Luminous Landscape Forum
Raw & Post Processing, Printing => Colour Management => Topic started by: jjlphoto on February 20, 2009, 06:28:59 pm
-
A friend of mine just bought a brand new Apple iMac. I've the GMB i1Pro device, so I offered to do a cal/profile on his display. (According to the GMB license, I can legally install the i1 Match3 software on another person's machine.)
In the i1 Match 3 v3.6.2 wizard, I set the desired target values to 120 cd/m2, 6500K, and 2.2. I slid the brightness slider in the iMacs Display Prefs to minimum, but the lowest the iMac will go is 230 cd/m2. Is he simply stuck with a machine that is not designed to be properly cal/profiled?
-
A friend of mine just bought a brand new Apple iMac. I've the GMB i1Pro device, so I offered to do a cal/profile on his display. (According to the GMB license, I can legally install the i1 Match3 software on another person's machine.)
In the i1 Match 3 v3.6.2 wizard, I set the desired target values to 120 cd/m2, 6500K, and 2.2. I slid the brightness slider in the iMacs Display Prefs to minimum, but the lowest the iMac will go is 230 cd/m2. Is he simply stuck with a machine that is not designed to be properly cal/profiled?
It's a common problem - not only with iMac.
-
Is that 230 the value the software returned AFTER calibration and profiling or before? If before, after you finished the calibration and the profiling what L value did the software return?
-
A friend of mine just bought a brand new Apple iMac. I've the GMB i1Pro device, so I offered to do a cal/profile on his display. (According to the GMB license, I can legally install the i1 Match3 software on another person's machine.)
In the i1 Match 3 v3.6.2 wizard, I set the desired target values to 120 cd/m2, 6500K, and 2.2. I slid the brightness slider in the iMacs Display Prefs to minimum, but the lowest the iMac will go is 230 cd/m2. Is he simply stuck with a machine that is not designed to be properly cal/profiled?
I've spoken to the xrite sales rep Marty Glickman about this before and he said the luminance will get adjusted to the proper level by the Match software. Not the best case scenario but it works.
However THIS (http://lightroom-news.com/2008/02/07/shooting-tethered-with-the-canon-eos-1ds-mkiii/) article doesn't give too much credence to the display itself.
Working with the new Intel iMac
"Why an iMac? Well, I shoot a lot on location or in hire studios, so a portable computer is essential and I find that iMacs offer a high-powered computer with a large built-in. These are easy to transport and suit the way I work. Now regarding the new 24″ iMac I can confirm that there is a problem with the display on my screen. The left half of the display is brighter and it is impossible to set the brightness any lower than 215 cd m2. Worse still, I have not been able to generate a decent monitor profile using the Eye-One pro and ColorMatch software. It is a significant enough problem that I have found it impractical to use for judging how photographs look in Lightroom or Photoshop. The highlight tones are so blown out that I can’t tell the difference between white and off-white, which results in skin tones looking washed out and lacking in contrast. This is definitely the worse quality monitor I have ever had to work with. My solution, as you can see from the intro picture, has been to rig up an Apple 23″ LCD display as a second monitor and use this to view the photos."
-
Is that 230 the value the software returned AFTER calibration and profiling or before? If before, after you finished the calibration and the profiling what L value did the software return?
As stated in my OP:
in the i1 Match 3 v3.6.2 wizard, I set the desired target values to 120 cd/m2.
After the cal/profile was complete, the final reading is always +-230cd/m2. I set it side by side with my Eizo, both displaying my favorite Andrew Rodney test image, and his looked substantially lighter.
I've spoken to the xrite sales rep Marty Glickman about this before and he said the luminance will get adjusted to the proper level by the Match software. Not the best case scenario but it works.
Total BS. See above.
The left half of the display is brighter and it is impossible to set the brightness any lower than 215 cd m2. Worse still, I have not been able to generate a decent monitor profile using the Eye-One pro and ColorMatch software.
His has the same uneven appearance, even after substantial warm-up. After the cal/profile was made (I did it three times), I did the gray scale test, and it rendered a very choppy looking gradient, and there was a lot of magenta/green rainbowing.
He's got another friend with a Monoco Optix and the corresponding software. I wonder if that package will be able to drive his luminance level down?
Thanks for all the feedback guys. Glad its not mine.
-
Ok, lets go through this again.
The Imac out of the factory will only go so dim. Why they built it this way I have no clue. That being said you can set the brightness on these manually to 10% or so and then use calibration software to adjust the brightness in the video card. Not ideal but it does work and can be a reasonable solution. The unevenness of these particular displays is a good reason for a return. Calibration can't help that problem.
