Luminous Landscape Forum
Raw & Post Processing, Printing => Digital Image Processing => Topic started by: mtrice on July 18, 2006, 07:23:12 pm
-
Hello,
I have a question regarding CRT verses LCD. I have two workstations, one with a Lacie electron 22 blue IV CRT, and one with a Dell 2405 fpw LCD. Both are calibrated with a Lacie blue eye vision. Before I calibrated the Dell I reduced the brightness all the way down and choose the sRGB color mode. Color wise the two appear very close. The Dell is a bit brighter than the Lacie. The density of prints from my Epson 2200 are a very close match to the Lacie 22. The prints are darker than the Dell.
Questions.
1 As a general rule are LCD monitors brighter than CRT’s.
2 If LCD’s are brighter than CRT’s will the brightness of the LCD become the new standard, meaning that the output of printers will be tweaked to match LCD’s.
3 Or, is what I am seeing a consequence of the particular pieces of equipment I own.
-
1. yes. A CRT is an analog device so contrast (whites) and brightness (blacks) can be adjusted individually. LCDs are digital with the only analog adjustment being the brightness of the backlight. This means a luminosity must be found that gives the best compromise between white point and black point (120cd/m2).
2. No. Printers never matched CRTs in brightness and will never match LCDs. The brightness of a print is determined by the light shining on it. When soft proofing, a viewing booth with an adjustable dimmer lets you brighten up the print to match the display.
3. Yes. Dell monitors are always very bright (**Exception found, see below**) and are not ideal for color accurate work. Where the ideal luminosity for a LCD is 120cd/m2, Dell display typically run 180cd/m2 at minimum or more. At levels above 140cd/m2, the eye has a hard time adapting to the display. This can - and often does - trick the viewer into believing the image is far brighter than it actually is and thus compensating unnecessarily. In addition, it can lead to eye strain if the display is too bright.
-
I agree with Daniel. Only I wouldn't blame Dell monitors specifically. Apple monitors and most mainstream monitors are similar in that respect. Monitor manufacturers use "Brightness" and "Contrast Ratio" as marketing tools. So from their perspective "the brighter the better". It will take a while until a more sensible approach becomes mainstream.
140cd/m2 is a distant past. Nowdays you're lucky if you can get below 200.
-
I agree with Daniel. Only I wouldn't blame Dell monitors specifically. Apple monitors and most mainstream monitors are similar in that respect.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=71065\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Apple monitors (at least mine and others I've used) can have their luminance adjusted to a sensible value. Just because another monitor has the same panel doesn't mean it's identical. I never understood the reasoning behind those people who find out what the panel is in a respected monitor then go out and buy a cheaper one with the same panel (often a Dell). The electronics and the backlight are just as important.
-
...140cd/m2 is a distant past. Nowdays you're lucky if you can get below 200.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=71065\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
The ability to calibrate at a reasonably low brightness level should be a primary consideration in the selection of an LCD monitor for serious photo work, but it is frequently overlooked. I was happy to find that my new NEC 2090uxi calibrates to an approx 100 cd/m² without the slightest complaint and with room to spare.
Nill
~~
www.toulme.net
-
Thanks for the responses. Your thoughts fairly well match my experiences.
The additional brightness of the Dell LCD requires the ambient level of the room light to be higher than for the Lacie CRT. The LCD is uncomfortable to look at in a darkened room. On the other hand, the CRT is uncomfortable to look at in a bright room.
As for soft proofing I can’t honestly say soft proofing has not been a reliable method of predicting the print for me. What I have found is similar to old darkroom technique in that you do a test print of a completed image and then make adjustment based on the test.
-
Apple monitors (at least mine and others I've used) can have their luminance adjusted to a sensible value. Just because another monitor has the same panel doesn't mean it's identical. I never understood the reasoning behind those people who find out what the panel is in a respected monitor then go out and buy a cheaper one with the same panel (often a Dell) and then tell others what fools they are by paying more. The electronics and the backlight are just as important.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=71067\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I mention dell for two reasons. 1) the guy bought a Dell. 2) Dells have great bang for the buck and people are drawn to that.
