A Display related question

[Garnick]

Hello all,

Even though I'm not sure this topic fits this section, it does nevertheless have an obvious connection I believe.  Due to a recent issue with my 2010/12 Mac Pro I am now researching my options, in the event that the MP is not fixable or simply not economically feasible.  I sincerely hope that will not be the case, since I have never had any issues with this computer since I purchased it from Apple as a refurb more that 5 years ago.  I have always taken good care to keep everything up to date and backed up as necessary, but that may not have been enough.  In order not to put you folks to sleep before I get to the actual question I will now try to bring this part of history to a close. 

As I have conversed with the fellow at the Apple Authourized repair shop where the MC resides now, I have also been made aware of the possibility that it may not be fixable due to other possible issues.  We have also talked about my options and I was made quite aware that there are now much better Macs available for my work.  I'm not at all interested in the 2013 Mac Pro for several reasons upon which I shall not expound at this point.  The iMac was also brought into the conversation by the tech, but I don't really have a lot of confidence in its ability to offer what I need for the work I do, mainly printing for others and fine art reproduction.  This is where I finally get to the question at hand.  I would  very much appreciate some replies from those of you using the iMac for this type of work.  For many years I've been using NEC PA series displays, both 24" and 27", and have had great results.  That's my reason for needing some feedback from those who might be using iMacs for critical work.  For instance, can they be calibrated to achieve the same colour management criteria as the NEC displays, for which I use the Spectraview II software and the x-rite i1 Display Pro hardware. 

I realize that what I am asking for is strictly an opinion, but an opinion based on a knowledge of colour management and its very important role in the inkjet printing procedure, as well as the reproduction of fine art etc.  At this point I am concentrating on both the iMac and also the possibility of purchasing another Mac Pro 2010/12 from OWC, although I sincerely hope I will not require either of those alternatives.

Any and all replies will be much appreciated.

Gary       


   

[digitaldog]

  For instance, can they be calibrated to achieve the same colour management criteria as the NEC displays, for which I use the Spectraview II software and the x-rite i1 Display Pro hardware. 

No, they cannot. But of course, you could hook up a SpectraView as a primary display and continue to use the other display for other uses. That's the short answer. If you want a longer answer, I'm willing to tell you specifically what a SpectraView can provide that the Apple display cannot.

[Garnick]

No, they cannot. But of course, you could hook up a SpectraView as a primary display and continue to use the other display for other uses. That's the short answer. If you want a longer answer, I'm willing to tell you specifically what a SpectraView can provide that the Apple display cannot.

Thank you Andrew, I was hoping to receive a reply from you.  I suppose the short answer should be all I need, but even though I might not grasp all of the information in the longer answer, I think I would like to read it regardless.  More technical information can never be a bad thing.  No rush on this of course, since I won't get any news about my MacPro until I receive and install the Graphics Card I ordered from OWC to at least eliminate that as part of the issue.

Gary

[digitaldog]