-
....The Imac out of the factory will only go so dim. Why they built it this way I have no clue. That being said you can set the brightness on these manually to 10% or so and then use calibration software to adjust the brightness in the video card...
How do you do that Jack? Before running the cal/profile, I went to the Display Prefs and slid the brightness slider all the way to the left, which is minimum. Is there something I am missing?
-
John, I can't speak for any other piece of software, but with Coloreyes you select the LCD Brightness only monitor plugin, set your target white point luminance to the value you want and profile. The adjustment will be made in the video card. I would assume you could do the same thing with any other calibration tool.
-
John, I can't speak for any other piece of software, but with Coloreyes you select the LCD Brightness only monitor plugin, set your target white point luminance to the value you want and profile. The adjustment will be made in the video card. I would assume you could do the same thing with any other calibration tool.
Same with GMB i1 Match3. In the start-up window in the wizard, the user can set their desired target points. I selected a lum of 120cd/m2. But that bloody iMac is so bright right out of the box, the GMB software can only drop the displays lum so much, even with the display manually set to minimum in the OSX Display Prefs.
-
Perhaps you should download the Coloreyes demo and give that a spin.
-
I've read about an app called "Shades" which allows you to lower the brightness of an iMac. For every person who recommends it, there's somebody else who slams it, but it's worth trying.
-
Actually it is not worth trying. Here's why. You build your profile based on the output of the video card and then you make a brightness adjustment with shades. Now your profile is worthless unless you can make the leap that changing the brightness out put of the card won't change anything else. All shades does is adjust the output of the video card. And it will only work after profiling. With a shades adjustment in place, building a new calibration and profile will reset it. So now you need to go back and set it again and wreck your profile.
It's a non-starter if profiling is important.
-
Hmmm ...
Well, in that case, John's friend should simply work in a very bright room
-
As stated in my OP:
in the i1 Match 3 v3.6.2 wizard, I set the desired target values to 120 cd/m2.
After the cal/profile was complete, the final reading is always +-230cd/m2. I set it side by side with my Eizo, both displaying my favorite Andrew Rodney test image, and his looked substantially lighter.
OK, thanks for clarifying - it wasn't obvious to me at what point in the process you got that very bright reading. The reason I asked is exactly what Jack Bingham mentioned - one expects (based on CED experience anyhow) that the calibration/profiling software should adjust the video card to deliver approximately the cd/mm2 you asked for as an input to the calibration. One wonders in this case whether the problem of reducing iMac's brightness is largely due to the video card or to the display or both. It just crossed my mind - and without knowing anything about the build of this computer - that perhaps the card can be changed if that's the source of the problem?
-
Mark this is really very simple. The imac out of the box is too bright. Drag the brightness slider all the way to dim and you could still have 200+. The only solution is to drag the slider down to 10% or so and then have your calibration software do the rest in the video card. Simple, non-elegant solution to a less than ideal manufacturing practice.
-
Jack, yes - sounds completely sensible as you put it. But I've heard - forget where, and don't know whether this is true - that making very large calibration adjustments in video cards can cause them to have other problems rendering accurate images, hence it's better done in the display itself (clearly very constrained in this case). Anything to this general point?
-
As a general rule making calibration adjustments to monitor internal high bit luts will always be better than making color and brightness adjustments to video cards. However in the absence of that ability you have only two choices. Settle for a less than ideal color match to print or in some cases suffer with some banding in the shadows. Most monitor calibration tools these days do a very good job of smoothing out the banding. I have several imacs myself that I run at d50 or so, measured from my viewing booths, the banding is minimal and the color match is right on. In my mind the color match is a much more critical factor than some banding.
The imac is a compromise from the start so you have to pick your demon.
-
Hmmm ...
Well, in that case, John's friend should simply work in a very bright room
Just raise the luminance of the viewing booth by the display to result in a visual match. Keep the ambient light low if possible (it can't be too low).
-
Geez Andrew, how is that even vaguely relevant? Not only has John's friend bought a fairly run-of-the-mill consumer computer, he hasn't even sprung for his own calibrator, so I think the chance of him owning a viewing booth is pretty remote, don't you?
-
Geez Andrew, how is that even vaguely relevant? Not only has John's friend bought a fairly run-of-the-mill consumer computer, he hasn't even sprung for his own calibrator, so I think the chance of him owning a viewing booth is pretty remote, don't you?