But, to be fair to Dell, I just got back from a client's place where I calibrated their brand new Dell 2407WFP 24" display and to my surprise it let me dim the backlight to 115cd/m2. A first for Dell in my experience and in all I've read from Dell owners in discussion forums (I know that previous versions of the 24" couldn't dim below 200). Either Dell is catching on, or this is a fluke. Time will tell...
I never have heard of a Apple display not letting the user dim it to a useable value (mine goes down to 90). Since Apple aims heavily for the creative market, it would not make sense for them to shun them with overly bright displays. Other companies sell displays that can dim to useable values as well such as NEC, Eizo and LaCie.
-
But, to be fair to Dell, I just got back from a client's place where I calibrated their brand new Dell 2407WFP 24" display and to my surprise it let me dim the backlight to 115cd/m2. A first for Dell in my experience and in all I've read from Dell owners in discussion forums (I know that previous versions of the 24" couldn't dim below 200). Either Dell is catching on, or this is a fluke. Time will tell...
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=71074\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Maybe it's broken :-).
I'm sure there's some bargains out there, especially if 6500/2.2 is all you ever need. In fact, there's probably an argument for buying a cheap monitor locally if you're prepared to take it back half a dozen times until you get one with perfectly even illumination.
-
I didn't mean to be either pro-Dell or anti-Apple. Since I only have direct access to a few monitors I will not insist that all Dells are too bright or all Apples are too bright. 115cd/m2 is perfectly normal obviously.
The minimum white luminance is not a common measurment mentioned in revews though. It does look like most monitors (aside from those highend LCD monitors specifically designed with DDC calibration in mind, not Dells and Apples) seem to be "too bright" at their minimum backlight settings.
"The ability to calibrate at a reasonably low brightness level should be a primary consideration in the selection of an LCD monitor for serious photo work, but it is frequently overlooked...", like Nill wrote, is a statement I fully agree with.
-
Since Apple aims heavily for the creative market, it would not make sense for them to shun them with overly bright displays.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=71074\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
That's an overly optimistic view of "the creative market" to say the least.
Sorry for this remark - but it's true.
-
I didn't mean to be either pro-Dell or anti-Apple. Since I only have direct access to a few monitors I will not insist that all Dells are too bright or all Apples are too bright.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=71076\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Are *any* Apples too bright?
-
The majority of Apple big screen LCD's are SWOP certified. I can't remember which models, though, maybe all of them except the laptops. And yes Apple does cater to the creative market as they've been doing since the late '80's so they've had time to understand the needs of that industry.
If you work in the commercial printing industry where the big money is, you'll appreciate Apple's level of quality LCD's. That's not saying they make the best LCD on the market in regards to other imaging standards, but they provide the tool that's required to get the job done with the least amount of fuss.
-
Are *any* Apples too bright?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=71102\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Hey - if they can get down from their "typical" brightness of 400 or 270 cd/m2 to 120 cd/m2 I'm happy for them. It does not sound too realistic though. I've obviously seen posts complaining about their excessive brightness.
The fact that Apple caters to creative market comes as news to me...
-
Hey - if they can get down from their "typical" brightness of 400 or 270 cd/m2 to 120 cd/m2 I'm happy for them. It does not sound too realistic though. I've obviously seen posts complaining about their excessive brightness.
The fact that Apple caters to creative market comes as news to me...
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=71215\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Clearly you're not very up-and-up on Apple computers or its history. You couldn't be more wrong about either of those items.
-
Just kidding. I learned how to use computers on Macs (Power Mac 9600s and beige G3s). I used to work as a computer support guy for an art school later on... I'm not anti-mac whatsoever.
