over a year. In dE.
-
Curious, what would cause any given LED display to drift or loose its stability over time. I doubt the actual panels themselves would change over time, certainly voltage swings might cause drift but surely all of these displays would have internal voltage regulation, that leaves the LED backlight source itself which given their very long lifespan (normally) would indicate to me the LED’s would not drift much if at all in their lifespan. Certainly nothing like the older technology fluorescent backlight which absolutely do drift due to the phosphors burning out over time.
I don’t have a dog in this race, but the discussion does beg the question what would cause an LED display to drift?
-
Curious, what would cause any given LED display to drift or loose its stability over time. I doubt the actual panels themselves would change over time, certainly voltage swings might cause drift but surely all of these displays would have internal voltage regulation, that leaves the LED backlight source itself which given their very long lifespan (normally) would indicate to me the LED’s would not drift much if at all in their lifespan. Certainly nothing like the older technology fluorescent backlight which absolutely do drift due to the phosphors burning out over time.
Why not ask (as two mere examples) Eizo and NEC exactly what components in the entire system they supply, causing them to recommend re-calibration.
Here's what I'm told in my SpectraView manual:
How often do I need to calibrate my monitor?
Answer: The answer will depend on how critical a color accuracy is necessary, how long the monitor is used per day, environmental conditions and the characteristics of each individual monitor. Some users working in highly critical color applications may calibrate their displays every couple of days. Others may only need to do it once a month. The recommended and default re-calibration period is every 2 weeks. The Validate Calibration feature can always be used to verify the display’s white point and Intensity and determine if the monitor needs to be re- calibrated. Always remember to allow the monitor sufficient time to warm up and reach optimum color performance before performing any color critical work or calibrating the display.
-
Why not ask (as two mere examples) Eizo and NEC exactly what components in the entire system they supply, causing them to recommend re-calibration.
Here's what I'm told in my SpectraView manual:
Thanks.
I suppose, but typically the customer service people one tends to connect with at technology companies do have limited engineering knowledge. One would probably need to discuss this with the actual engineers themselves. You might be able to talk with them but its highly unlikely most of the rest of use would be given the time of day with the engineers who design these monitors.
The answer provided in your Spectraview manual strikes me as being a typical canned corporate comment to cover their butt more than something truly based on science or engineering acumen, but I could be wrong too.
-
I suppose, but typically the customer service people one tends to connect with at technology companies do have limited engineering knowledge. One would probably need to discuss this with the actual engineers themselves.
Go for it. Not that it matters. The manufacturers provide (expensive) tools like Colorimeters and software to recalibrate their displays, some software even has reminders to do so. IF as you assume, like David, that this process is so stable, why would anyone ever need to recalibrate a display after the first time doing so?
The answer provided in your Spectraview manual strikes me as being a typical canned corporate comment to cover their butt more than something truly based on science or engineering acumen, but I could be wrong too.
It strikes you but you as yet have no data to show us why they expect recalibration as often as every day or as little as once a month. This assumption is very similar in thinking to David's whereby he feels, without any data, that his display is "stable" because he doesn't see any difference in toggling calibration on and off. And yet, there are software products that provide trending over time, using actual colorimetric measurements and dE analysis to show users exactly the stability and difference of the display over time.
Yes, you could be wrong and the recommendations from the display manufacturers could be right. I hope you don't mind that until you come up with some actual data, I'll stick with the manufacturers recommendations, broad as they may appear to some. :D
Every time I look at my right foot, I assume it's exactly 12 inches long (it isn't) and every time I use it to measure something it is consistently inaccurate. There are reasons humans use measuring devices that have a known accuracy and provide consistency in measuring something (like a display).
"I often say that when you can measure what you are speaking about, and express it in numbers, you know something about it; but when you cannot measure it, when you cannot express it in numbers, your knowledge is of a meager and unsatisfactory kind."-Lord Kelvin
-
Not trying to pick a fight on this and as previously stated I have no dog in this race. FWIW I have also been doing digital imaging since the mid 90's and as such have always calibrated my monitors (when it was possible in those days) at somewhat regular intervals. Currently I have a Spectraview PA271W, 10 years old but still ticking which IS calibrated on a regular basis.
I merely brought up the possibility of why an LED monitor might not drift and loose its stability over a period of time. Just for the record David is not the only one who believes some monitors are stable over long periods of time, and have seemingly provided some evidence to support this such as @Czornyj who also uses an NEC monitor. It is worth noting, the tech support person I discussed this with at Eizo earlier this week also supports the idea of regular calibration.
-
Not trying to pick a fight on this and as previously stated I have no dog in this race.
Understood. I'm simply providing the actual facts we have thus far and ignoring the assumptions.
I merely brought up the possibility of why an LED monitor might not drift and loose its stability over a period of time.