He's got to calibrate the damn thing. But he's got to take viewing conditions into mind before he can set calibration. You can't match a viewing booth to a display without having some idea you will drive the booth to set luminance.
-
??? ... what booth?
Isn't the point of this thread that John can't bring his friend's screen's luminance down low enough to stop it burning his eyes out of his skull?
-
??? ... what booth?
Whatever conditions next to the display he's viewing the prints.
-
In the absence of a viewing booth, he's viewing the prints in his room lighting - hence my original (albeit tongue-in-cheek) statement.
-
It really doesn't matter whether we are talking about a viewing booth or a west facing window that looks out on San Francisco Bay. We are talking about the same thing, which is how @#$%^&*()_ bright the imac is and what you can do to fix it. The point was you can do it but there are compromises to be made.
-
It really doesn't matter whether we are talking about a viewing booth or a west facing window that looks out on San Francisco Bay.
No it matter. One is totally controllable and allows a user to at least start considering what luminance to match, the other is totally non controllable and not appropriate for print viewing along a display.
You can't start to decide on a target for luminance until you KNOW how you'll view the prints by that display and how you'll control both.
Or does the software you come here to hock have a brain probe that reads the users mind about the luminance of both areas and can control the lighting of the viewing conditions on its own? Or you just want to go along with the rest of the lame color management vendors who suggest some arbitrary cd/m2 value they pull out of their butts, with no regard to viewing of the nearby print, causing so many to wonder WHY the print and display don't match?
-
No it matter. One is totally controllable and allows a user to at least start considering what luminance to match, the other is totally non controllable and not appropriate for print viewing along a display.
You can't start to decide on a target for luminance until you KNOW how you'll view the prints by that display and how you'll control both.
Or does the software you come here to hock have a brain probe that reads the users mind about the luminance of both areas and can control the lighting of the viewing conditions on its own? Or you just want to go along with the rest of the lame color management vendors who suggest some arbitrary cd/m2 value they pull out of their butts, with no regard to viewing of the nearby print, causing so many to wonder WHY the print and display don't match?
Nice job of completely misinterpreting what was intended here. The point was it does not matter what the source is, you need to deal with it. Perhaps you might have noticed the tongue in cheek intent had you spent a few more seconds rereading rather than hitting the attack button so quickly.
-
Perhaps you might have noticed the tongue in cheek intent had you spent a few more seconds rereading rather than hitting the attack button so quickly.
The only "attack" was based on the fact you are a principle of a company that sells a product which is totally non transparent to the readers here. It would be prudent to at least put a signature on your posts or in your user info letting people know this.
-
The only "attack" was based on the fact you are a principle of a company that sells a product which is totally non transparent to the readers here. It would be prudent to at least put a signature on your posts or in your user info letting people know this.
Oh stop it. Now we're going in a completely other direction aren't we. First it was misinterpreting the intent of my post completely and now we're back to the old saw about being a sales guy for some product. Every time you get pinned in a corner you pull that one out. Lets cut the bull ok. For once just admit you misread it.
If people don't know by now that I represent Coloreyes they are sleeping. Because it has been clear and transparent for a very long time, nor do I deny, obfuscate or disguise it in any way, and you make it a point, to make it a justification for dismissing any point I choose to make. Particularly if it allows you, in your own mind, to avoid facing a mistake you might have made.
Perhaps it's time you disclosed who pays you. There is no indication whether your sudden endorsement of "smart monitors" is because NEC pays you or you just get a warm glow from being a buddy of one of the monitor geniuses on the planet. Eizo had been making "smart monitors" for a very long time before NEC. But we suffered through years of 8 bits in 8 bits out until NEC. Suddenly high bit internal monitor luts work! They are not doing anything unique here so clearly you have a bias for some reason. Please disclose that here.
"Or does the software you come here to hock have a brain probe that reads the users mind about the luminance of both areas and can control the lighting of the viewing conditions on its own? Or you just want to go along with the rest of the lame color management vendors who suggest some arbitrary cd/m2 value they pull out of their butts, with no regard to viewing of the nearby print, causing so many to wonder WHY the print and display don't match?"
Why do you bother to make this stuff up. We have vehemently and repeatedly stated that we don't believe in a luminance target standard or a color temp standard. This mindset is rampant here and I consistently disagree. Check the record. And while your at it before you call us a "lame color management company" you should perhaps recall that we work with one of the world's monitor geniuses too and have a product that has shown consistent growth and gets it's share of rave reviews from not just the public but many consultants and large commercial printers who have committed to the product. You have not used it, you have not read the documentation that comes in the product, therefore you don't have a freakin clue what we recommend.