-
I'm using a LaCie 321 with DDC calibration. The software lets one set luminance, or it will select luminance when the user selects L*. When I calibrated/profiled the monitor, I used DDC and the L* approach. The software selected a luminance value of 187cd/mm. My results indicated that the colour profiling was excellent but brightness and contrast were problematic. There are two fixes: the technically correct one: recalibrate by selecting a lower luminance value such as 120 (which I did NOT do), and the technically wrong one: intervene on the calibration/profiling by exogenously re-adjusting the monitor settings from the monitor front panel. The Lacie 321 does allow one to adjust contrast and brightness independently. Because I knew my problem was related to both and each needed some adjustment, I preferred to test the usefulness of the wrong approach. So I increased the brightness and decreased the contrast relative to the profiled settings. My soft-proofing is now very much more successful ON MY PRINTER, but my approach is "closed-loop" - which I don't mind, because I'm not exporting these images anywhere else but to my printer. The point is, the Lacie 321 does allow independent adjustment of brightness and contrast, and it can be calibrated to relatively low luminance values. I do, nonetheless, reegret the demise of my CRT after 4 years of faithful service. It just started dying and needed to be replaced. There is simply no available CRT good enough to replace it with.
-
I just wanted to add my two cents. I just bought a Dell 2007FWP and at first when I tried calibrating with Monaco I was having problems with the brightnes. Did a little web searching found different topics, etc. and tried just profiling and only adjusting the brightness to achieve approximately 120 cd/m.
The monaco software gives this information after the profile is completed. So after a couple of trial and errors I was able to achieve this easily. At one point with the brightness set to 0 it was around 74 cd/m. With brightness set to about 20 I hit 117 cd/m. This is my first foray into the LCD world but so far so good.
Scott
-
The Lacie 321 does allow one to adjust contrast and brightness independently.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=72440\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
But only one of those is doing anything to adjust the CCFL backlight (one usually assumes brightness but that's not always the case).
-
But only one of those is doing anything to adjust the CCFL backlight (one usually assumes brightness but that's not always the case).
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=72688\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Andrew - have you worked with this particular model, or is this a generic comment? The controls provide for independent setting of brightness and contrast. There is a visible difference of effect between them which is quite noticeable when they are adjusted in turn.
The manual accompanying the monitor says this:
<<Brightness - Adjusts the overall image and background screen brightness.
Contrast - Adjusts the image brightness in relation to the background. >>
Based on that, it would appear you may have a point - they are both adjusting brightness, but one does it in a way that simulates a contrast effect. I'm not fussed HOW they do it, the important thing is the visual clue the result gives the user for obtaining predictable brightness and contrast out of the printer.
-
Andrew - have you worked with this particular model, or is this a generic comment? [a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=72690\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Generic. But there's only a single item you can control (physically adjust) and that's the intensity of the CCFL. What the manufacturer does to allow this isn't always clear.
-
Here's an out of left field question.
How important is the room light in setting up your monitor calibration? I'm in the process of creating my "dry" darkroom so to speak.
I'm about to order some Solus M16 halogens at either 4700 or 5000K to create a daylight room condition. Solus does not reccomend dimming the lights. You buy them in either 35 or 50 watts.
Does the colour of your room lights fool your eye's perception?
I know from working at above average digital printing labs they all have colour corrected rooms for final proofing. The lights there are what one would consider dim...and of course the monitors have all been calibrated.
I'm just wondereing how much the room lighting colour temp affects perception and or the monitors output as the eye sees it.
Jeff
-
HI Mark,
I've just purchased a 319 series Lacie and Blue Eye, but I can't seem to get a reasonable profile after days of trying all kinds of combinations, starting with the defaults. The on screen end results produce multi coloured halos in the highlights, The results are horrible. After calibration and viewing the failed calibration attempts I use the OSD and reset the monitor to factory defaults which restores the screen to a normal image, although I don't know if the profile being loaded by Colorsync is valid or not. I've been shooting for a gamma of 1.8 white point of 6500 and luminance of 100 (I've tried all kinds of different combinations). Are you using the advanced option defaults in the software? Any help to get me off the treadmill would be appreciated. BTW I'm new here, but I've used Lacie CRT's and calibration tools professionally for years very successfully.
