Luminous Landscape Forum
Raw & Post Processing, Printing => Digital Image Processing => Topic started by: tived on August 16, 2006, 09:05:25 am
-
Hi guys,
I know we have been through this before, but I am at the crest of a new opportunity where color correction is of important.
I recently bought two 24" Dells 2405's which when calibrated are very nice but they are not great and I got what I paid for.
Now this is a new ballgame and there is a few dollars involved and I would like to make the right choice.
So, for those of you with the Eizo screens which one did you buy and does it meet your expectations...should I have a poll here ?
what are the pro's and con's
and there is also a group that didn't buy one or another but similar product, but what did you buy and why.
we will be color correcting and retouching
thanks you for taking your time
Henrik
-
...and there is also a group that didn't buy one or another but similar product, but what did you buy and why.
...[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a] (http://index.php?act=findpost&pid=73528\")
I got the NEC 2090uxi to replace my venerable Trinitron 21" CRT because, at ~US$1k, it seemed to me to be the most cost-effective solution for the budget-minded photographer wanting to do serious color work on a 1600x1200 display. So far, I couldn't be happier with it.
Nill
~~
[a href=\"http://www.toulme.net]www.toulme.net[/url]
-
I don't know if they're worth it, but I saw the $1700 240 at my local dealer and really liked it. I hear it really holds its profile well and is easy to profile at most any white point. I'm thinking hard and will probably get one.
There is a review of the 240 over on DOP: http://www.outbackphoto.com/computers_and_...240W/essay.html (http://www.outbackphoto.com/computers_and_more/eizo_ColorEdge_CE240W/essay.html)
-
I went with the NEC 2190uxi after investigating the LCD market. I was interested in the Eizo CE240W because of the wider aspect ratio but backed off after reading about the people that were returning them or otherwise unhappy because of screen problems.
In addition to the 2190, I think that all the monitors in the 90 series have a 12-bit LUT which along with calibration using SpectraViewII provides superb color and completley neutral greys across the screen.
-
Hi guys,
I know we have been through this before, but I am at the crest of a new opportunity where color correction is of important.
I recently bought two 24" Dells 2405's which when calibrated are very nice but they are not great and I got what I paid for.
Now this is a new ballgame and there is a few dollars involved and I would like to make the right choice.
So, for those of you with the Eizo screens which one did you buy and does it meet your expectations...should I have a poll here ?
what are the pro's and con's
and there is also a group that didn't buy one or another but similar product, but what did you buy and why.
we will be color correcting and retouching
thanks you for taking your time
Henrik
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=73528\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I upgraded from a Lacie Photon20visionII (20 inch 1600x1200 cost about £1000 when I bought it a few years ago) to an Eizo CE240W (24 inch widescreen 1900x1200 cost about £1000 a few weeks ago)
It really is easy to profile with Eye One
I dont notice any brightness changes from edge to egde
I'm happy that I got it
-
thanks guys for the input,
the top of the line certainly is very expensive, and i am wondering if you really can see much difference. I currently calibrate my 2 dells and though they are not perfect by any means the reflect what I see in my print (could that I also print badly ;-) < grin>
However, i do notice a shift on the dells when looking at shadow details on the sides (say, make a square in the screen using the hight and imagine it in the middle of the screen) what is outside this square seem to shift in color a bit and it is really hard to see things in the shadows.
However, the Eizo top model is five times more expensive!!! which in the end of the day is OK, if it means that I can create better work from the better monitor. Will it be better in color, 1/4 and 3/4 tones. Will I be able to better color correct images??? will it give me less strain on my eyes, if so then the price is cheap and i shall morgage my first born.
the 240 looks nice, but it too is hit by many complaints just like the dell, and the dell is 1/3 of the price + the calibrator (in my case a iOne 2) hmm.
I guess it gives you the braggin rights and you can say to your clients that, hey do you have highend Eizo screen with 14bit, AdobeRGB1998 color space...etc...what NO! well, what are you complaining about ;-) ,grin. please note sarcasme!
the search goes on, please if you have more info or any links please let me know, thanks
Henrik
-
Hi guys
after having read thing one here again http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/index....613&hl=prosense (http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=9613&hl=prosense) the part from Dr. Karl Lang, then it does not seem to make much sense to spend big on a wide gamut screen atm.
scratching my head? what to do...hmm
thanks
Henrik
-
Hi again guys,
sorry to beat the topic, but since Dr Karl Lang aka "neoprinter" wrote his reply here in december 2005, has there been any development in the techonlogy to justify (make it more legit) the use of the highend screens like the Eizo CG220 or Nec wide-gamut.