All of you reading this post should take note that very few manufacturers choose to participate in this forum and many others exactly because of this kind of behavior. I don't know about all of you but I appreciate a manufacture's perspective frequently and have found consultants to be just as mistaken as the rest of the world regardless of the product we are talking about. Using the fact that I represent a product as a means to discredit a post is a cheap shot and too often employed by Andrew. Now if he could show you examples of where I might have misled you just for the purpose of selling you something, that would be a different. But he can't.
Now if you don't care about manufacturers participating in forums like these let the Andrews of the world continue to take cheap shots.
-
Oh stop it. Now we're going in a completely other direction aren't we. First it was misinterpreting the intent of my post completely and now we're back to the old saw about being a sales guy for some product. Every time you get pinned in a corner you pull that one out. Lets cut the bull ok. For once just admit you misread it.
If people don't know by now that I represent Coloreyes they are sleeping.
That's a ridiculous assumption.
There are people who come here posting questions who have never posted before and they are supposed to be sleeping because the name Jack Bingham isn't instantly associated with ColorEyes?
Your SIG doesn't work on this forum? Or a link to your site? That's your idea of transparent?
I'm not saying you don't have good advise and useful things to say. But when you make posts that simply say "Try ColorEyes demo*" without having some way in which to find out where the recommendation is coming from isn't transparent.
I have many differing business offerings, speaking engagements and products all of which are easily accessible on my web site, link in each post. I don't assume anyone knows who I am in any forum. I don't consider them sleeping unless convinced otherwise.
All of you reading this post should take note that very few manufacturers choose to participate in this forum and many others exactly because of this kind of behavior.
Well here's an example of a manufacturer I and others welcome and has an idea about transparency:
http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?showuser=39344 (http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?showuser=39344)
(http://digitaldog.net/files/ScreenSnapz.jpg)
*Nov 30 2006, 03:36 PM, Jan 8 2007, 07:31 AM, Feb 21 2009, 02:09 PM this post
-
All of you reading this post should take note that very few manufacturers choose to participate in this forum and many others exactly because of this kind of behavior. I don't know about all of you but I appreciate a manufacture's perspective frequently and have found consultants to be just as mistaken as the rest of the world regardless of the product we are talking about.
So I'm guessing you changed your sig? I had no clue you were affiliated with ColorEyes, so either I never noticed the sig, or it's new.
Many manufacturers prohibit their reps from participating in online forums because of the fear they will make statements that can be misinterpreted. Even getting straight answers to questions outside of the norm is difficult via email.
I welcome manufacturers and their opinions, but it seems appropriate to remind people of their bias, because they are indeed biased towards their own product. Can't blame them for that, but full disclaimer is appropriate. Unfortunately that bias leads to less objectivity, again normal and to be expected, can't fault them for that. Readers just need to know the bias is there. And I'm not saying this makes them wrong ...
As far as the concept by Andrew, his point is well taken. It is pretty useless to pursue a good monitor to print match without a consistent viewing condition (be it booth, room light, lamp) for the print. Even if it is nothing more than what Mike Johnston recommends in this article.
http://theonlinephotographer.typepad.com/t...iewing-sta.html (http://theonlinephotographer.typepad.com/the_online_photographer/2008/12/the-viewing-sta.html)
And it is possible to increase brightness on the print to compensate for a high luminance value of the display.
As far as the OP's problem, I'm a little surprised. I have a 24" glass screen iMac which calibrates just fine, about 40% of total brightness gets my luminance to about 110. I think mine was the most recent iteration (until today anyway), but maybe they made some change in manufacturing. My new Apple 24" LED display for my MacBook Pro also has no problem achieving a luminance of 110.
-
So I'm guessing you changed your sig? I had no clue you were affiliated with ColorEyes, so either I never noticed the sig, or it's new.
He just changed it today! So we're making some progress in the world of transparency.
As far as the OP's problem, I'm a little surprised. I have a 24" glass screen iMac which calibrates just fine, about 40% of total brightness gets my luminance to about 110. I think mine was the most recent iteration (until today anyway), but maybe they made some change in manufacturing. My new Apple 24" LED display for my MacBook Pro also has no problem achieving a luminance of 110.
I've got an older iMac (20"), like you no problems. Its for casual work (its in the kitchen for recipe surfing), but I still calibrate it and like you, I've had no issues dialing it down.