It's a possibility of a wide range of devices we call displays but nonetheless, LED display suppliers, at least two, tell us to recalibrate. Until I see measurement data that this isn't necessary, I'll stick with the manufacturer's recommendations.
It is worth noting, the tech support person I discussed this with at Eizo earlier this week also supports the idea of regular calibration.
There you go.
-
Of course all this recalibration assumes that your calibration device drifts less than your monitor. It’s been some time since anyone compared 10 or more devices of a particular type against a reference calibration tool.
-
Of course all this recalibration assumes that your calibration device drifts less than your monitor. It’s been some time since anyone compared 10 or more devices of a particular type against a reference calibration tool.
Good point, one I haven't thought of either.
It never ends though. Over the last couple of days I have calibrated my PA271W a few times and for what ever reason the each ∆ E's do not show up on the tab, stating an N/A. Never ran into this one before. Otherwise the calibration looks good.
-
Of course all this recalibration assumes that your calibration device drifts less than your monitor.
The "drift" of the Colorimeter?
Good point, one I haven't thought of either.
The dE's of any manufacturer's device is well expressed and better be invisible or you got yourself a POS.
https://www.displaycalibrations.com/x-rite_i1_measurement_solutions_info.html
-
Just copied this from the Spectraview Manual.
Note: Several factors can influence the results of the validation process and a Delta-E values of 3-5 do not always indicate that the display needs to be recalibrated. Even very slight differences in the positioning of the sensor from when it was calibrated, and the length of time the monitor has been powered on, and the basic measurement repeatability accuracy of the sensor itself, all impact the results. Also keep in mind that the Delta-E value is comprised of the luminance and color difference. Differences in color are much more critical than a difference in relative luminance.
and further down in the text:
The calibration and adjustment process has inherent variability due to many factors such as the repeatability of color sensor measurements, and changes within the display as it is adjusted. The basic accuracy and repeatability specifications for most sensors is typically +/- 0.002 or higher for CIE xy, and +/- 2% for luminance. These variances alone can give rise to Delta-E values of up to 2 or 3.
-
Of course all this recalibration assumes that your calibration device drifts less than your monitor. It’s been some time since anyone compared 10 or more devices of a particular type against a reference calibration tool.
Well here's 9 in a row to start, all measured in PatchTool (36 samples) and then a dE report from ColorThink Pro.
Basic measurement repeatability accuracy of the sensor itself:
--------------------------------------------------
dE Report
Number of Samples: 36
Delta-E Formula dE2000
Overall - (36 colors)
--------------------------------------------------
Average dE: 0.10
Max dE: 0.25
Min dE: 0.02
StdDev dE: 0.07
Best 90% - (32 colors)
--------------------------------------------------
Average dE: 0.08
Max dE: 0.22
Min dE: 0.02
StdDev dE: 0.05
Worst 10% - (4 colors)
--------------------------------------------------
Average dE: 0.24
Max dE: 0.25
Min dE: 0.23
StdDev dE: 0.01
--------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------
Invisible! I1Display Pro Plus.
-
And once again I can't seem to obtain color tracking errors, oh well.
(http://)
-
Search some older posts here, some users had this issue in the past, none here:
-
Yeah this has never occurred before until yesterday. No idea what is different. Will look on this forum, but an internet search turned up noting so far.
-
Curious, what would cause any given LED display to drift or loose its stability over time.
Having investigated this in some detail, let me tell you that LEDs drift quite markedly with temperature, and to a lesser degree over time.
Monochromatic LEDs change in wavelength, amplitude and spectral shape with temperature. Phosphor based (i.e. white) LEDs vary due to the underlying monochromatic LED changes, and may have additional variation in phosphor response to compound the effect.
Over time, LEDs have a "burn in" change at the start of their lives (roughly 100 hours), and a slower change over their lifetime. The lifetime of a LED is typically quoted as the time before it reaches 50% of its initial output. Lifetime depends on how hard they are being driven, amongst other things, but are generally long, which is a good thing.
I don't have any direct experience in regard to LCD panels, but I'd be a bit surprised if there wasn't temperature and aging effects in play there as well, give the chemical/electrical nature of liquid crystal (they certainly get slower with lower temperature), and things like physical spacing changing with temperature etc. Now all this may not add up to much in day to day and less critical usage, but it is definitely there, and something to worry about if you are going to rely on a display long term.
[ If you think that making a highly stable light source is easy, then I'm sure the calibration standards people would love to hear from you! Typical light references are very expensive, and guaranteed for a quite limited number of hours. Making stable sensors has challenges as well, but seems a bit easier overall. ]
-
Well here's 9 in a row to start, all measured in PatchTool (36 samples) and then a dE report from ColorThink Pro.
Basic measurement repeatability accuracy of the sensor itself:
Repeatability tests tell you nothing about the aging effect of the sensor. Yes, the sensor itself also ages with time.
-
Repeatability tests tell you nothing about the aging effect of the sensor.
Of course it does. You're lost in color space again. Try actually reading and trying to understand the topic and test ("Listen to understand instead of listening to respond." - Barack Obama)
Well here's 9 in a row to start, all measured in PatchTool (36 samples) and then a dE report from ColorThink Pro.
Basic measurement repeatability accuracy of the sensor itself:
One who understands and has the tools simply run the same test at a later date and compares the dEs. A process you can't produce nor conceive of! :o
Just like (for you) the process of photography.
I'd suggest Frans, you attempt to read and understand this, but the first sentence will very likely make your head explode:
https://www.argyllcms.com/doc/WideGamutColmters.html
-
So I was having a bit of think about it, and there is a fundamental difference between displays and sensors in regard to long term stability, and it comes down to energy density. A display has a minimum energy density dictated by the required brightness. A sensor has no minimum. Energy density drives long term behavioural changes, due to things like dopant, semiconductor and metal migration, thermal cycling, chemical reactions, etc. In contrast a sensor has orders of magnitude lower energy density, and in the role of display measurement, is on for a very small fraction of the time of the display.
None of that says that you can't make a display with excellent out of the box and longer term stability, but in the long run, relying on sensors to be consistent is likely to be a better bet than relying on the display not to change.
-
So I was having a bit of think about it, and there is a fundamental difference between displays and sensors in regard to long term stability, and it comes down to energy density. A display has a minimum energy density dictated by the required brightness. A sensor has no minimum. Energy density drives long term behavioural changes, due to things like dopant, semiconductor and metal migration, thermal cycling, chemical reactions, etc. In contrast a sensor has orders of magnitude lower energy density, and in the role of display measurement, is on for a very small fraction of the time of the display.
None of that says that you can't make a display with excellent out of the box and longer term stability, but in the long run, relying on sensors to be consistent is likely to be a better bet than relying on the display not to change.
Good points, makes sense to me. "Energy density" at least for us non engineering people seems a bit nebulous, but from what I gather the sensor is a mostly passive device either receiving or reading electrical impulses of one form or the other while a monitor is burning daylight nearly constantly as long as it is on and being used. Thanks
-
"Energy density" at least for us non engineering people seems a bit nebulous,
Energy density = watts (dissipated) per cubic mm. Implies current density and temperature rise.
-
Here is a synopsis of color management that provides an overview of some of the issues encountered in this complex and wonderful subject:
Color Spaces & Management (https://eclecticlight.co/2022/05/31/colour-notes-7-colourspaces-and-rendering/)
Unfortunately there quite a few misunderstandings presented there. :'(
-
Given the unspecified misunderstandings, perhaps in the pursuit of accuracy would it be better if I deleted the link?
You can or you can ask about the misunderstandings which you may believe after reading that article. Up to you.
FWIW, let's start with this: cameras, scanners, and humans don't have a color gamut.
Only devices, or systems, that render color have a color gamut. Digital cameras do not have a color gamut (they have a color mixing function). Same with scanners. Dr. Roy S. Berns from RIT stated, in Billmeyer and Saltzman’s Principles of Color Technology: "Color gamut: Range of colors produced by a coloration system." Color gamut applies to systems that produce color (Printers, TVs Displays, projector) and color spaces as well.
-
You can or you can ask about the misunderstandings which you may believe after reading that article. Up to you.
FWIW, let's start with this: cameras, scanners, and humans don't have a color gamut.
Only devices, or systems, that render color have a color gamut. Digital cameras do not have a color gamut (they have a color mixing function). Same with scanners. Dr. Roy S. Berns from RIT stated, in Billmeyer and Saltzman’s Principles of Color Technology: "Color gamut: Range of colors produced by a coloration system." Color gamut applies to systems that produce color (Printers, TVs Displays, projector) and color spaces as well.
Yeah. Lots of bad info about "gamuts" In particular input devices (cameras, etc.) don't have a gamut in the sense they respond to any spectral combo. Rather, their problem is that the response is, at best, only approximate to that of human vision. So 2 colors that appear to be different can create the same sensor response. So what color is that response supposed to be mapped to? This is the big problem with cameras (digital or film), scanners and such.
And then there's the dynamic gamut limits v luminance that are intrinsic to printing and any colored surface.
Here's a good paper describing Pointer's Gamut (max from a large number of real world objects) and MacAdam's gamut limits which are the theoretical limit of any colored surface. These are compared with the capabilities of various RGB gamuts.
https://philservice.typepad.com/Pointer_MacAdam_Wide-Gamut_Displays_v2.pdf
-
Interesting link and read, thanks for that. The results do not surprise and what I had sensed but couldn't prove scientifically.