Luminous Landscape Forum
Raw & Post Processing, Printing => Colour Management => Topic started by: stefohl on April 30, 2018, 10:07:46 am
-
Got a newsletter from Basiccolor, in which they wrote that LUT-profiles aren't compatible with MacOS Sierra and High Sierra. If you use a LUT-monitor profile, your program icons will have exaggerated colours. And the colours in Preview and other Apple programs will show wrong colours. The problem will be worse if you have a monitor with a large colour gamut.
Is this something that you have noticed? Bit surprised that I haven't heard of this problem before. If it's been around since Sierra, it's been around some years.
-
Is this something that you have noticed? Bit surprised that I haven't heard of this problem before. If it's been around since Sierra, it's been around some years.
I don't use LUT Profiles for my display (SpectraView, no need) so no, I haven't noticed it and it's not a problem.
-
I'm currently using LUT-based profiles for my Viewsonic VP-2785 display. I don't see the problem.
Lloyd
-
Bizarre!
I was using LUT profiles (by Basiccolor!) for my old Eizo in 10.12.6 on Mac Pro until last week, seemingly OK.
Now using Eizo Color Navigator Matrix profiles for new Eizo.
-
Got a newsletter from Basiccolor, in which they wrote that LUT-profiles aren't compatible with MacOS Sierra and High Sierra. If you use a LUT-monitor profile, your program icons will have exaggerated colours. And the colours in Preview and other Apple programs will show wrong colours. The problem will be worse if you have a monitor with a large colour gamut.
Is this something that you have noticed? Bit surprised that I haven't heard of this problem before. If it's been around since Sierra, it's been around some years.
The problem is not apparent in all the applications - Apple standard image viewer and previews are affected afaik. To me some colours look more saturated and shadows usually are crushed (or excessive contrast is applied - can't say exactly what it is). It works fine in Adobe Lightroom/Photoshop and FRV however.
-
Curious. I don't really have the need to use LUT profiles. The monitor looks fine with matrix. I just did it for the heck of it. I DID use version 2 instead of version 4, if that matters. I did a direct comparison of an image with Preview and PSCC 2018 side by side. They looked identical, and in no way displeasing, to me. Of course, the profile was written with the Viewsonic Colorbration software, which is just a HW-lut enabled version of i1Profiler, and my i1Pro. Perhaps the problems are more prevalent with Basiccolor.
Lloyd
-
Curious. I don't really have the need to use LUT profiles. The monitor looks fine with matrix. I just did it for the heck of it. I DID use version 2 instead of version 4, if that matters. I did a direct comparison of an image with Preview and PSCC 2018 side by side. They looked identical, and in no way displeasing, to me. Of course, the profile was written with the Viewsonic Colorbration software, which is just a HW-lut enabled version of i1Profiler, and my i1Pro. Perhaps the problems are more prevalent with Basiccolor.
On iMac 5K Retina 2017 (wide gamut), ICC v4 matrix they look distinctly different to me. I long has abandoned relying on a Preview or other Mac OS tools to give me a good rendition.
-
And then there's the slight problem that an LUT based ICC monitor profile uses Lab PCS and cannot cover all of Adobe RGB. So it can be problematic for wide gamut monitors. Especially those with a more saturated green than Adobe RGB's green which will get clipped even more.
-
And then there's the slight problem that an LUT based ICC monitor profile uses Lab PCS and cannot cover all of Adobe RGB.
Really? Care to point to the source of this?
-
And then there's the slight problem that an LUT based ICC monitor profile uses Lab PCS and cannot cover all of Adobe RGB. So it can be problematic for wide gamut monitors. Especially those with a more saturated green than Adobe RGB's green which will get clipped even more.
It's not clear to me what this is all about. The attached illustration and data indicate that my LUT-based BasicColor PA271 monitor profile for my wide-gamut PA271W monitor has a wider gamut than ARGB(98) in all directions. I am using Mac OSX El Capitan (10.11.6) on a Mac Pro (model version 5,1) which of course has a standard Lab-based PCS in the CMM. I have no problem seeing highly predictable and consistent colour and tone for soft-proofed photos on the monitor and out of the printer. As BasicColor Display's core engine hasn't changed much, if at all, over the past few years. if there are problems with LUT-based display colour rendition on more recent OSX versions, the problem was generated by Apple Computer.
-
It's not clear to me what this is all about. The attached illustration and data indicate that my LUT-based BasicColor PA271 monitor profile for my wide-gamut PA271W monitor has a wider gamut than ARGB(98) in all directions. I am using Mac OSX El Capitan (10.11.6) on a Mac Pro (model version 5,1) which of course has a standard Lab-based PCS in the CMM. I have no problem seeing highly predictable and consistent colour and tone for soft-proofed photos on the monitor and out of the printer. As BasicColor Display's core engine hasn't changed much, if at all, over the past few years. if there are problems with LUT-based display colour rendition on more recent OSX versions, the problem was generated by Apple Computer.
Well, I'm wrong it appears. It's been well over a decade since I've used LUT profiles back in the GMB days. Clipping does not occur with XYZ PCS which BasicColor appears to create, only Lab PCS.
-
Well, I'm wrong it appears. It's been well over a decade since I've used LUT profiles back in the GMB days. Clipping does not occur with XYZ PCS which BasicColor appears to create, only Lab PCS.
Yes, the BasicColor profile I generated for my display uses XYZ PCS.
-
Yes, the BasicColor profile I generated for my display uses XYZ PCS.
But it's not just that - I see no clipping or any other problem in Adobe PS or Lightroom or some other colour managed applications. I do see it in Apple tools like Preview and somewhat in browsers like Safari/Firefox.
-
I think I mentioned above Alexey that this seems to be an Apple problem. If so, they need to fix it. Has anyone complained to them?
-
I think I mentioned above Alexey that this seems to be an Apple problem. If so, they need to fix it. Has anyone complained to them?
Has anyone tested this with another software product to confirm it's an Apple bug?
-
Has anyone tested this with another software product to confirm it's an Apple bug?
You mean build a profile with something other than BasICColor? Will try that over weekend with Argyll as well and see if that helps.
I am not so sure now where I have seen that but when quite some time ago I looked into that, I recall that I found a reports somewhere that it is a MacOS problem and was reported to Apple.
-
Has anyone tested this with another software product to confirm it's an Apple bug?
I did. There's nothing's wrong with Argyll XYZ LUT profile (High Sierra 10.13.4).
-
I did. There's nothing's wrong with Argyll XYZ LUT profile (High Sierra 10.13.4).
Interesting! So it seems BasICColor is placing the blame in the wrong direction. Thanks for that testing.
-
Interesting! So it seems BasICColor is placing the blame in the wrong direction. Thanks for that testing.
I'm not at all confident we know yet where the problem is. If BasicColor's core profiling algorithms haven't changed over the past several years but Mac OSX versions have, it's not clear the problem is with BasicColor. However that said, the way these things are supposed to work - my understanding - is that roughly six months or so before Apple plans to issue an OS update, they provide the SDK to outside developers for them to do the needful for ensuring compliance of their applications with the forthcoming OS release. Has this been happening? If not, why not, but if yes, did BasicColor comply, or were they in a position where they could not comply? Lots of things to understand before coming to any conclusions. In the final analysis it could be useful for a viable option Matrix/LUT to be maintained, but not clear to me what would be needed to assure that. While the difference between the two may not matter much for high-end well-linearized displays, I can imagine it still be useful in other contexts. Even with my PA271 I know I achieved a more satisfactory profile with the LUT option, at that time on Snow Leopard and now on El Capitan.
-
I'm not at all confident we know yet where the problem is.
Appears it isn't a problem for that other software product. Next be useful to try i1Profiler (I don't use it for display profiling but it should allow creation of a LUT?).
-
Appears it isn't a problem for that other software product. Next be useful to try i1Profiler (I don't use it for display profiling but it should allow creation of a LUT?).
Could be useful, but also painful -it's "procedure-heavy". I can't because I'm on El Capitan, so whatever I find wouldn't matter. But perhaps the more salient point is that an operating system change could interact differently with similar but different third-party products, depending on factors we aren't informed of yet.
-
But perhaps the more salient point is that an operating system change could interact differently with similar but different third-party products, depending on factors we aren't informed of yet.
They can if there's a bug in the software ;D
I'll look at i1P on my MacBook Pro display in a bit, I'm running 10.13.4.
-
They can if there's a bug in the software ;D
I'll look at i1P on my MacBook Pro display in a bit, I'm running 10.13.4.
Maybe a bug, but maybe an incompatibility of some kind we are unaware of. I'd remain agnostic on this one without more compelling information.
-
Maybe a bug, but maybe an incompatibility of some kind we are unaware of. I'd remain agnostic on this one without more compelling information.
Just built a LUT profile in i1Profiler for the MacBook Pro. Something IS wrong. Photoshop and Preview and Safari, all with the same ProPhoto RGB image appear slightly differently from each other. IF I reload the original ICC profile, they all match.
EDIT: plugged in the NEC, all three applications match!
-
Just built a LUT profile in i1Profiler for the MacBook Pro. Something IS wrong. Photoshop and Preview and Safari, all with the same ProPhoto RGB image appear slightly differently from each other. IF I reload the original ICC profile, they all match.
EDIT: plugged in the NEC, all three applications match!
You’re right - Preview looks different with LUT display profiles, it’s limiting the image gamut to sRGB. In Safari, PS and when you preview images by pressing space key all looks the same, and Preview renders image the same when matrix type profile is attached to display.
-
You’re right - Preview looks different with LUT display profiles, it’s limiting the image gamut to sRGB. In Safari, PS and when you preview images by pressing space key all looks the same, and Preview renders image the same when matrix type profile is attached to display.
Images saved in sRGB still look different in PS and Preview - I don't think it's that. Attached Jpeg opened n PS and Preview (PS on the left). Monitor profile by basICColor v4 LUT
-
Images saved in sRGB still look different in PS and Preview - I don't think it's that. Attached Jpeg opened n PS and Preview (PS on the left). Monitor profile by basICColor v4 LUT
On my end, all three applications look different. I suspect PS is “correct” but no way would I use such a profile (or can with my Spectaview) anyway.
-
On my end, all three applications look different. I suspect PS is “correct” but no way would I use such a profile (or can with my Spectaview) anyway.
PS/Lightroom are correct - verified by opening the same file on calibrated monitor in Windows. So far the problem is in MacOS built in applications it seems.
-
I'm not at all confident we know yet where the problem is. If BasicColor's core profiling algorithms haven't changed over the past several years but Mac OSX versions have, it's not clear the problem is with BasicColor. However that said, the way these things are supposed to work - my understanding - is that roughly six months or so before Apple plans to issue an OS update, they provide the SDK to outside developers for them to do the needful for ensuring compliance of their applications with the forthcoming OS release. Has this been happening? If not, why not, but if yes, did BasicColor comply, or were they in a position where they could not comply? Lots of things to understand before coming to any conclusions. In the final analysis it could be useful for a viable option Matrix/LUT to be maintained, but not clear to me what would be needed to assure that. While the difference between the two may not matter much for high-end well-linearized displays, I can imagine it still be useful in other contexts. Even with my PA271 I know I achieved a more satisfactory profile with the LUT option, at that time on Snow Leopard and now on El Capitan.
It sounds like users are caught between a rock and a hard place - if you use LUT screen profiling your Apple software previews are bad, if you don't use it you have a bad profile for PS if your monitor doesn't play well with a matrix-shaper.
It looks like we might go back to the bad days when users have to specify the desired screen profile for their image editing app.
Frankly, if a choice is forced on me I'd go for the bad previews and nice Basiccolor profile.
Edmund
-
Frankly, if a choice is forced on me I'd go for the bad previews and nice Basiccolor profile.
Edmund
So how to you properly edit a photo under soft-proofing with a bad preview?
-
So how to you properly edit a photo under soft-proofing with a bad preview?
You can't and you shouldn’t. And it isn't just soft proofing that would be affected, it would affect all previews under color management. Just switch to Matrix profile IF the issue affects you. Far lesser of two evils!
-
You can't and you shouldn’t. And it isn't just soft proofing that would be affected, it would affect all previews under color management. Just switch to Matrix profile IF the issue affects you. Far lesser of two evils!
Makes sense.
-
Makes sense.
Mostly because the alternative proposed and for the sake of so called Apple software previews, doesn't. :o
Photoshop and Lightroom to name two image editing applications seem fine. Preview, Safari, two app's that are not used to edit images are affected by this bug. IF you use those applications to 'edit' and view images, then perhaps you want to use the profile type suggested which still doesn't work properly! So yeah, that mindset doesn't make a lick of sense to me.
-
if you use LUT screen profiling your Apple software previews are bad, if you don't use it you have a bad profile for PS if your monitor doesn't play well with a matrix-shaper.
Bodes well for a display that operates fine and dandy ("plays well") with Matrix profiles; like my SpectraView!
-
Bodes well for a display that operates fine and dandy ("plays well") with Matrix profiles; like my SpectraView!
And then you don't see any change between the different applications?
It seems that the problem is aggravated if you use a two monitor setup. Anyone tested?
-
And then you don't see any change between the different applications?
No and I am running a dual display system.