-
Man, this post got way out of hand. It's too bad my buddy couldn't pop for a MacPro and a decent monitor, but unfortunately he is not in a position to do so. I jokingly told him that he could do his outdoor location shots with no tenting or screening needed to view his shots now!
He's pretty good at reading the numbers, and not solely relying on the display, so I'm sure things will be good enough for him for now.
-
Hi, just wanted to add two more cents to the pot. I am using a 24" iMac like the OP's friend and no, I can't get the display below 200 using the computer's dimming controls. Eye One Match 3 (latest) does nothing to dim the display further. Will probably need to buy Color Eyes. Never had any problem dimming my previous 20 inch iMac (2005 vintage). --Ben
-
Hi, just wanted to add two more cents to the pot. I am using a 24" iMac like the OP's friend and no, I can't get the display below 200 using the computer's dimming controls. Eye One Match 3 (latest) does nothing to dim the display further. Will probably need to buy Color Eyes. Never had any problem dimming my previous 20 inch iMac (2005 vintage). --Ben
Did you try this:
Q: I try to calibrate the Luminance for an iMac display by using the Brightness slider in the MacOS X system preferences panel 'Displays', but it seems that the Eye-One Match does not recognize my changes. The Luminance value reported by Eye-One Match is not turning down, even if the Brightness has now been set to '0'. What am I doing wrong?
A: The Eye-One Match software cannot measure the changed Brightness / Luminance, as long as the window of the control panel 'Displays' is still open. So please adjust the Brightness slider as desired, close the 'Displays' control panel, then wait a second until the eye-One match software has actualized the measurement values. if needed, open the 'Displays' control panel again, adjust Brightness again, close control panel and wait for actualized measurement values. Please repeat this procedure until you have reached the desired Luminance.
-
Andrew, if by closing the System Preferences Displays window you mean clicking back onto Eye One Match, then yes that's what I do and Match sees the dimming changes I have made. The luminance just won't go below about 200. If you mean am I closing completely out of System Preferences, then no I'm not. If that's what I need to do I'll give it a try. By the way, when I dim the display down I have to leave it one notch up from all the way down or it goes back to full brightness every time I reboot. Thanks for the reply .... and hey, I was a student in a Santa Fe Workshops class of yours a while back. Hope you've enjoyed the "Wide Gamut" box of crayons (the BIG box) we gave you at the end of the week! --Ben
-
A friend of mine just bought a brand new Apple iMac. I've the GMB i1Pro device, so I offered to do a cal/profile on his display. (According to the GMB license, I can legally install the i1 Match3 software on another person's machine.)
In the i1 Match 3 v3.6.2 wizard, I set the desired target values to 120 cd/m2, 6500K, and 2.2. I slid the brightness slider in the iMacs Display Prefs to minimum, but the lowest the iMac will go is 230 cd/m2. Is he simply stuck with a machine that is not designed to be properly cal/profiled?
Hi,
I also have an Imac and an i1 tool. I was not able to bring my luminance down with the software from x-rite. I have tried basiccolor - details see here:
http://www.robgalbraith.com/bins/content_p...cid=7-7891-8210 (http://www.robgalbraith.com/bins/content_page.asp?cid=7-7891-8210)
see here for a review: http://www.it-enquirer.com/main/ite/more/b...lor_display_4x/ (http://www.it-enquirer.com/main/ite/more/basiccolor_display_4x/)
Basiccolor works for me. My luminance on an imac 24'' is now at 114.
Sigi
-
Andrew, if by closing the System Preferences Displays window you mean clicking back onto Eye One Match, then yes that's what I do and Match sees the dimming changes I have made. The luminance just won't go below about 200. If you mean am I closing completely out of System Preferences, then no I'm not. If that's what I need to do I'll give it a try. By the way, when I dim the display down I have to leave it one notch up from all the way down or it goes back to full brightness every time I reboot. T
Yes, they appear want you to quit the system preferences. Worth a try.
That a reboot changes this behavior indicates there might be other issues here too. That should not be happening!
-
One OT question, you guys know if the new MacBook Pros have the same issues?
-
One OT question, you guys know if the new MacBook Pros have the same issues?
i have the 15" MacBook pro released a few months ago, no problem with dimming the display. The new 24" LED display also can easily achieve luminance in the 110 range.
-
I raised this issue on this forum a while back. Both Andrew, Jack and others kindly responded with advice. Unfortunately the advice just didn't work for me.
