Pages: [1]   Go Down

Author Topic: Eizo Self Correction  (Read 701 times)

Root_Doot

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5
Eizo Self Correction
« on: September 08, 2020, 06:40:18 am »

Hi Guys

I have a Eizo CX271 and I have tried to calibrate using the internal device but for whatever reason its not detecting it. I load up Color Navigator 7 and can't seem to force it to detect anything - when I use the button menu > SelfCorrection the message responds 'Setting Incomplete'.

The manual suggests this is could be because the interval is not set up but this doesn't appear to be the case. Any help much appreciated


Thank you
Logged

smthopr

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 601
    • Bruce Alan Greene Cinematography
Re: Eizo Self Correction
« Reply #1 on: September 14, 2020, 02:37:52 pm »

Hi Guys

I have a Eizo CX271 and I have tried to calibrate using the internal device but for whatever reason its not detecting it. I load up Color Navigator 7 and can't seem to force it to detect anything - when I use the button menu > SelfCorrection the message responds 'Setting Incomplete'.

The manual suggests this is could be because the interval is not set up but this doesn't appear to be the case. Any help much appreciated


Thank you

I have the same display.  I can't help you as to why the self correction isn't connecting, but I can say, from my experience, that it's best to just use an iOne Display with the Color Navigator software and disregard the built in probe.

The "self correction" only adjusts the white point, and I've not found it to keep the display accurate over time.  And, a complete calibration with the iOne takes so little time that it makes no sense to use the built in "self correction".
Logged
Bruce Alan Greene
www.brucealangreene.com

Root_Doot

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5
Re: Eizo Self Correction
« Reply #2 on: October 13, 2020, 11:58:47 am »

I have the same display.  I can't help you as to why the self correction isn't connecting, but I can say, from my experience, that it's best to just use an iOne Display with the Color Navigator software and disregard the built in probe.

The "self correction" only adjusts the white point, and I've not found it to keep the display accurate over time.  And, a complete calibration with the iOne takes so little time that it makes no sense to use the built in "self correction".

Thank you for this  8)
Logged

Lessbones

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 74
Re: Eizo Self Correction
« Reply #3 on: October 14, 2020, 10:46:22 am »

or better yet, use a spectro (like an i1pro/2/3) with the "built in sensor correlation" feature of colornavigator.  In my experience this gets the built in sensor to a pretty usable place.  Redo it every once in a while to be sure.
Logged

Czornyj

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1873
    • zarzadzaniebarwa.pl
Re: Eizo Self Correction
« Reply #4 on: October 15, 2020, 03:08:45 pm »

or better yet, use a spectro (like an i1pro/2/3) with the "built in sensor correlation" feature of colornavigator.  In my experience this gets the built in sensor to a pretty usable place.  Redo it every once in a while to be sure.

i1Pro2/3 has too small resolution for W-LED PFS IPS.

Lessbones

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 74
Re: Eizo Self Correction
« Reply #5 on: October 15, 2020, 04:30:11 pm »

Ok, well in that case Root_Doot, do the sensor correlation with your PR-655 which i'm sure you've got laying around somewhere...  :/

An i1pro2 correlated with the built in sensor is still a helluva lot better than leaving those sensors the way they come from the factory ime.
Logged

GWGill

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 570
  • Author of ArgyllCMS & ArgyllPRO ColorMeter
    • ArgyllCMS
Re: Eizo Self Correction
« Reply #6 on: October 15, 2020, 06:09:32 pm »

i1Pro2/3 has too small resolution for W-LED PFS IPS.
CRT displays had pretty bumpy phosphor spectra, and a 10nm measurement was a lot better than none at all.
So I'm not convinced that any White LED/phosphor based displays are much different in terms of spectrometer measurement.

[ Colorimeters are a different story - the predominance of a single display technology with broadly similar
   spectra let the manufacturers get away with with some pretty loose emulation of the standard observer.
   The range of modern display technologies is much less forgiving. ]

It comes down to the level of accuracy you are after, and whether steep transitions in the display spectra happen
to land on steep transitions of the observer model.

A lot of the accuracy is illusory anyway - the calibration chain and consistency of measurement instruments that are
affordable to mere mortals (i.e. < US$100K) isn't all that impressive when you start trying to measure narrow band
light sources and compute the perceived color. I wouldn't be surprised that if you lined up 3 or 4 spectro's in the
$5K - $50K range and measured some monochrome LED's that they only agree with each other to about 1dE or maybe worse.
And the elephant in the room with narrow band light sources is the observer variation - 5 - 20 dE worst case disagreement amongst
"normal" observers is quite plausible, particularly if it's "wide gamut" primaries.
Logged

Doug Gray

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2037
Re: Eizo Self Correction
« Reply #7 on: October 15, 2020, 06:21:21 pm »

CRT displays had pretty bumpy phosphor spectra, and a 10nm measurement was a lot better than none at all.
So I'm not convinced that any White LED/phosphor based displays are much different in terms of spectrometer measurement.

[ Colorimeters are a different story - the predominance of a single display technology with broadly similar
   spectra let the manufacturers get away with with some pretty loose emulation of the standard observer.
   The range of modern display technologies is much less forgiving. ]

It comes down to the level of accuracy you are after, and whether steep transitions in the display spectra happen
to land on steep transitions of the observer model.

A lot of the accuracy is illusory anyway - the calibration chain and consistency of measurement instruments that are
affordable to mere mortals (i.e. < US$100K) isn't all that impressive when you start trying to measure narrow band
light sources and compute the perceived color. I wouldn't be surprised that if you lined up 3 or 4 spectro's in the
$5K - $50K range and measured some monochrome LED's that they only agree with each other to about 1dE or maybe worse.
And the elephant in the room with narrow band light sources is the observer variation - 5 - 20 dE worst case disagreement amongst
"normal" observers is quite plausible, particularly if it's "wide gamut" primaries.


That is indeed the Elephant in the Room. And it's one of the reasons that matching a monitor with a print, even with the utmost control of the print illuminant to match match the monitor and the most expensive instruments, can only be approximate. And some people may find a good match while someone else doesn't.

Some is from the print but most is the monitor due to sharp transitions.

Ideally, a device that measures individual metameric shift for a given monitor could produce improved soft proofing quality. It's actually doable and not particularly expensive but the market is very small.

Would make a good grad school project.

Here's a good paper describing the problem and how it gets worse with wide gamut monitors.

https://s3.cad.rit.edu/cadgallery_production/storage/media/uploads/faculty-f-projects/1304/documents/239/modeling-observer-metamerism.pdf
« Last Edit: October 17, 2020, 11:39:21 pm by Doug Gray »
Logged
Pages: [1]   Go Up