thank you,
Glenn
I'm using a LaCie 321 with DDC calibration. The software lets one set luminance, or it will select luminance when the user selects L*. When I calibrated/profiled the monitor, I used DDC and the L* approach. The software selected a luminance value of 187cd/mm. My results indicated that the colour profiling was excellent but brightness and contrast were problematic. There are two fixes: the technically correct one: recalibrate by selecting a lower luminance value such as 120 (which I did NOT do), and the technically wrong one: intervene on the calibration/profiling by exogenously re-adjusting the monitor settings from the monitor front panel. The Lacie 321 does allow one to adjust contrast and brightness independently. Because I knew my problem was related to both and each needed some adjustment, I preferred to test the usefulness of the wrong approach. So I increased the brightness and decreased the contrast relative to the profiled settings. My soft-proofing is now very much more successful ON MY PRINTER, but my approach is "closed-loop" - which I don't mind, because I'm not exporting these images anywhere else but to my printer. The point is, the Lacie 321 does allow independent adjustment of brightness and contrast, and it can be calibrated to relatively low luminance values. I do, nonetheless, reegret the demise of my CRT after 4 years of faithful service. It just started dying and needed to be replaced. There is simply no available CRT good enough to replace it with.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=72440\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
-
Glenn,
Unfortunately, there is little I can advise because I am not familiar with the equipment you are using and my knowledge of this area is confined to the user-type experience I've had - I have no technical background on the inner workings of this stuff. Idon't know the model 319, or Blue Eye, and I assume you are on Mac (reference to Color Sync), whereas I am on Windows XP Professional which does not use ColorSync. I'm using an X-Rite Optix DPT-94 (Monaco Optix XR) with ColorEyes Display (www.integrated-color.com) on my Lacie 321. This combination is working well, after testing various combinations of calibration parameters.
Re your settings, most experts are recommending Gamma 2.2 - even on today's Macs I believe - though if I'm wrong about that someone who knows Mac better than I do will surely step-in here. Your white point and luminance settings are reasonable - the luminance perhaps a trifle low but that doesn't seem likely to be the cause of the halo problems you are having.
I have no idea whether the halos you are getting are caused by the calibration process, the monitor, the video card or any related software/drivers - it would be good if someone more experienced in this field could step-in here and advise.
-
I've just purchased a 319 series Lacie and Blue Eye, but I can't seem to get a reasonable profile after days of trying all kinds of combinations, starting with the defaults.[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=92611\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Generally speaking, you should not be "calibrating" an LCD display so much as merely creating an accurate profile of it's "native" condition...don't know if the Blue Eye allows "native" settings, but all you really want to do is profile the white point and gamma, not change them. Changing or altering the video LUTs for a digital display tends to introduce banding...any LCD will be close to D65 and gamma 2.2-which is an ideal working space for LCDs.
The only thing you want to control is the brightness-about 140 cd/m² for typical LCDs.
-
Shortly after posting I discovered the problem. Recently I have been installing all kinds of new hardware and overlooked updating a new video card on my Mac. The updated drivers solved the issue. I have both a Win XP and an OSX machine and I have suffered sever meltdowns on both during the last month. The video card and Lacie CRT both died within a week and after that my XP developed hard drive problems and its Diamond Pro CRT went for a wander down a dark path as well. The Lacie 319 is a small version of your 321 and the Blue Eye is Lacie's calibration tool.
Many thanks again,
glenn
Glenn,
Unfortunately, there is little I can advise because I am not familiar with the equipment you are using and my knowledge of this area is confined to the user-type experience I've had - I have no technical background on the inner workings of this s
-
Great information, I've had to jump into LCD's without much knowledge. The blue eye does allow for native profiling. After a few successful profiles today, I'm happy that I can begin printing once again with a good deal of reliability.
thanks,
glenn
Generally speaking, you should not be "calibrating" an LCD display so much as merely creating an accurate profile of it's "native" condition...don't know if the Blue Eye allows "native" settings, but all you really want to do is profile the white point and gamma, not change them. Changing or altering the video LUTs for a digital display tends to introduce banding...any LCD will be close to D65 and gamma 2.2-which is an ideal working space for LCDs.