Here is how I got around problem.
I used the Eye One display and target illumination for 120. More often than not I will get nowhere near this even with the brightness slider at 0. I let the Eye One do it's thing and save the profile. In my experience at this stage the screen is still way too bright.
I then switch on Shades (the eye one will not work properly with it turned on). Using a test print with a good tonal range (Norman Koren has some good ones on his website) and a quality viewing light source (I use the a Solux 4700K cliplight, but daylight will do) compare the brightness of screen and print.
I use shades to bring down the screen brightness (its a bit like a neutral density filter) to a level where it more or less matches the brightness of the test print. You can also adjust the colour of the filter.
This is NOT the ideal way of dealing with this issue, I accept that. Yes, the monitor profile no longer accurately describes the monitor behaviour (but is not totally voided either!). The GURUS will complain bitterly and some may suggest burning me at the stake.
But those of you who are reading this with bloodshot eyes, cursing your new machine and bashing your Eye One Display off the desk in frustration.....
Just try it
-
Thanks for your post, Chris. It's nice to hear some practical, down-to-earth, non-guru input.
-
i have the 15" MacBook pro released a few months ago, no problem with dimming the display. The new 24" LED display also can easily achieve luminance in the 110 range.
Thank you Wayne. I'm planning on replacing my MacBook white by sometime next year, but I wanted to know. Still reading Real World Color Management
-
Chris, it's nice to hear that someone else is using Shades after profiling. That's the approach we're currently using on the three new 24 in iMacs in our studio. Not ideal, but it works well enough. As I mentioned before, we leave the iMacs's brightness controls one notch up from the bottom or they take themselves to full brightness when rebooting (all 3 of our iMac 24s do this). --Ben
-
I just bought the iMac 24 inch two days ago. I just tried a moment ago to calibrate it with Eye-One Match version 3.6.2 profiling software (this is the newest version, which I think is years old) and the graytag macbeth (xrite) i1 photo measuring device. I have used this combo for many years on my CRT monitors with no problems. This was the first time I've applied them to an LCD (the iMac).
The device measured everything nicely, but the Eye-One Match 3 profiling software did absolutely nothing to adjust the monitor luminance. I entered a target value of 140 and when I was all done, the luminance level was still 229.
So I downloaded a trial version of the latest version of ColorEyes. Wow! This software - while still using my i1 Photo measuring device- lowered luminance to precisely 140. Their website announces clearly that they have updated the software to handle "even iMacs".
The second I was done calibrating, I went and paid for it. It also has a test screen to look for banding problems. I had none. The test gradient was as smooth as glass.
So....
I think iMacs needn't be avoided, and use any measuring hardware you want, but I can't stress enough how impressive ColorEyes is.
charles
-
Forgive a post that makes me look like a ColorEyes shareholder. I have no relationship with the company beyond being a customer, but I thought I'd post this excerpt from a press release, because there seems to be ongoing concern about apple displays. Also, according to the following, it sounds like coloreyes manages to make actual hardware changes before resorting to vid card adjustments. I'm happy to stand corrected if I'm not understanding this correctly:
"Integrated Color Corporation, creator of groundbreaking tools for digital cameras and monitor profiling, announced today that the company’s ColorEyes™ Display Pro monitor profiling software now supports the full range of Apple monitors, including the Apple Cinema Display as well as the MacBook, MacBook Pro and iMac.
ColorEyes Display Pro is one of the most powerful profiling tools on the market today and gives users unrivaled precision. The software works with most colorimeters and spectrophotometers on the market today, meaning users can simply upgrade their current software rather than purchasing additional hardware. And, with the addition of support for Apple monitors, ColorEyes Display Pro fits into virtually any workflow.
Apple has been very successful marketing high quality displays to imaging professionals. Customers demand accuracy from their displays and a simple process to get there. By adding hardware brightness control for Apple displays, ColorEyes Display makes short work of regular screen calibration."
That's all I've got, folks. Hope this helps.
charles
-
The Eye-One Match software cannot measure the changed Brightness / Luminance, as long as the window of the control panel 'Displays' is still open. So please adjust the Brightness slider as desired, close the 'Displays' control panel, then wait a second until the eye-One match software has actualized the measurement values. If needed, open the 'Displays' control panel again, adjust Brightness again, close control panel and wait for actualized measurement values. Please repeat this procedure until you have reached the desired Luminance.
Follow up: I tried this method with some success. Was now able to drop luminance value to 160. It seems purchasing Color Eyes may the only way to get it down further.