If one were to buy one, then what graphics card would help it along to max out its capabilities, I guess the question is what is required to make the most out of these monitors (given that they will actually help you see things better on screen)
thanks
Henrik
-
I agnozied about this for several months. Then I ended-up buying a LaCie 321. I was informed by people who know more about this than I do that the extra thousand dollars between the nearest competing Eizo and the Lacie would not give me a thousand dollars worth of better image quality from the point of view of good colour management between monitor and printer. My experience with the LaCie 321 is on the whole positive. I have it calibrated and profiled with ColorEyes Display. It is extremely accurate for colour. Contrary to professional advice, however, I found I had to manually reduce the brightness and contrast using the monitor's front panel controls in order to improve the luminosity consistency between monitor and print (on Epson Enhanced Matte paper). I believe many other people also find the "brilliance"of LCD displays to be a problem in this respect. I'm not sure whether this phenominon would change much for an extra 1000 dollars or more. Any views?
-
Getting the brightness dialed down far enough can indeed be a problem on less expensive LCD monitors like the Dells etc. For a higher end LCD that's actually targeted at critical color work it shouldn't be a problem. My NEC 2090uxi (which I recommend highly) is calibrated to 100 cd/m² with no difficulty whatsoever.
Nill
~~
www.toulme.net
-
I don't know if they're worth it, but I saw the $1700 240 at my local dealer and really liked it. I hear it really holds its profile well and is easy to profile at most any white point.
Well considering that it's a CCFL (Fluorescent) back lit display and you have no control over that native white point like all other CCFL's, I don't see how that's possible. You can muck around with a LUT to the graphic card but that's not very effective.
Now if you have say $5K to drop, there's the NEC wide gamut LED which does have direct control over the white point since you have three LEDs that can be altered as we did in the old days with CRTs.
-
Getting the brightness dialed down far enough can indeed be a problem on less expensive LCD monitors like the Dells etc. For a higher end LCD that's actually targeted at critical color work it shouldn't be a problem. My NEC 2090uxi (which I recommend highly) is calibrated to 100 cd/m² with no difficulty whatsoever.
Nill
~~
www.toulme.net
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=73999\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Nill, this indeed is what Integrated Color Corp recommends I do with my Lacie 321. Once on gets into the class of monitors we are discussing here colour interpretation and luminosity control becomes satisfactory - in a way one used to be able to get from less expensive CRTs.
-
Hi Mark,
thanks for replying,
are you saying that with the high-end screens they are more adjustable?
i was told to leave the LCD's to their factory default settings and then calibrate from there, only changing the brightness on the screen and do nothing to my graphics card. So far it "seems" to have worked, but then again these current screens are Dell's ...using iOne II to calibrate on my PeeCee.
thanks
Henrik
-
Hi,
I bought the Eizo CG21 a couple of years ago, and I am very happy with the quality and the service/warranty.
About a year ago I had some trouble with the display, and called in to get support. Within a couple of days I had a brand new display shipped to me along with prepayed return shipping of the old display.
Of course the colors and accuracy is also very good. Thins actually do look the same on print and on screen :-) Which I can not say about some less expensive monitors I have tried - even when calibrated..
Lasse
-
Hi Mark,
thanks for replying,
are you saying that with the high-end screens they are more adjustable?
i was told to leave the LCD's to their factory default settings and then calibrate from there, only changing the brightness on the screen and do nothing to my graphics card. So far it "seems" to have worked, but then again these current screens are Dell's ...using iOne II to calibrate on my PeeCee.
thanks
Henrik
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=74062\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Henrik, there is so much on the market one shouldn't over-generalize. I am only using one product so I know what this product does. However, I read from the experience of some people using various "lower-end" LCD monitors that they cannot sufficiently tone down the brightness to get a reliable monitor-to-print luminosity equivalence, whereas my Lacie 321 can just about do it. I say "just about" because I don't think my luminosity matching is yet as good as it was on my old Dell P992 CRT - I wish it had lasted forever - but alas............
