Luminous Landscape Forum
Raw & Post Processing, Printing => Colour Management => Topic started by: brntoki on September 07, 2014, 03:18:45 am
-
I would be very grateful for a link, or basic rundown here, of how to setup my new monitor, an Eizo CS230-CNX (only sRGB :( ). I'm not terribly new at calibration, profiling, and color management, but I'm looking for a good starting point to match prints to a desktop Epson photo printer (for now). Just a place to get me in the ballpark at least so I can fine tune from there.
I'm wondering mostly about white point and brightness settings.
http://www.eizo.com/global/products/coloredge/cs230/index.html
There are basic tutorials on the Eizo site, but I'm thinking they are a little too general???
Anyway, just a general understanding of the things that go into print matching would be helpful. I've forgotten so much! And I never had much luck with my ancient and, finally, dying Dell panel.
-
The Eizo tutorials are general because they have to be. In fact I think they are too specific, if anything. They keep recommending a very low and warm white point (around 5000K and 80-100 cd/m²), which will only work under very special and tightly controlled conditions.
But much of this is best done visually, rather than following a recipe. Basically what you want is a white point that gives you a visual match to paper white. Whatever gets you there will work, depending on your working environment.
Then you want a black point/contrast range that also matches the paper. This is equally important and often underrated. As an example, I work mostly for offset print, and I currently have my black point at 0.5 cd/m², which is fairly high. This gives me a contrast ratio as low as 200:1. It looks pretty dull on screen, but it gives me a reasonably reliable preview of the finished result.
The CG246's advertised contrast range of 1000:1 or so I really have little use for...
The CNX edition has ColorNavigator included, right? If not, get it ASAP. It's a brilliant piece of software. I suggest you use it to set up several targets for different scenarios, which you can then switch on the fly just by clicking on them in the list in the ColorNavigator main window. This not only changes the calibration targets, but also switches to the corresponding display profile at system level (which Photoshop/Lightroom uses to display). The only thing you need to remember is to relaunch PS/Lr so that it can pick up the correct profile at startup.
-
Yes, it comes with both Navigator and the calibrator puck, so I'm basically set there. It was only about a $100 more for that option than just the display, so I figured I'd be stupid not to spring for that. I'm in Japan and the Eizos aren't too pricey here.
Thanks for the advice.
I suppose I should have asked in the original post, but what is a relatively inexpensive solution for lighting my bedroom/editing studio? As much as I wanted to get a wide gamut display, I was struggling to pull the trigger on the sRGB model, and couldn't bring myself to pay about double for the wide gamut version. So, as is often the case, money is a constraining factor :( .
-
Don't worry, the CS230 is a very fine monitor and one of the smartest budget buys out there (and yes, we all have budgets). It's in a league above many wide gamut models like the Dell Ultrasharps and so on.
Wide gamut is nice as a bonus. But basic panel quality is infinitely more important.
As long as you have sensible and consistent room lighting I think you should be good to go; you set your calibration targets accordingly. Windows and shifting outside light is the biggest problem, so you should try to control that. But you obviously can't work in a bunker. Fluorescent tubes should be avoided because of weird spectral spikes and troughs.
Other than that, the Eizo tutorials have good tips for setting up your working environment.
-
BTW, the reason the CS230 isn't wide gamut is the same reason the NEC P232 isn't: no wide gamut 23 inch IPS panels exist. LG Display, which is where all IPS panels come from, doesn't make them and so all 23 inch IPS models everywhere are standard gamut.
There used to be an Eizo CG223 and an NEC PA221, both using 22 inch wide gamut VA panels from Samsung. But the VA technology is more or less abandoned by now. It'll be interesting to see whether Samsung's new PLS technology (used in the Eizo CG246) will come in smaller panel sizes and wide gamut.
-
Thanks! Yes, based on my research, what this sRGB panel offered is far more important to me than a lower quality but wide gamut panel. I've struggled with this Dell for a long while now and know that the Eizo is the right choice. I am not going to settle for a non-uniform display, nor one that cannot be calibrated internally rather than through software.