The only thing you want to control is the brightness-about 140 cd/m² for typical LCDs.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=92666\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
-
Glenn,
Your video card and Lacie dieing within a week seems very suspicious. I'm wondering from reading other's experiences with LCD's being way too bright for proper calibration if the bum driver is the culprit. On Windows systems I've read disabling AdobeGamma and its gamma loader and/or updating the video driver fixes this issue as well. Macs don't have AdobeGamma or a gamma loader so no concerns there.
My suspicions are based on the fact CRT's have protection circuits that don't allow the brightness to be driven beyond a certain point before they start producing dangerous levels of X-ray and other things radiating electrons produce. The CRT circuits will shut down or blow a capacitor to prevent this.
I'm still with my 8 year old 19" CRT, 8MB ATI Rage Mobility VGA connect video card, Mac OS 9.2.2 and never encounter overbrightness or calibration issues trying out sub $700 LCD's none of which calibrate as good as my old CRT.
I'ld like to get an LCD but feel it will require buying a whole new computer system and all that entails. It's good to know things worked out for you and you shared this experience with others who may have the same issues.
-
"Generally speaking, you should not be "calibrating" an LCD display so much as merely creating an accurate profile of it's "native" condition."
If we were talking about an 8 bit lcd like an Apple I would agree. But since we are talking about the LaCie 321 which has an internal 10 bit lut all the adjustment can be made there not in the 8 bit card. Therefore it is perfectly reasonable to set target parameters for luminance, gamma and color that are not native and suffer no banding at all.
-
Good Day,
Originally I had thought my problems were solved when updating my video drivers, but not so. After working with three software profiling programs I'm coming to the conclusion there is something faulty with the code in two of them. Both the Lacie Blue Eye Pro software and Coloreyes have both given me the same problems with scrambling the colour, but I have already made some outstanding profiles with Basiccolor, after working through a few setup issues. I had a serious printing session last night and I'm totally happy with my initial results.
I wasn't too thrilled about giving up my CRTs for a an LCD either, but now that I'm finally seeing some positive results, I'm happy to make the change and won't look back.
glenn
Glenn,
Your video card and Lacie dieing within a week seems very suspicious. I'm wondering from reading other's experiences with LCD's being way too bright for proper calibration if the bum driver is the culprit. On Windows systems I've read disabling AdobeGamma and its gamma loader and/or updating the video driver fixes this issue as well. Macs don't have AdobeGamma or a gamma loader so no concerns there.
-
"correct one: recalibrate by selecting a lower luminance value such as 120 (which I did NOT do), and the technically wrong one: intervene on the calibration/profiling by exogenously re-adjusting the monitor settings from the monitor front panel."
Mark, sorry I did not catch this sooner. If you are using ddc, Coloreyes will reset the brightness and contrast settings before each profiling session, so setting them manually is a bit self defeating. Second, you should let the software make those adjustments in the monitor's internal 10 bit lut not do them manually. Pick your luminance. gamma, white point and black rendering and let the software do the job.
-
"correct one: recalibrate by selecting a lower luminance value such as 120 (which I did NOT do), and the technically wrong one: intervene on the calibration/profiling by exogenously re-adjusting the monitor settings from the monitor front panel."
Mark, sorry I did not catch this sooner. If you are using ddc, Coloreyes will reset the brightness and contrast settings before each profiling session, so setting them manually is a bit self defeating. Second, you should let the software make those adjustments in the monitor's internal 10 bit lut not do them manually. Pick your luminance. gamma, white point and black rendering and let the software do the job.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=92917\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Jack,
Would that also apply to a Dell 2405 FPW monitor - if you happen to know. I have been manually adjusting them, which sounds like the wrong thing to do.
Also, how do I know in advance if my monitor is DDC capable?
Thanks, like usual, you are always helpful!
-
Jack,
Would that also apply to a Dell 2405 FPW monitor - if you happen to know. I have been manually adjusting them, which sounds like the wrong thing to do.
Also, how do I know in advance if my monitor is DDC capable?
Thanks, like usual, you are always helpful!
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=92919\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
The trouble is that manufactures may claim their monitor is ddc, which Dell does claim about many but the protocol may not be one of the many standard approaches. Without an sdk from each monitor manufacturer it is often a game of hide and seek trying to determine how each manufacturer is implementing it regardless of the protocol they claim to adher to. And if you are LaCie or Quato or Eizo with it's Flexscan line you don't see the value in providing any info to third party software companies. If you are on a pc there are video cards that do not pass ddc commands correctly, if at all(Eizo excluded). So it is still a bit like the wild west. I have had limited success with Dell monitors running ddc on a pc but very little on the mac. We do provide a list of video cards that have been tested for ddc functionality on our website, www.integrated-color.com. Beyond that I can tell you which monitors ColorEyes Display will see as ddc but I can't tell you much about anybody elses software.
For manual adjustments this depends how the monitor controls actually function. The controls that modify the data rather than the backlight will be more successful and are a reasonable approach if you want to target anything other than native. If you are not targeting native, the more adjustment you can do to the monitor data stream and not in the video card, the better off you will be.
-
"correct one: recalibrate by selecting a lower luminance value such as 120 (which I did NOT do), and the technically wrong one: intervene on the calibration/profiling by exogenously re-adjusting the monitor settings from the monitor front panel."
Mark, sorry I did not catch this sooner. If you are using ddc, Coloreyes will reset the brightness and contrast settings before each profiling session, so setting them manually is a bit self defeating. Second, you should let the software make those adjustments in the monitor's internal 10 bit lut not do them manually. Pick your luminance. gamma, white point and black rendering and let the software do the job.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=92917\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Jack, yes, that quote is out of date. Now that I am DDC-compliant I am doing exactly as you suggest and it works well.
BTW, I am not getting banding from using Display as recommended.
-
Jack,
Is there a definitive and comprehensive site or pdf that explains all the intricacies of DDC's integration with OS versions, display brands, video cards, digital/analog input and whatever other variable that can bite you in the ass after plunking down your hard earned dollars?
All this has gotten so complicated and is the main reason I'm still using a 5 year old Powerbook, Mac OS 9.2.2 and an 8 year old CRT and still get screen to print matches on all of my edited images. What am I missing here?
I keep reading about native states of LCD's and now this DDC stuff and how "so and so's" software can screw the pooch on this particular brand of display and/or video card and/or OS. Jeeze!
Where I can read what exactly is going on under the hood with video cards, vLUTs, internal display LUTs and whether clearing of LUTs during calibration and profiling is part of the mix or if this is nolonger something to be concerned about?
In short if I bought the NEC 1990sxi with its 12bit internal LUT and recommended by Karl Lang, and hooked it up to my VGA Powerbook in Mac OS 9.2.2, calibrated with the original EyeOne Display i1Match 3.01, am I waisting my time and money in regards to getting a decent image display for restoring photos?
-
...In short if I bought the NEC 1990sxi with its 12bit internal LUT and recommended by Karl Lang, and hooked it up to my VGA Powerbook in Mac OS 9.2.2, calibrated with the original EyeOne Display i1Match 3.01, am I waisting my time and money in regards to getting a decent image display for restoring photos?
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a] (http://index.php?act=findpost&pid=93033\")
Hardly. In fact if you did that you would have an excellent display for that purpose. For a little more, you might want to get the 2090uxi instead for its native 1600x1200 res. And you might want to update your Match software to the current v3.6x, which will address the monitor in DDC mode. Better yet, if and when you upgrade to OS X (v10.2 or higher), it'd be worth getting the NEC Spectraview II software to go with it, as it will calibrate the monitor directly via its internal 12-bit LUTs, using your Eye One Display puck.
Nill
~~
[a href=\"http://www.toulme.net]www.toulme.net[/url]
-
In short if I bought the NEC 1990sxi with its 12bit internal LUT and recommended by Karl Lang, and hooked it up to my VGA Powerbook in Mac OS 9.2.2, calibrated with the original EyeOne Display i1Match 3.01, am I waisting my time and money in regards to getting a decent image display for restoring photos?
There are many monitors you can buy and a few pieces of software to take advanyage of ddc. However it is not all clear. For instance the Eizo CE and CG monitors have a sort of ddc available for which they provide info to third party software companies. There is no video card interaction required so that is a plus. Their Flexscan line, while ddc capable cannot be used because Eizo will not provide the info to drive it.
All other ddc monitors involve video card interaction. On the mac this is no big deal because they all support ddc. On the PC you need to refer to the list on our website, www.integrated-color.com, for a list of ddc compatible cards. As for monitors, again there is no universal answer. LaCie makes their own ddc aware software and the 321/319s can also be driven by ColorEyes Display and perhaps Gretag. As mentioned below the NEC monitors are ddc and can be driven by their own software or Gretags, but they do not provide the sdk to us for one reason or another. Beyond that we get into a far cloudier realm. Many Dell monitors claim to be ddc but their performance is very spotty. Viewsonic and Samsung are the same way.
Unfortunately there is no definitive source for this info, and video cards and monitors change so quickly it's pretty tough to keep track.
-
Hi Jack,
Had I realized you to be from Coloreyes I would have asked sooner.
I have a Lacie 319, Blue Eye pro puck, a Radeon 9800 pro special edition video card on a G5 running update OSX. I found Blue Eye Pro software and Coloreyes
created the same corrupt profile. Some call it polarization. Have I overlooked something in the coloreyes software?
glenn
As for monitors, again there is no universal answer. LaCie makes their own ddc aware software and the 321/319s can also be driven by ColorEyes Display and perhaps Gretag. As mentioned below the NEC monitors are ddc and can be driven by their own software or Gretags, but they do not provide the sdk to us for one reason or another. Beyond that we get into a far cloudier realm. Many Dell monitors claim to be ddc but their performance is very spotty. Viewsonic and Samsung are the same way.
Unfortunately there is no definitive source for this info, and video cards and monitors change so quickly it's pretty tough to keep track.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=93054\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
-
Nill and Jack, thanks for the response.
I've been over at jack's integrated color's tech forum and scratching my head on a post about corrupt profiles caused by Photoshop CS2 (requiring?) 16bit LUT profiles. This is new to me. I didn't know the technology had advanced to a stage you can make video card operate in 16bit or maybe I'm not understanding the meaning of a 16bit profile. Here's the link:
http://www.integrated-color.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=433 (http://www.integrated-color.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=433)
This further drives my concerns and doubts about buying newer equipment and software just so I can have an LCD that calibrates like a CRT without banding in a grayramp. I'm back throwing good money after bad like I did back when I started this venture in '98 as upgrading one component required further purchases to get it to work the way you want. The only difference is things were simpler and easier to verify back then than they are now.
What visual improvement on a calibrated display does DDC integration provide and does it require or work better with a dvi connect as apposed to VGA? Has anyone seen the differences with and without both?
-
I'm far from being a technical specialist in this area, but the last question you ask is something I have been through and can relate to the empirical aspects of that experience.
I believe DDC integration provides more convenience and reliability, which in turn perhaps may yield superior accuracy of colour and tonal rendition. Without DDC there are several steps in the calibration process you need to implement using the controls on your monitor. With DDC these steps are performed automatically and mathematically. You don't need to touch the monitor controls. I'm sure there is more to it than this - Jack or others who know it better may wish to complement and/or correct these remarks
Up to this past August I used a Dell P992 (Dell's branded Sony Trinitron) 19 inch CRT - a VGA device. Neither the video card nor the monitor were DDC-compliant. Nonetheless I calibrated it and profiled it using ColorEyes Display w. Monaco Optix XR and it provided me with a very successful colour-managed workflow.
Like it was predicted to happen, after four years of fairly intensive use the CRT started to die, and there were no high quality CRT options to replace it with. After considerable research into cost-effective replacement options and much consultation, I bought a LaCie 321 which is DDC compliant.