I was also told to leave the LCD display settings at their factory default, because with the video card I am using, my ColorEyes Display uses DDC to internally make all the calibration and profiling adjustments needed, except for three parameters one sets in their options dialogue boxes, one of them being luminosity, which I let the software determine (using L*) or set myself. About 120 was recommended. I was told to leave the monitor front panel display settings alone after doing this calibration. I was also told not to bother with the video card AT ALL, because the software takes care of the video card.
As I said previously, it works great for colour reliability, but I still found it advantageous to externally tone down the brightness and contrast on the front panel - perhaps the program set the L* too high relative to the particular chartacteristics of Epson Enhanced Matte paper. I have no idea whether spending yet another 1000 more on the monitor would have improved on what I have, but I was advised by several knowledgeable people that it is not likely. I have also heard good things about one of the new line of Dell LCDs (I forget the model number).
-
...As I said previously, it works great for colour reliability, but I still found it advantageous to externally tone down the brightness and contrast on the front panel - perhaps the program set the L* too high relative to the particular chartacteristics of Epson Enhanced Matte paper. ...
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a] (http://index.php?act=findpost&pid=74084\")
Try setting it to a specific luminance target like 100 or 110 cd/m² instead of L*. If all is working right you shouldn't be having to make front panel adjustments.
Nill
~~
[a href=\"http://www.toulme.net]www.toulme.net[/url]
-
Nill - you are most probably correct. And that is what Integrated Color recommended I do - just means hauling out the puck and re-doing it again, testing it again and seeing with iterations what luminance input works better than what I now have........OK - one should do what should be done the "right way" and your call to order has challenged me to give it a whirl. The worst than can happen is that I spend some time on a few iterations before deciding what to keep.
-
thanks Mark,
I think you are right in that there is not a one-fits-all solution, I sort of knew after have turned on the Dells, that I should have settled for a single smaller Eizo with better pixels but out of the two I havd one calibrates OK, and seems to be quite ok. but I am entering a different ball game and therefore the need for a more reliable and correct screen for color adjustments - one thing is to do it for yourself, another when you are doing it for others, then it needs to be spot on.
Nill,
I had a good read about your NEC and it sounds like a really nice and everything people have been saying.
...just not able to make up my mind,...but I am also waiting to get paid so I can splash out so that can still be a month or so...so still time to change my mind again and again....
How is your computer going, still happy?
Henrik
-
Mark, monitor calibration is not a "set it and forget it" process anyway — typical recommendation is to redo it every two weeks or so.
Henrik, yes, still very pleased with the system. I'm just now moving into the heavy season though so it's yet to get the real workout.
Nill
~~
www.toulme.net
-
Mark, monitor calibration is not a "set it and forget it" process anyway — typical recommendation is to redo it every two weeks or so.
Nill
~~
www.toulme.net
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=74113\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Nill, I think that advice was particularly important for CRT monitors which have the potential for much greater drift compared with LCDs. I believe for good quality LCDs it is not harmful to allow much longer intervals.
-
Nill, I think that advice was particularly important for CRT monitors which have the potential for much greater drift compared with LCDs. I believe for good quality LCDs it is not harmful to allow much longer intervals.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=74114\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
LCD's are as subject to drift (some would say more) than CRTs.
Better software products provide a tranding graph which will update all calibration sessions and give you a delta of changes over time. That's useful to provide real world feedback as to how your individual display may be changing over time.
-
Wonderful avatar, Andrew! ;-)
Nill
~~
www.toulme.net (http://www.toulme.net)
-
LCD's are as subject to drift (some would say more) than CRTs.
Better software products provide a tranding graph which will update all calibration sessions and give you a delta of changes over time. That's useful to provide real world feedback as to how your individual display may be changing over time.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=74115\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Andrew, where did you get that info on the drift from - I'm interested because stuff I've read in the past suggests CCFLs are more stable.
ColorEyes Display does provide this tracking capability. I only got this monitor back in June, so I shall be building a track record for it. That could be interesting.
-
Andrew, where did you get that info on the drift from - I'm interested because stuff I've read in the past suggests CCFLs are more stable.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=74117\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Mostly from my own (few) LCDs. To be honest, they are NOT high end since I'm not a big LCD fan. But I do calibrate and profile my Powerbook laptop and my iMac. And there's a pretty significant difference in panel quality from low to high end. I like the trending part of the software because it does give me some idea how often I need to calibrate and profile. I try to do this once a month.
-
Andrew,
If you will forgive the thread drift, what calibration package would you recommend?
I am using an older colorvision spyder and PhotoCal which is incapable of calibrating LCDs, but has worked reasonably well with my Eizo CRT.