Yes, I think I'm getting a clearer picture of setting up a nice space for my digital darkroom. I was having a hard time finding the right posts through the search function at first, but I've now gotten some good results. I'd read quite a lot on these forums some time ago, but got busy with other projects and forgot many things I had learned.
If you (or anyone else) doesn't mind, could you give me some advice about a graphics card? My current card doesn't offer a display port connection, but only DVI and HDMI. Would it be advisable to upgrade to a card with a display port? According to the Eizo site, I can get a 10 bit signal using the display port connection. Is it that much better? I'm thinking yes, but don't know.
-
AFAIK the CS230 has an 8-bit panel. That's still a whole lot better than the 6-bit + frame rate control of most consumer grade displays.
The advantage of a 10-bit pipeline is to eliminate all traces of banding, with 1024 discrete levels instead of 256. Whether you will see a real difference is questionable as long as the unit is hardware calibrated to an internal 16-bit LUT. This is a more urgent issue with software calibration to the video card, where banding rapidly becomes a real problem.
My CG246 does have a 10 bit panel, but I still haven't upgraded to a 10-bit capable video card. It's just not a high priority.
The thing is to distinguish between "impressive" display and real usefulness as a proofing device. I go for the latter.
-
AFAIK the CS230 has an 8-bit panel. That's still a whole lot better than the 6-bit + frame rate control of most consumer grade displays.
The advantage of a 10-bit pipeline is to eliminate all traces of banding, with 1024 discrete levels instead of 256. Whether you will see a real difference is questionable as long as the unit is hardware calibrated to an internal 16-bit LUT. This is a more urgent issue with software calibration to the video card, where banding rapidly becomes a real problem.
My CG246 does have a 10 bit panel, but I still haven't upgraded to a 10-bit capable video card. It's just not a high priority.
The thing is to distinguish between "impressive" display and real usefulness as a proofing device. I go for the latter.
Actually CS230 has 6+2HiFRC bit panel. There's virtually no visible difference between 10bit vs 8bit pipeline in real world images, and it only works in PS + Fire Pro/Quadro + Windows configurations.
-
Well, according to Eizo we're both wrong. They claim 10-bit capability in the CS230:
http://www.eizo.com/global/products/coloredge/cs230/index.html (http://www.eizo.com/global/products/coloredge/cs230/index.html)
-
It's 6bit + HiFRC panel, 100%.
-
Not to argue (you usually know what you're talking about) - but how do you know? What specific panel are they using? Is it different from the NEC P232?
-
Actually CS230 has 6+2HiFRC bit panel. There's virtually no visible difference between 10bit vs 8bit pipeline in real world images, and it only works in PS + Fire Pro/Quadro + Windows configurations.
Thanks to you both. I didn't know for sure if the advantage was only with the Fire Pro/Quadro cards, or if any recent card with a display port would offer the 10 bit throughput. Eizo wasn't clear about that . . . Oops! They were:
"Using the DisplayPort input, the monitor offers 10-bit simultaneous color display* from a 16-bit look-up table which means it can show more than one billion colors simultaneously. This is 64 times as many colors as you get with 8-bit display which results in even smoother color gradations and reduced Delta-E between two adjacent colors.
*A graphics board and software which support 10-bit output are also necessary for 10-bit display."
Well, looking forward to get started with this monitor in the next day or two.
Thanks again to you both for your guidance.
-
*A graphics board and software which support 10-bit output are also necessary for 10-bit display."
And an OS and application that support it. If you're on a Mac, you're out of luck.
-
The Eizo is nice! Right out of the box and it's worlds apart from the Dell! Impressive. I'll probably go through some calibration/profiling tomorrow.
Thanks for the tips, everyone.
-
it's worlds apart from the Dell!
I can believe that. I had a Dell U2410 once, for exactly 22 hours before I returned it and demanded my money back. The thing was a virtual rainbow from left side to right side and totally useless. I still don't understand how they can get away with this.
As it happens, I've just finished setting up a CX240 at home, to complement the CG246 I have in my office at work. Aside from no hood and a limited built-in sensor (will only maintain calibration targets, but not perform a full profiling), they seem pretty identical.