1. Nearly all if not all current SpectraView displays are wide gamut, Apple's and most other's are not (sRGB like gamut)
with the exception of the newer iMac DCI-P3 displays. But SpectraView can emulate sRGB with a push of a button. The new P3 iMac
cannot. Best of both worlds!
2.  SpectraView uses a high bit internal processing path (at least 10-bit) with internal 3D LUTs, many other's do not. These
high bit LUTs allow precise adjustments to be made to the display’s Tone Response Curve without reducing the number of
displayable colors or introducing color banding artifacts.
3. Newer NEC SpectraView's use GBr LED which produce far more precise control of White Point, run cooler, use less energy, run
far longer than CCFL.
4. SpectraView has 3-4 year on site warranty.
5. SpectraView panels are hand selected from the manufacturer line (pick of the litter).
6. SpectraView has electric technologies like ColorComp, which adjusts and improves screen (brightness) uniformity using
individually measured matrices for each display at the factory. All done high bit with compension for operating time and
temperature.
7. SpectraView has electric technologies like GammaComp, to adjust the monitor's internal 10-bit gamma Look-Up-Table, allowing
various custom display gamma or Tone-Response-Curves to be achieved. Apple and many other's don't have anything like this.
8. SpectraView is a smart display system that integrates custom software for calibration including multiple target
calibration's which can be loaded to adjust the display while loading the associated ICC profile, Apple (and few other
products aside from Eizo) cannot do this. To quote from the manual: “SpectraView communicates with the display monitors using
Display Data Channel - Command Interface (DDC/CI) which is a two-way communications link between the video graphics adapter
and display monitor using the normal video signal cable. No extra cables are necessary. All adjustments to the monitor
settings are done automatically using this communications link. It is not necessary to manually configure the monitor as all
of the necessary settings are made by the software“. Apple and other's has nothing like this, nor can 3rd party software you
have to pay for extra do this. This is an attribute built from the ground up in SpectraView to serve as a 'reference display
system' ala Barco, PressView, Sony Artisan of the past.
9. SpectraView will bundle a custom mated Colorimeter with their software for calibration. The price you pay for software and
colorimeter with the SpectraView, depending on what country you live in costs significantly less than buying the hardware and
software for a non SpectraView. And that extra money will not provide a fraction of the capabilities outlined.
10. SpectraView PA series offer the ability to calibrate WITHOUT a Colorimeter with the FREE Multiprofiler software since each
panel is measured with a very expensive spectroradiometer and that data is embedded in a chip in the panel. It can update the
calibration as the unit ages to ensure calibration.
11. SpectraView can emulate with a single click other behaviors, again on the fly, so it can simulate a non wide gamut display
(sRGB) among other standardized behaviors (Broadcast Video DICOM, etc)
12. SpectraView has internal electronic control over contrast ratio, few others can provide this control over black. Real
useful for soft proofing on media that has differing contrast ratio's (matt vs. glossy papers).
13. SpectraView has Network support (Windows only).
14. SpectraView has provisions to lock the display controls so no accidental alteration to behavior by mistake.
15. SpectraView displays allow the user to raise and lower the display for best viewing position AND it can be rotated 90
degrees for Portrait.
16. Several SpectraView's support Picture in Picture (you can have two differing calibration's per picture).


More differences in the two (PA vs. EA):
On the USB side, the PA272W has a 2 port KVM switch while the EA Series do not.
The PA272W has a backlight sensor to keep the brightness and white point stable; the EA Series do not.
The Picture Modes on the PA272W are infinitely customizable (with or without MultiProfiler), the EA Series are limited
The uniformity control on the PA272W is 5 levels (4 + off), the EA is on or off.
ColorComp = Uniformity control (on/off on EA, more advanced control on P/PA)
No 3D LUT on any EA model (only P and PA).
GammComp I'm told is outdated terminology.
Now a big difference; EA or other displays that doesn’t have a “SpectraView Engine” (color processor). What's that? In short it does:
1. Uniformity correction
2. Aging compensation
3. Temperature compensation
4. Orientation compensation
5. 3x 1D LUTs
6. 3D LUTs
7. Color gamut mapping
8. Gamma correction
9. Black level correction
10. Ambient light measurement and compensation
11. Backlight luminance measurement and stabilization
12. Picture-in-Picture / Picture-by-Picture
13. Color blindness simulation
14. Metamerism correction
15. Hue/Saturation/Offset adjustment

[Garnick]

WOW!!!

Thank you for this Andrew.  To my surprise and amazement I think I actually grasp most of the points you have included.  More techs than I had anticipated, and that's great.  Of course I had already been totally sold on the NEC PA series displays, but I think I can sum this up in one short statement -  NEC PA Series SpectraView Dsiplays RULE!

One more question.  What's your opinion of the 2013 Mac Pro?  As mentioned, I do have issues with it, such as the lack of storage and upgrade capability, but I suppose the storage issue can be overcome with a minimum of effort and expense.  I'm sure I could still create Boot Clones drives etc. as I have done for many years.  However I still very much like the 2010/12 MP and would like to keep it in production mode for as long as possible.  Processor speed etc. is not a big issue, so the 3.2 GHz has served me quite well.  Five internal HDD's as well as one in the Voyager Q Dock supplies all of the backup I need.  I also have a 2009 MP that I'm working on at the moment, but it's basically another backup as well, although I don't use it to print to the P7000.

Thanks again Andrew, much appreciated.

Gary

   

[digitaldog]

Never owned that MacPro so no opinion on it, sorry.

[BobShaw]

If your requirement is fine art reproduction then this is my take on it.
The reproduction process goes from camera to file to computer to printer.
All the monitor does is to give you the opportunity to stuff it up, as it is not in the path that the file takes.