Since I will shortly be faced with the move to an LCD, I will also have to upgrade my calibration package as well. I'd also like to calibrate my "field" laptop.
I used to hear really positve comments on the Gretag EyeOne Display, but now it seems the Monaco X-Rite Pro is the one to have.
Thanks
-
Andrew,
If you will forgive the thread drift, what calibration package would you recommend?
Thanks
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=74119\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
EyeOne Match from GretagMacbeth (oh, I mean X-Rite). I like their software (newest version) best. The OPTIX hardware wise has a technological edge over the EyeOne Display but in the real world, I don't know anyone would really see the difference.
-
Thanks!
-
Wonderful avatar, Andrew! ;-)
Nill
~~
www.toulme.net (http://www.toulme.net)
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=74116\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Nill, clearly you haven't look at Andrews book lately nice frontcover , you better visit your local bookshop and pick up a copy
:-) sorry i couldn't help myself :-)
Henrik
-
Andrew, where did you get that info on the drift from - I'm interested because stuff I've read in the past suggests CCFLs are more stable.
ColorEyes Display does provide this tracking capability. I only got this monitor back in June, so I shall be building a track record for it. That could be interesting.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=74117\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Hi Mark,
I was a bit surprised to read what your comment about calibrating and what sounded like a not so frequent event.
I guess, that we don't really know, but to be on the safe side we just do it, and sometimes even on a daily basis, just incase! You don't want to sit and do a whole days work and then get a call from the printer/client telling you, that the colors has slipped off the page ;-)
however, I could be wrong, and if so please correct
Henrik
-
Softproofing on screen!
I been reading the advertising material on Eizo and came across this part where is gives you the ability to directly softproof on screen bypassing the photoshop color engine, can anyone elabroate on this a bit more.
further, the eizo software gives you the ability to emulate other monitors by using their ICC profile, to ensure colors are matching across multiple monitor systems, that sounds very interesting, but how often will we use it, and does it work as advertised?
hmm, so many questions.....thanks guys for taking the time to help fill in the blanks
regards
Henrik
-
Hi Mark,
I was a bit surprised to read what your comment about calibrating and what sounded like a not so frequent event.
I guess, that we don't really know, but to be on the safe side we just do it, and sometimes even on a daily basis, just incase! You don't want to sit and do a whole days work and then get a call from the printer/client telling you, that the colors has slipped off the page ;-)
however, I could be wrong, and if so please correct
Henrik
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=74147\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Henrik, for someone in a professional environment needing to please clients with exacting standards of course there is never harm in doing something as simple as re-calibrating frequently. I guess it all depends on how exacting one needs to be, and what kind of equipment is at play.
-
Gentle readers:
After reading this thread, it sounds like a bunch of scientists talking about designing a suitcase bomb or something. The image is everything, and then there are sooo many variables, but the monitor is not a make or break deal. I personally like CRT screens, but I admit I have not looked at the latest and greatest LCD offering, other than a friends Mac. I sure hope my Sony hangs in there a while longer. Tivid, keep the Dells and go forth and multiply. Your putting the cart before the horse. Sell some pictures and make some money. If the shadows look a little blocked up after you make a test print, adjust it in Photoshop. Nobody cares, I repeat, nobody cares other than us dweebs what kind of monitor was used. I've been selling photos off and on for 35 years and people have asked me a lot of questions, but what kind of monitor did I use was not one of them. Hell, they don't even care what kind of Printer I use. That hurts. If a sixteen bit monitor ( $$$$$$) and all that assorted hardware gives you the ability to dial in your Cyan 1% better, only you are going to care, and if it's sitting in an unsold pile, even you won't. Now, if I can only rationalize how I'm going to get that Nikon 17-55 2.8 zoom.
Honeybadger.
-
Gentle readers:
After reading this thread, it sounds like a bunch of scientists talking about designing a suitcase bomb or something. The image is everything, and then there are sooo many variables, but the monitor is not a make or break deal.
Honeybadger.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=74164\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Barry, this kind of put-down is uncalled-for. People engaging in this discussion are trying to get a sense of the trade-off between spending and work-flow efficiency, as well as what gives the best value for money. If you have a well-functioning, photo-quality CRT you are blessed and be grateful. When you join the rest of us who need to buy an LCD to replace it, you will start finding such discussions very relevant to your own predicament - I'll bet-ya!
-
Gentle readers:
After reading this thread, it sounds like a bunch of scientists talking about designing a suitcase bomb or something. The image is everything, and then there are sooo many variables, but the monitor is not a make or break deal. I personally like CRT screens, but I admit I have not looked at the latest and greatest LCD offering, other than a friends Mac. I sure hope my Sony hangs in there a while longer. Tivid, keep the Dells and go forth and multiply. Your putting the cart before the horse. Sell some pictures and make some money. If the shadows look a little blocked up after you make a test print, adjust it in Photoshop. Nobody cares, I repeat, nobody cares other than us dweebs what kind of monitor was used. I've been selling photos off and on for 35 years and people have asked me a lot of questions, but what kind of monitor did I use was not one of them. Hell, they don't even care what kind of Printer I use. That hurts. If a sixteen bit monitor ( $$$$$$) and all that assorted hardware gives you the ability to dial in your Cyan 1% better, only you are going to care, and if it's sitting in an unsold pile, even you won't. Now, if I can only rationalize how I'm going to get that Nikon 17-55 2.8 zoom.
point taken barry ;-)
but i/we don't just work on our own images, but other pro's images. I was a very different story when it was just my own stuff, the Dells would be just fine.
No personally I don't really care what it says on the badge of the screeen or if I am using a Mac or PC, what is important is the, as you pointed out is the image, but since it isn't alway my image and someone is paying me/us to do a good job, so they can continue shooting and leave the post processing to us and trust that it is done as good as we can, then I think that it is important for us to eliminate any pitfalls and partly doing that my educating ourselves and maintain good and high standard equipment.
When puttings things in perspective, then the screen is one or two weeks of full time paid work (at peak time)!
however, if there are pitfalls also by getting such screens, like the data path is not fully supported from the graphics card or software used then, it becomes pointless regardless of cost and or brand name ;-)
yes, the image is important and us youngsters can learn alot from you guys who have been around for some time, so I thank you for your input
Henrik
-
Barry, this kind of put-down is uncalled-for. People engaging in this discussion are trying to get a sense of the trade-off between spending and work-flow efficiency, as well as what gives the best value for money. If you have a well-functioning, photo-quality CRT you are blessed and be grateful. When you join the rest of us who need to buy an LCD to replace it, you will start finding such discussions very relevant to your own predicament - I'll bet-ya!
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=74166\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
thanks Mark,
:-)
it is truely frustrating, and we do waste a lot of time trying to sort out some of these technical difficutlies.
with the Dells 2405, I sometimes have to move from side to side to see if I have missed things in the shadows, and the screen does seem to block up in the shadows.
if it was just the monitor one had to worry about then it would be all fine but there is so many other aspects to all this - which also makes it extreemely interesting cos you learn so much while trying to solve all these issues ;-) I hope!
thanks
Henrik
-
Lighten up Dude.
Barry, this kind of put-down is uncalled-for. People engaging in this discussion are trying to get a sense of the trade-off between spending and work-flow efficiency, as well as what gives the best value for money. If you have a well-functioning, photo-quality CRT you are blessed and be grateful. When you join the rest of us who need to buy an LCD to replace it, you will start finding such discussions very relevant to your own predicament - I'll bet-ya!
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=74166\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
-
Lighten up Dude.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=74185\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
This discussion forum is about substance, not personal attacks. If you wish to continue posting to this Forum I would advise that you not come to the attention of the moderators as someone who attacks other members.
-
Mark, monitor calibration is not a "set it and forget it" process anyway — typical recommendation is to redo it every two weeks or so.
Nill
~~
www.toulme.net
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=74113\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Nill, Mark,
I just installed the SpectraView II software for my 2190uxi (Mark, as you are probably aware, your Lacie 321 is Lacie's version of the NEC 2180uxi.. and they are now coming out with the 12 bit LUT version which is a 2190uxi, so we all have essentially the same display). Anyway, sounds like you guys have some experience with the Spectraview software. I just did my first calibration a couple of hours ago, but was confused as to which "target" model to use ("L" D65 ??) or whether I should create my own (6500, 2.2 gamma). I was a little concerned that the preset targets have "intensity" set to "maximum possible". I was concerned that the screen would be too bright. Do you create your own targets ? What settings did you use ?
Any help or tips appreciated.
Tony
-
Nill, Mark,
I just did my first calibration a couple of hours ago, but was confused as to which "target" model to use ("L" D65 ??) or whether I should create my own (6500, 2.2 gamma). I was a little concerned that the preset targets have "intensity" set to "maximum possible". I was concerned that the screen would be too bright. Do you create your own targets ? What settings did you use ?
Any help or tips appreciated.
Tony
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=74997\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Tony, there is a nest of questions here. Firstly, I use ColorEyes Display (Integrated Color Corporation) software with an Monaco Optix XR. This software along with the video card andmonitor are all DDC enabled, so there is not much I need to set. To the extent your package works similarly to mine, the following may be useful. No guarantees!
The procedure I'm using, following the advice of Integrated Color Corp, is to first reset the monitor to its default values using the reset control on the monitor front panel. I assume your monitor has this too. The software takes care of resetting the video card before it does anything else - the user does not see this.
ColorEyes Display with DDC only requires the user to give it three parameters: white point, gamma and luminance. For white point the recommendation is to use 6500 degrees K, because this setting corresponds best with how prints view under Solux D50 illumination (don't ask me why, but it's true!).
(Diversion: you should have a D50 source of illumination in your work area for viewing the prints - either a lamp or a fixture. This is obtainable from www.solux.net, the website of Tailored Lighting in Rochester New York - there may be other suppliers - I use them and they are good.)
For gamma, they recommend and I use their L* setting, but if your package doesn't have that, use 2.2.
For luminance - and this is the trickiest part - don't use a setting such as "maximum" if your software offers you that. It is too bright for the LCDs and papers we are normally using (especially if matte or other such Fine Art papers). I set mine to 110 cd/M2. This will make the screen look rather dull, but that may be exactly what you want - unless you find your prints are coming out consistently brighter than what you see on the screen (means this setting is making you over-compensate brightness in Photoshop). Then you will want to re-calibrate using a higher value of cd/M2, which would induce you to do less brigtening of the image in Photoshop. I found the key thing in using an LCD successfully was not the color calibration/profiling, which these packages and monitors manage well, but getting the brightness tamed to match the printer. This is where playing with the luminance setting until you have confidence in the predictability of the result could be required. It took me several iterations (which just means redoing the profile at different luminance values and testing the results with prints). While it takes some time, the psychic advantage of it is that you get to use your profiling package repeatedly, which almost makes it seem as if the expenditure was worthwhile!
Good luck with it.
-
Tony, you need to create your own. Mine is D65, 2.2, 100cd/m². You might want to play with some of the other default settings also, e.g., I have checked "Average low light measurements," changed Calibration and Profile steps to 52, and set OSD controls to Lock All. The first two, at least from the way I read the manual, should produce slightly better results at the expense of slightly longer calibration times. The last just disables the front panel buttons so that hitting one doesn't change a setting inadvertently.
Speaking of OSD controls, note also that ColorComp is turned off by default, and you have to enable it using those controls (which means, of course that you have to unlock them if you locked them...).
BTW, at the suggestion of someone somewhere, maybe here, I had one of those Doh! moments and realized that you can really make calibration easier on yourself by tilting the display back so that the puck rests happily and securely on the screen surface.
Nill
~~
www.toulme.net (http://www.toulme.net)
-
Also BTW, Andrew recommends using D65 rather than 6500K. There are a couple of posts floating around in which he explains why, but I don't have a link ready to hand.
Nill
~~
www.toulme.net (http://www.toulme.net)
-
Mark and Nill,
THANKS! At least I was heading in the right direction (for a change :-). Have to admit, I had a little help from David White also (probably while you were responding to my post). The SpectraView II is a little different I suspect from your package Mark, but the main parameters are there. Nill, I did set the calibration steps to 52, which seems to be a good sweet spot. The target I just did was D65, 2.2 gamma, and I wound up with luminance set to 115, but will try both 110 and 100 to see how it compares with the output of the iPF5000. Right now, its looking pretty good using my 6000K light source in studio.
Nill, good tip on tilting the screen when positioning the colorimeter. Duh
Once again thanks to both of you for the help. Really appreciated. Now, back to processing way too many RAW files ..
Tony
-
I have to admit the thing I really like best about this is being able to hang the puck on there, hit Calibrate, walk away from it, come back a few minutes later and it's done — magic.
Nill
~~
www.toulme.net (http://www.toulme.net)
-
:-)
Sorry guys, is DCC in the monitor or video card, or in both? and if so which graphics cards have this and which don't
thanks
Henrik
PS: leaning towards the NEC now...but I am sure I will change my mind a dozen times more ;-)
-
:-)
Sorry guys, is DCC in the monitor or video card, or in both? and if so which graphics cards have this and which don't
thanks
Henrik
PS: leaning towards the NEC now...but I am sure I will change my mind a dozen times more ;-)
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a] (http://index.php?act=findpost&pid=75046\")
Hi Henrik,
It requires a supported graphics card and a monitor designed to utilize the communications with the card. Check this link on the NEC site..
[a href=\"http://www.necdisplay.com/support/main.cfm?thePage=http://www.necdisplay.com/naviset/naviset_compatibility.htm&title=NaViSet%20Download]http://www.necdisplay.com/support/main.cfm...iSet%20Download[/url]
Hope this helps..
Tony
-
:-)
Sorry guys, is DCC in the monitor or video card, or in both? and if so which graphics cards have this and which don't
thanks
Henrik
PS: leaning towards the NEC now...but I am sure I will change my mind a dozen times more ;-)
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=75046\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Henrik - I'm dealing with this issue just now and have been for a while since I bought my Lacie 321. The deal is simply this: (1) the monitor must support DDC (if supported, the spec sheet should say so), and (2) the calibration/profiling software you buy must be able to work with your video card for purposes of enabling DDC. Because there is such a huge proliferation of video cards available for the PC platform, it is near impossible for a profiling software provider to have the data needed up to the minute for each and every new card as the market is demanding. Hence Integrated Color Corp for example (a few minutes ago in fact - so you are getting this "hot off the press") recommended to me to either buy a video card which is on the list of tested cards posted on their website, or buy a newer version of one of the cards they list, which MAY work eventhough not listed.
I have no idea how this is being handled by other monitor calibration/profiling software providers, but from the way Integrated Color describes the issue, it is probably not much different.
-
Hi Henrik,
It requires a supported graphics card and a monitor designed to utilize the communications with the card. Check this link on the NEC site..
http://www.necdisplay.com/support/main.cfm...iSet%20Download (http://www.necdisplay.com/support/main.cfm?thePage=http://www.necdisplay.com/naviset/naviset_compatibility.htm&title=NaViSet%20Download)
Hope this helps..
Tony
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=75051\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Thanks Tony - that is an additional wrinkle of course: the card and monitor also need to be able to communicate DDC. I looked at that NEC list for which you provided the link and I can see it may be problemmatic with respect to some of the most recent cards.
-
Further to my immediately previous post, I have now raised this question with LaCie here in Toronto. They told me they have done DDC-enabled calibrations of the Lacie 321 with a very large number of ATI and nVidia video cards and never had a problem with DDC recognition for any of them. So they were surprised about the information on the NEC page-link mentioned previously. They told me, as I mentioned previously, that DDC recognition issues are attributable to the profiling software and the video card, once you know the monitor is DDC capable, but they have not encountered compatibility problems between the cards and the monitor.
-
Thanks Tony - that is an additional wrinkle of course: the card and monitor also need to be able to communicate DDC. I looked at that NEC list for which you provided the link and I can see it may be problemmatic with respect to some of the most recent cards.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=75054\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
As Mark points out, most of the cards in the "family" of chips that are supported seem to work. For example, I have two workstations here that have mainstream NVIDIA GeForce cards in them.. one is almost 3 years old. BOTH work fine and are recognized by the 2190uxi display and the SpectraView software. So I think that you'll find most of the cards that are using chips on the list will probably not be a problem..
-
I'm using the Matrox Parhelia 128MB AGP card with the 2190uxi and SpectraView II. Supports DDC and works just fine with SpectraView II. I also have a smaller 17" monitor attached to the Matrox that I use for the palettes when in PS. I don't bother with calibration of the second monitor and just keep a gray background on it. Getting Windows to handle different calibrations for two monitors seems to be somewhat problematic. I tried Microsoft's tool that is supposed to handle this but it seemed to cause more problems than it solved. Hopefully this will be fixed in Vista.
I'm really upset because I'm going to have to replace the Matrox when I do my next upgrade because most of the new motherboards don't support AGP anymore. Although I did see one new dual Opteron motherboard that did.... Temptation lurks.
I did try the 256 step calibration, but it raised the black level higher than I was comfortable with, so I moved back to the 52 step calibration model and it seems to be the best compromise between a low black level and a smooth gray scale ramp for my purposes.