It replaces an NEC P232 which was also a great little monitor, very similar to your CS230. The standard gamut of the NEC didn't bother me for a second. But with these two more or less identical Eizos it will be much easier to work from either system without missing a step, especially since the built-in sensor in the CG can be set to match the i1 Display 3 sensor I use with the CX. Calibration targets will have to be slightly different, though - I seem to end up with 6400K and 115 cd at work; 6300K and 100 at home.
-
I'm a little confused after running a calibration routine and validating. I've gotten a max delta E of 5.12??? That seems crazy, but the average is .57, and white is .49. I really don't know what to make of that. This is according to color navigator, using the supplied puck (an Eizo branded Spyder4), and relying for now on the Eizo "Photo" target brightness 100 c/dm2, white point of 5500, gamma 2.2. Contrast result is 357:1.
Can someone tell me what all this means? I'm really surprised that I couldn't find any information about acceptable/unacceptable results.
-
That does seem strange and way too high. Is the unit properly warmed up? Did you perform the validation immediately after calibration, and without moving the sensor?
If you click Detail > Validation Record > Detail, you get a list of all the patches used, with delta E values. This should give you an idea of where the problem is.
-
Yes, the monitor was warmed up for a couple hours before calibrating. I did move the puck, but replaced it where it was supposed to go when validating.
I looked at the detail report but was a little confused as to what I was looking at. I think I understand it better now and will look again. From memory, black was whacked (but even then, I wasn't sure because I couldn't find any info about how to read/interpret the results).
-
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BwudOi4bS0JIaTI3MGtRcWFYU1U/edit?usp=sharing
Hopefully you will be able to see this PDF. If not, let me know. It seems, basically, the darker colors are not validating well.
-
Yeah, it's the black patch. Nothing to worry about since you have black point at minimum. With the default settings, this will attempt to maximize contrast (deepest possible black) at the expense of accuracy.
Skip the presets and create a new target. Check "set the target black level" and lift it a little bit - 0.3 or 0.4 is a realistic starting point. Minimum black is fine for watching movies, but not really useful for proofing prints.
Then in the next step you have three options for "priority". Check "Gray Balance" here. With this setting, gray balance is maintained at the white point temperature all the way down to black:
-
I'll do that later tonight and report back. Thanks a bunch! I appreciate your help.
-
Yeah, it's the black patch. Nothing to worry about since you have black point at minimum. With the default settings, this will attempt to maximize contrast (deepest possible black) at the expense of accuracy.
Skip the presets and create a new target. Check "set the target black level" and lift it a little bit - 0.3 or 0.4 is a realistic starting point. Minimum black is fine for watching movies, but not really useful for proofing prints.
Then in the next step you have three options for "priority". Check "Gray Balance" here. With this setting, gray balance is maintained at the white point temperature all the way down to black:
Hmm. No difference with gray balance priority and a .3 black point target. Strangely however, my contrast actually increased, so maybe I should raise that black point to .4 and try again.
-
And at .4, I get a contrast of 258:1, and maximum dE of 4.18. Still seems higher than it should be.
-
And at .4, I get a contrast of 258:1, and maximum dE of 4.18. Still seems higher than it should be.
These reports are not very useful, don't agonize over them. More a feel good button. IF you got really high values all over, it would indicate an issue like the puck fell off, light leak, screen saver came on etc. With the kinds of reports you are seeing now, it's silly to even worry about them. If you want a real evaluation, get BableColor's PatchTool and build a target that really tests difficult colors (dark satruated ones for example). These canned reports don't use enough colors in areas of color space that provide much of a useful test. They are useful for trending (comparing multiple reports over time). Otherwise move on.
-
These reports are not very useful, don't agonize over them. More a feel good button. IF you got really high values all over, it would indicate an issue like the puck fell off, light leak, screen saver came on etc. With the kinds of reports you are seeing now, it's silly to even worry about them. If you want a real evaluation, get BableColor's PatchTool and build a target that really tests difficult colors (dark satruated ones for example). These canned reports don't use enough colors in areas of color space that provide much of a useful test. They are useful for trending (comparing multiple reports over time). Otherwise move on.