You could theoretically (and some do), shoot in jpg, take the card out of the camera and plug it into a printer which takes a card and print it.
So what value would the monitor calibration be adding then?

In my product work I shoot with the Hasselblad X1D tethered to a 2010 (that's time for an update!) MBP. Before starting I shoot a Color checker Passport and do a Custom calibration of the camera. The files get recorded on an external disk. All that happens on the computer in post is correcting levels, cropping and exporting in the format that the customer wants.

Colour Management system in the computer converts from one colour space to another. The colours on the monitor can be ignored. If the camera is calibrated and the printer has a correct profile then it will be right.

Unfortunately the "problem" with Macs is that they last so long that you forget how old they are. Buy a new 27" iMac and love it. I also have an Eizo monitor but it doesn't figure any more in product and reproduction than the iMac monitor. There was a time when monitors were black and white and they still got the colours right.

I will stand back and watch the fireworks now!

[Garnick]

"There was a time when monitors were black and white and they still got the colours right".

Pretty simple Bob -- Black and White 

[digitaldog]

There was a time when monitors were black and white and they still got the colours right.

Indeed. One way was to know the CMYK values necessary for the actual output. That's how old drum scanners worked with displays like this. People scanning by the numbers knew, after a lot of experience, what combo produced a desired color. Don't try that if you work with multiple output devices as it gets harder than counting cards at a blackjack table in Vegas. 
Or you can output and adjust, output and adjust and you'll eventually get the desired output colors. It's an awful workflow expect for those charging by the hour and the proof/output.
You don't need a color display or a lick of color management if you work as I just described. It isn't time or cost effective but by all means, if that's a workflow you desire, go for it.

[BobShaw]

"There was a time when monitors were black and white and they still got the colours right".
Pretty simple Bob -- Black and White 

I don't know if you are just trying to be funny. I hope so, but just in case....
The monitor does not know anything about colour. Colour is just numbers that the computer knows. All the monitor does is to try to display those numbers as colours.
Open any photo in Photoshop and place your mouse somewhere where there is a constant colour in the photo. Then in the Info panel you can see what RGB numbers the computer knows that colour as.
Now go to your monitor and go your hardest to stuff it up by increasing brightness, contrast, adjusting saturation (to black and white) or whatever other knobs and twiddles you can find. Guess what? The colour does not change in the computer (or print). It just looks different in the monitor.

So basically you can apply colour management and not understand it much but get good results or you can study it for the rest of your life and apply it and get good results or can you can chase a continuously moving target and get poor results.

It is like having someone with a bleeding wound in your lounge room. You can apply a bandage, you can study medicine for 6 years to learn how to apply a bandage, or you can study carpet cleaning to clean up the mess when the body is taken away. (:-)

[Garnick]

Hello again Bob,

I do agree with some of what you have written.  Indeed, neither the computer nor the display actually know anything.  Nevertheless, both can perform certain tasks to make digital image processing and printing much easier and more accurate than it was before we had these tools.  However, neither can perform these tasks without the proper input and the ability to communicate with one another in a manner that produces the results we want and require.  The term we now use for that input and communication is "Colour Management".  In the "old days" of traditional colour film processing, both negative and positive, as well as Type "C" and "R" printing, we called it Quality Control (QC).  Without proper QC we could never be certain that the output was as good as it could or should be.  Today's Colour Management and the tools we use to accomplish it is simply an obvious extension of that process.  And yes Bob, I do understand where you're coming from, since my background in this business dates back to the late 60's with my first job in a custom colour lab in Toronto, which eventually led to my own business that I now run from my home location.  Until mid 2004 I was still printing Type "C" in a darkroom with colour analyzers that displayed only numbers.  My video analyzers were and are located on either side of my nose, if you get my drift.  However, I must say that printing now with a Colour Managed system is much more efficient and enjoyable.

"Now go to your monitor and go your hardest to stuff it up by increasing brightness, contrast, adjusting saturation (to black and white) or whatever other knobs and twiddles you can find. Guess what? The colour does not change in the computer (or print). It just looks different in the monitor".