The main thing I had to do to replicate the previous reliability of my colour-managed work flow was to select a much lower luminance setting than the monitor is capable of. While the monitor is capable of 250, my setting is 120. I print on Epson Enhanced Matte, which is a low reflectance medium, and I find the 120 luminance setting setting provides a reasonably reliable soft-proof of the impression I will get viewing the print. That is what this whole business is all about - whether the viewing impression from the monitor and the print are close enough for your needs - which would vary from one purpose of photography to another.
As the tehcnology advances and options multiply, it gives us more means to do better and better things, but the side effect is that it gets more complicated. I believe that compatibility has become more of an issue as a result. This puts more of an onus on ourselves to better define our needs and research the necessary conditions for delivering them, which includes considerations of product features, cost and compatibility factors. As consumers we're in the fortunate position of just needing to know how to chose. The providers have a much more daunting task looking at the sea of complementary or non-complementary stuff they need to contend with and working out how to design their own products in ways that keep us happy.
A self-interested New Year's wish from me to them is that they have great success in doing so - meanwhile forums like this will always be great for asking all the good questions and hopefully getting some useful answers!
-
Hi Jack,
Had I realized you to be from Coloreyes I would have asked sooner.
I have a Lacie 319, Blue Eye pro puck, a Radeon 9800 pro special edition video card on a G5 running update OSX. I found Blue Eye Pro software and Coloreyes
created the same corrupt profile. Some call it polarization. Have I overlooked something in the coloreyes software?
Glenn, you should contact me directly. Are you using the older 10 bit Lacie or the newer 12 bit? And are you running 3.2 or pro.
-
Nill and Jack, thanks for the response.
I've been over at jack's integrated color's tech forum and scratching my head on a post about corrupt profiles caused by Photoshop CS2 (requiring?) 16bit LUT profiles. This is new to me. I didn't know the technology had advanced to a stage you can make video card operate in 16bit or maybe I'm not understanding the meaning of a 16bit profile. Here's the link:
16 bit profiles are applied to the data at the system level not in the video card. Video cards are indeed only 8 bit.
-
Thanks for clarifying, Jack.
Any info available explaining what the advantages of 16bit profiles and what calibration software is now implementing it. What does this have to do with CS2 reporting corrupt profiles? Does this mean that when you upgrade to CS2 your profiles need to be 16bit as well or there will be issues?
-
Hi Mark,
Thanks for your help. I've heard so many negative things about LCD's and Lacie monitors I was horrified to plug my LCD in the first time. I'm an Epson Enhanced Matt user along with an 1160 fitted up with a Piezo inkset. Your advise is very useful for my work.
glenn
www.vision-one.ca
The main thing I had to do to replicate the previous reliability of my colour-managed work flow was to select a much lower luminance setting than the monitor is capable of. While the monitor is capable of 250, my setting is 120. I print on Epson Enhanced Matte, which is a low reflectance medium, and I find the 120 luminance setting setting provides a reasonably reliable soft-proof of the impression I will get viewing the print. That is what this whole business is all about - whether the viewing impression from the monitor and the print are close enough for your needs - which would vary from one purpose of photography to another.
As the tehcnology advances and options multiply, it gives us more means to do better and better things, but the side effect is that it gets more complicated. I believe that compatibility has become more of an issue as a result. This puts more of an onus on ourselves to better define our needs and research the necessary conditions for delivering them, which includes considerations of product features, cost and compatibility factors. As consumers we're in the fortunate position of just needing to know how to chose. The providers have a much more daunting task looking at the sea of complementary or non-complementary stuff they need to contend with and working out how to design their own products in ways that keep us happy.
A self-interested New Year's wish from me to them is that they have great success in doing so - meanwhile forums like this will always be great for asking all the good questions and hopefully getting some useful answers!
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=93112\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
-
Glad to be of assistance. Good luck with it and keep us posted on how it is working out for you.
-
Does anyone have any info about the min luminance of the high end Samsungs like the 214T?