Sounds like good advice. I'm not in an ideal setting to really get into print matching at the moment anyway; just moved. Really nice to be able to set different targets and switch them on the fly, though, so playing with different settings has been instructive and somewhat useful.
-
Hmm. Ya know, on second thought, I don't know if it's such a good idea to let this go. Why shouldn't I expect better results from this line of monitor??? Is the Eizo branded Spyder 4 not working correctly? Is the monitor not behaving properly? It may be the case, and I'd rather let Eizo know sooner rather than later.
How can I continue to verify? Maybe I'll run a check with Argyll/Dispcal. Will it read my sensor as a Spyder 4? I'll give it a shot in the next day or two, but if someone has any other advice, I'd love to hear it; to include why I really may have no need to pursue this, as was mentioned, but with a little more information to put my mind at rest.
-
You were told what tool to use if you really want a sound evaluation.
http://www.babelcolor.com/main_level/Tutorials.htm#Printer_and_Monitor_proofing
-
You were told what tool to use if you really want a sound evaluation.
http://www.babelcolor.com/main_level/Tutorials.htm#Printer_and_Monitor_proofing
Another tool to do the same thing is http://www.ugra.ch/ugra-display-analysis-and-certification-tool-2.phtml. But I would go for the Babelcolor solution, as Udact is only for evaluating monitors and you can do so much more with the Patch Tool. But I do believe that you will have problems getting an OK evaluation, as that monitor can't show the most saturated colours correctly.
-
You were told what tool to use if you really want a sound evaluation.
http://www.babelcolor.com/main_level/Tutorials.htm#Printer_and_Monitor_proofing
I apologize, Andrew. I first intended to do as you said and drop this, and when I decided to come back to it had forgotten your suggestion. As well, I read your suggestion as, "If you really want to see how far your monitor is off . . . do this", so I think I pretty much disregarded it as a suggestion that may show my monitor was behaving better than I thought, which is what I was hoping for. It sounded like you were saying, "Don't worry! It's much worse than you think!", which, of course, made me worry :)
If you don't mind, could you tell me why I see suggestions, seemingly everywhere I look, that say things like, "If you see anything above a delta E of 2.5, something is wrong . . ."? I mean, looking at the average and white point deviation gives me peace, generally, but my max sometimes peaking over 5 was a shock to me, honestly.
-
Another tool to do the same thing is http://www.ugra.ch/ugra-display-analysis-and-certification-tool-2.phtml. But I would go for the Babelcolor solution, as Udact is only for evaluating monitors and you can do so much more with the Patch Tool. But I do believe that you will have problems getting an OK evaluation, as that monitor can't show the most saturated colours correctly.
Thank you, Stefan. Could you please elaborate on your statement, "that monitor can't show the most saturated colours correctly."? I have done a little searching of reviews of the CS230, but haven't found much of substance.
-
Thank you, Stefan. Could you please elaborate on your statement, "that monitor can't show the most saturated colours correctly."? I have done a little searching of reviews of the CS230, but haven't found much of substance.
The gamut of a CS230 has about the same size that sRGB has. sRGB has a much smaller gamut than the most saturated colours that a printer can produce, which means that when you view an image with saturated colours on that monitor, they will look a bit less saturated.
-
The gamut of a CS230 has about the same size that sRGB has. sRGB has a much smaller gamut than the most saturated colours that a printer can produce, which means that when you view an image with saturated colours on that monitor, they will look a bit less saturated.
OK. I thought that might be what you were getting at. Nonetheless, I'm trying to figure out if there is something slightly off with this monitor as I'm getting fairly high deviations in the dark colors. To my knowledge, that shouldn't be happening with this monitor. If there is a problem I should bring up with Eizo, I'd like to know it.
-
It's already established that the high delta E is the black patch, RGB 0,0,0. So you need to figure out what the true native black point of the monitor is, and whether the monitor reaches that black point at the "nominal" chromaticity. If the panel can't reach your target, you'll get high delta E's.
The native black point may be higher than you think. And you don't need the full advertised contrast range except maybe for watching movies. I just upped my black point from 0.4 to 0.5, on both the CG246 and the CX240, because it matches printed output much better.