I do however disagree almost totally with the above quote.  As a matter of fact it fits perfectly with what I've written about CM, including of course display calibration.  If I were "stuff up my display"(your phase) in the manner you have described, I absolutely guarantee that the output would be negatively affected.  And you are quite right with this statement - "It just looks different in the monitor".  Well, set me straight if necessary, but I do believe that is exactly what display calibration is all about.  To make sure that the display is interpreting the image as accurately as possible.  If somehow my display shifts from its normal calibration, the adjustments I would then make to the image in an attempt to produce a good print would indeed be incorrect, and therefore affect the output in obvious ways.  Going back to the "Quality Control" days I referred to.  If the measured numbers did not fit the proper parameters the output would not be as it should, and steps had to be taken to correct the situation.  That same thinking applies exactly to what we now refer to as Colour Management, does it not?

Cheers 

Gary


       

[BobShaw]

If somehow my display shifts from its normal calibration, the adjustments I would then make to the image in an attempt to produce a good print would indeed be incorrect, and therefore affect the output in obvious ways.         

Correct. However if your objective is to print for others and do art reproduction, then if the file is correct according to the originator of the work or the camera calibration, why are you changing it to fit your monitor? I am just raising the possibility that there was nothing wrong before you fixed it. If there is a reference image with say a Colour Checker in it then the numbers that provides are more valuable than what the monitor looks like. The computer does know the colours, as they are converted from the camera profile or the tagged profile of the image.

[Garnick]

Correct. However if your objective is to print for others and do art reproduction, then if the file is correct according to the originator of the work or the camera calibration, why are you changing it to fit your monitor? I am just raising the possibility that there was nothing wrong before you fixed it. If there is a reference image with say a Colour Checker in it then the numbers that provides are more valuable than what the monitor looks like. The computer does know the colours, as they are converted from the camera profile or the tagged profile of the image.

Suffice to say that very few image files that I receive for printing have been processed in a colour managed workflow.  One of the most obvious and telling signs of that is the files that are simply too dark and have to be lightened at the very least, and usually further adjustments as well.  That is of course due to the fact that their displays are much too bright, as most are out of the box.  However, when possible I always try to explain the issue to the customer and in most cases they simply ask me to just make a good print, that's all.  So that's what I do, and I've been doing this for many years and I know what a good print should look like.  They trust my printing and at least 98% of the time the customer is more than satisfied with the outcome.  Almost all of my regular customers found me through referrals.  I'll leave art reproduction out of the conversation at this point, since that's a totally different situation.  Of course my only goal there is to match the original as closely as possible, as is the case with all Fine Art Repros. 

Your statement that perhaps there was nothing wrong before I fixed it is interesting, but not the case at all in most scenarios.  As a matter of fact I can count on one hand the number of customers who process their files in a tight colour managed workflow.  With those folks I have very few if any adjustments to make before the final print.  Now that's what I'm talking about here.  The vast majority of the work I print has probably never seen the inside of a proper workflow that can be trusted to display the image correctly.  And of course the other major issue is the customer who thinks he/she knows Photoshop or Lightroom well enough to process their own files, and of course therefore they are ready for printing.  Unfortunately that is very seldom the case, but it's my job to fix them and produce a good print.  As a matter of fact, I also have some customers who bring in their RAW files and we sit at my computer while I process the files and explain what I am doing and why.  And of course there's also the fact that many images need some degree of tweaking to print on different papers, since the customer does not have my profiles to use for soft proofing.  Even if they did I doubt it would matter in most cases.  You mentioned the Colour Checker, which would be a helpful piece of equipment of course, but again I would say that in all of my years of producing colour prints I have seen these in a test shot only when doing work for commercial studios, not in the case of your average shooter.  My workflow/colour space for most printing is Adobe RGB 1998, although I do have two other colour spaces that I use for certain customers.  I also receive sRGB files for printing, which I either assign or convert to Adobe RGB 1998 for printing purposes. 

I mentioned that I have very few customers whose files are READY for printing with very little or no adjustments.  If the world were perfect they all would be, and of course they could all be now, but that simply is not the case at all.  There's more I would probably add here, but it's getting late and my mind is drifting.  Nothing new to me unfortunately.  I hope i have been able to state my case well enough that you can understand why I want and indeed need a colour managed workflow, which of course includes a properly calibrated and profiled display, and my search for some facts concerning displays other than the NEC PA Series that I use, and whether or not some of those are able to be calibrated as well as the NEC.

Gary