So try playing around with different black point targets until you hit the sweet spot. I'm sure your unit is fine.
-
It's already established that the high delta E is the black patch, RGB 0,0,0. So you need to figure out what the true native black point of the monitor is, and whether the monitor reaches that black point at the "nominal" chromaticity. If the panel can't reach your target, you'll get high delta E's.
The native black point may be higher than you think. And you don't need the full advertised contrast range except maybe for watching movies. I just upped my black point from 0.4 to 0.5, on both the CG246 and the CX240, because it matches printed output much better.
So try playing around with different black point targets until you hit the sweet spot. I'm sure your unit is fine.
Hi again, and thanks for your continued efforts to help me out. I did calibrate to .3 and then .4, and things improved to a max dE of 4.18 @ .4. I may in fact do .5 also, especially since I am, for now, exclusively printing on matte papers anyway. To note, my dEs for patches 16,16,16 and 32,32,32 are 4.13 and 2.94 respectively according to CIE2000. Dark, but not crazy dark. That is with "Gray balance" priority checked.
-
Well, I can see Andrew's point (this isn't something to put too much energy into) - but I can also see your point (the values simply shouldn't be that high). I usually don't bother with validation myself, but the one run I did on the CX gave delta E's of 0.24 max, 0.06 average and 0.03 white.
The actual calibration and profiling processes don't display all that many patches. So the validation puts up a whole lot of patches not previously measured, and then compares measured against predicted. As such, I think it qualifies as a valid procedure for checking the accuracy of the whole process and the numbers do have a real meaning.
If there are any real inaccuracies here, they're likely to be in the sensor rather than the panel itself. The Spyders do have a bad reputation, but my impression is that the Eizo-branded units are delivered to tighter specifications. I have compared a stock Spyder3 against an Eizo EX-1, in ColorNavigator, and then compared both against an i1 Display 3. The EX-1 and the i1D3 were for all practical purposes identical, while the stock Spyder3 gave different results which were clearly off.
That said, black rendering is not the strong side of IPS panels. Unless specific measures are taken, the characteristic off-angle "IPS white glow" can be very pronounced. The Spyder sensor, with its shallow construction, may be vulnerable to this. The i1D3 has a lens construction giving a longer, more directional light path, so it should be more immune.
I had an NEC P232 that had this white glow to such a degree that I always wondered whether it would affect black point reading, even with an i1D3. Great monitor otherwise, but blacks weren't really reliable. The Eizos I have now both have some sort of polarizing film so that black remains black from all angles.
-
Out of respect for those who have chimed in here with useful advice, I want to let you all know that after further reading and thinking, I'm gonna take Andrew's advice after all. The colors that are shifted are not gonna be noticed in the "real world." For some reason the colors that should be neutral from 0,0,0 through 64,64,64 don't validate well; they're just not neutral no matter what I do. But with the average deviation being well below what is noticeable by eye and the white being off by .03, this is just not worth it.
So, thanks to everyone who put in their $.02. It was helpful.
-
Well, I did my first print since getting the Eizo and calibrating and discussing the results here with you all (been very busy). I am stunned at how incredibly well the print matched the screen straight away, and the small discrepancies I did notice were "fixed" by soft proofing (I knew I had some out of gamut colors and just printed anyway without soft proofing first: wasn't thinking/trusted the conversion to make things right). If I had soft proofed, I would have changed intent to perceptual, but the print was fine for its purposes anyway.
A special note of thanks to D Fosse for the suggestion of not setting my black point to as low as normally recommended. I'm sure I would have been disappointed if I had. Couldn't be more pleased at the results, or how easily they were attained.
Thanks to all who chimed in and to Lula in general.
-
You're welcome.
The importance of black point/contrast range is underrated. It affects your whole perception of what you see, so it's important to have a good match from screen to output.
And this is where ColorNavigator (and Spectraview II) shines, because changing targets for intended output is so easy. Here I have four different targets for different scenarios. The most important difference is the black point, aside from the sRGB emulation for whenever I need to use non-color managed software: