Apple iMac & Studio Displays - Display Calibration

[routlaw]

Sorry, I didn't mean to ignore the last part of your reply.

Not a problem and FWIW wasn't necessarily asking you directly more like asking myself. Regardless good answer and description for the different uses of the two monitors.

[TechTalk]

From my perspective it has some advantages such as potentially higher resolution if needed...

No question about it and it's brighter too. Pixel density for an Apple Studio Display is 218 ppi (pixels per inch) and 600 cd/m2 (nits) maximum brightness. The recently announced Eizo CG2700X is 164 ppi and 500 cd/m2 maximum.

...while the Eizo in theory appears to have some color tuning advantages the ASD does not touch on. Keeping in mind this statement is only theoretical not empirical based upon actual use of either. Regardless I am inclined to believe the Apple Display has far more potential and versatility than previously thought.

There are many options available with an Eizo ColorEdge (and other similar monitors) for controlling monitor output and managing color that don't exist for the Apple Studio Display. It's a line of monitors for specialized applications and a narrow range of users.

I'm repeating myself, but it bears repeating. Many users don't want or need the kind of extensive range of options and control that high-end graphics monitors provide. The few that do will naturally find and select the tools that they require for their needs.

[TechTalk]

Whoops, forgot to mention with the Eizo rep I also asked him about automated color calibration. He minced no words in stating while the CG color edge monitors can automatically color calibrate at chosen times as far as hew know none of the Eizo were self monitoring to the point no calibration was ever needed. Said he had been working for Eizo for 16-17 years. I figured he knew what he was talking about. He used the term of "self evaluating".

I'm happy that you found someone helpful to speak with there. Thanks for the follow up reply.

Please don't feel that I've repeated myself at times for your benefit. It's for others that may wander thru here reading.

One of the things that I've repeated is what calibration means and what it does not mean. I do so to try to prevent people from being misled by misuse of terminology. Display calibration — which once more, simply means measuring light emitted from the front of the display for comparison to a target — is really only needed when a specific situation requires it. Calibration requirements are not determined by the accuracy or stability of the display, but by the situation in which they are used and by whom.

What is not display calibration are internal sensors which monitor and compensate for fluctuations or aging of component parts to enhance stability. Anything that improves stability is a good thing, but it is not the same thing as actual display calibration. If anything "recalibrates every second", as I've seen it described, it's a component of the display and not the display itself.

What is not display calibration are algorithms that allow you to select different modes comprised of different parameters. Apple calls these Reference Modes, Eizo Color Modes, and NEC Picture Modes. These convenient controls alter the output based on a previous calibration (either from the factory or a custom calibration) and your selected target configuration, but they are not "auto calibrating" the display or even changing the display calibration — on which the algorithms rely — in any way. Programmed algorithms are simply using a previously measured calibration as a basis to make calculated changes for the mode selected. The calibration will remain the same until the display output is once again measured and calibrated as a new basis for the calculated mode selections and output variations.

One final note... Calibration does not require any changes to the device. If you measure the device and validate that the desired parameters are still accurate and no changes are needed, you have just calibrated the display.

Thanks again for putting up with long-winded replies that are for a broader public to prevent any misunderstanding of how these complex devices work and accurately describe what terms actually mean which they may have seen misrepresented.

[Doug Gray]

Whoops, forgot to mention with the Eizo rep I also asked him about automated color calibration. He minced no words in stating while the CG color edge monitors can automatically color calibrate at chosen times as far as hew know none of the Eizo were self monitoring to the point no calibration was ever needed. Said he had been working for Eizo for 16-17 years. I figured he knew what he was talking about. He used the term of "self evaluating".

For what it's worth my Eizo has a self calibrating puck. It's reasonably good but can also be calibrated using spectros like I1Pro 2. I also have a cheap second monitor for manuals and such. I adjust the white point xy chromaticity as well as luminance of the monitors to match each other and the white of an unprinted, canson matte paper which measures very neutral in it's viewing box. I use Photoshop and custom profiles for the matte paper with soft proof on so the luminance level of both monitors (in soft proof mode for the Eizo and slightly lower luminance for the side monitor)  matches the viewing box. This works quite well with different papers that have slightly different tints and lower L* for whites. Soft proof matches these changes  and I don't have to tweak the monitor for different papers.

One caveat. This only works for papers w/o OBAs. Those are a different kettle of fish best avoided.

[Czornyj]

Had to temporarily abandoned the conversation, do to yet another issue which I still cannot resolve. Had my Mac Mini M1 working perfectly with my existing older NEC PA 271W, then changed back to my Mac Pro for a quick photo shoot at which point I can no longer get the Mac Mini to hand shake with the NEC monitor. Tried different cables, eliminated the docking station all the usual suspects of narrowing down the culprit all to no avail. The Mini works perfectly via other monitors just not now with the NEC. As my wife always says, "its always something". Starting to think she is right.

Back to color management, monitors and other things related since my last post. First for those of you who still might want an NEC Spectraview Monitor I have found at least one vendor who still has 4 of the PA271Q models in stock and that is DTG Web down in Florida. Given that NEC is no longer supporting these at this point I am some what reticent to buy one however, still cogitating on this one. I did ask their resident expert on monitors at DTG about this issue of self calibrating monitors and his response effectively yes as good as these newer monitors are he felt periodic calibration is just as important for a litany of different reasons which have been described extensively in this discussion.

At this point I felt it was in my best interest to give Eizo another try. Called yesterday and this conversation went demonstrably different than my issues with the company some 10 or so years ago with a tech support guy who knew the products and shared a wealth of information not only about the various monitors Eizo makes but also in comparison with other brands and did this in a way it wasn't trash talk about the competitor. Understand the Eizo CG 2730 is no longer avialble as that line of monitor is being replaced with the newer 2700S and 2700X series. Neither of those are currently available but the 2700S is due to be released either in late June or perhaps early July and the X version much later in the year around Q3. There might be some vendors who still have some of the older models in stock.

Have not had a chance to look at the other videos by Art is Right but will do so just to leave no stone unturned. Thanks for the heads up on that one, which I had not noticed.

Agreed art copy work is a science project with a little bit of art thrown in. Not everyone is up to the task, not everyone sees color acutely enough especially the subtle variations, and not everyone knows how to properly color correct. Like others have stated this endeavor always without exception requires some post production tweaking to dial things in correctly and most importantly those corrections (assuming excellent success) are only good for the space within which the original art and proof are created. Granted modern printers have come a long way to eliminate metamerism (sp?) but it still exist to some degree. My situation is a one many show, in that I photograph, edit and proof and print (when required) the entire enchilada unless handing files off to offset printers for articles, promotion and that sort of thing, but then that is always a crap shoot at best.

From my perspective I don't find one type of media to be more problematic than another, ie watercolor, oils, acrylics but rather the type or individual pigments used within the media. A perfect example would be the use of cobalt blue which under any lighting will turn purple or reddish blue due to its exhibiting of infrared wavelength. In the older days with the Betterlight system the fix would be to double up on the infrared filters which of course cuts the light volume down considerably, not idea for the scan back. Other blues can demonstrate this to lesser and varying degrees but none as detrimental as cobalt. Like many of you I have done extensive product photograph especially in the outdoor recreation industry where synthetic cloth and synthetic dyes are used extensively for the products clothing etc. Talk about some serious metamerism! Before the days of digital imaging while working on one project for a company that made backpacks with a brilliant jade-teal colored pack cloth regardless of the film, regardless of the light source that cloth always rendered a sky blue. We literally tried every color film available on the market at that time regardless of light source required to work with and got the same exact results more or less within the constraints of the the color palette of a particular film. Filters were a mixed blessing because they obviously created a color cast where you didn't want them. In the digital domain some 20 or 30 years later this would be easily correctable, not so with film. If I recall correctly the world was on the origin Photoshop 2 or 3, its come a long ways since them.

Did you do the FW update of PA271W?
https://www.sharp-nec-displays.com/dl/en/dp_soft/pa_fm_update/select.html

PA271Q is decent and it works with M1, but it's only QHD. If you can find PA311D i highly recommend it as I own it and really love it.

EIZO has some quality issues with UHD model CG2700X, so it won't be available until they'll resolve them with AUO. You can only get UHD EIZO CS2740 which is also not bad, but it has no OCF and auto calibration. CG2700S is also QHD only

Apple Stuido Display is really a worth considering. If you want to believe in Holy Calibration Almighty and use "Art is Right" trick I'm fine with that, but remember that Art is wrong, as the spectral calibration for i1Display Pro he uses is not optimal and gives erratic results. X-Rite doesn't provide good PFS spectral calibration with i1D3 API as a standard, but they made very good custom PFS calibration for HP, so it's actually a very good idea to use it instead of standard PFS characterisation:
https://forum.luminous-landscape.com/index.php?topic=139594.msg1229110#msg1229110

[Czornyj]

It's reasonably good but can also be calibrated using spectros like I1Pro 2

i1Pro2 has too small FWHM resolution for W-LED PFS (~2-3 ∆E*00 error for white)

[TechTalk]

EIZO has some quality issues with UHD model CG2700X...

Is there evidence of "some quality issues" instead of ordinary supply issues perhaps which are common these days... or is this gossip and rumor? This is a new display which has not begun shipping and so there may be any number of supply issues or production issues (including getting volume production of components that meet quality standards) to resolve before shipments begin.

so it won't be available until they'll resolve them with AOC.

What would AOC have to do with a new Eizo display? I think that you mean display panel manufacturer AU Optronics Corporation (AUO).

[TechTalk]

For what it's worth my Eizo has a self calibrating puck. It's reasonably good but can also be calibrated using spectros like I1Pro 2.

The built-in calibrators have evolved and improved over the years. A very useful feature of Eizo ColorNavigator is the sensor correlation feature. This allows sensors, like the built-in automatic calibrator, to be correlated to a master instrument. It's especially useful in multi-monitor production environments and often used in broadcast and motion picture production facilities.

An example of sensor correlation is shown in this video...

https://www.youtube.com/ColorNavigator 7 Calibration for PostProduction

[Czornyj]

Is there evidence of "some quality issues" instead of ordinary supply issues perhaps which are common these days... or is this gossip and rumor? This is a new display which has not begun shipping and so there may be any number of supply issues or production issues (including getting volume production of components that meet quality standards) to resolve before shipments begin.

What would AOC have to do with a new Eizo display? I think that you mean display panel manufacturer AU Optronics Corporation (AUO).

Excuse me, I meant AUO. You can call it whatever you like, fact is the CG2700x won't be available soon.

[TechTalk]

Excuse me, I meant AUO. You can call it whatever you like, fact is the CG2700x won't be available soon.

I'm not characterizing anything about any announced products or their delivery time table. I don't have non-public knowledge and wouldn't pretend to or care to speculate. Delivery delays with any new product no longer surprise me or seem unusual.

[routlaw]

Did you do the FW update of PA271W?
https://www.sharp-nec-displays.com/dl/en/dp_soft/pa_fm_update/select.html

PA271Q is decent and it works with M1, but it's only QHD. If you can find PA311D i highly recommend it as I own it and really love it.

EIZO has some quality issues with UHD model CG2700X, so it won't be available until they'll resolve them with AUO. You can only get UHD EIZO CS2740 which is also not bad, but it has no OCF and auto calibration. CG2700S is also QHD only

Apple Stuido Display is really a worth considering. If you want to believe in Holy Calibration Almighty and use "Art is Right" trick I'm fine with that, but remember that Art is wrong, as the spectral calibration for i1Display Pro he uses is not optimal and gives erratic results. X-Rite doesn't provide good PFS spectral calibration with i1D3 API as a standard, but they made very good custom PFS calibration for HP, so it's actually a very good idea to use it instead of standard PFS characterisation:
https://forum.luminous-landscape.com/index.php?topic=139594.msg1229110#msg1229110

Did not know about the FW update for the PA 271, thanks for the info and link. Just did the update. Not sure it make any difference though. Depending on what you're doing QHD resolution can be a good thing vs 4K let alone 5 or 8K. Not sure what the acronym OCF refers to, regardless for the work I do QHD is probably the better screen resolution unless someone can prove me wrong.

"Art is wrong", apparently you have some empirical knowledge regarding this and other statements. I am willing to listen but how can you prove such statements? BTW read the link, still not 100% convinced but thanks again.

[Doug Gray]

i1Pro2 has too small FWHM resolution for W-LED PFS (~2-3 ∆E*00 error for white)

That's absolutely true. Unfortunately, normal human vision person-person has an even larger dE variation between "whites" of a monitor and "whites" of a broad-spectrum lamp that has the same chromaticity.

This can be demonstrated by two side-by-side monitors with different tech that have been adjusted for a white match by one person then viewed by others. In a group of 10 people only some will have a match.

I've occasionally thought some enterprising biz could produce a special device that could be used to characterize the human variation numerically which could then be used as a secondary calibration input.

But for my case, matching print viewing with the monitors by adjusting chromaticity of the two monitor's whites against print viewer also fixes this. But I'm the only one using them.

[routlaw]

That's absolutely true. Unfortunately, normal human vision person-person has an even larger dE variation between "whites" of a monitor and "whites" of a broad-spectrum lamp that has the same chromaticity.

This can be demonstrated by two side-by-side monitors with different tech that have been adjusted for a white match by one person then viewed by others. In a group of 10 people only some will have a match.

I agree with both statements. Before acquiring the NEC MDSV SENSOR3 by X-Rite I used the i1Pro sensor to calibrate my PA271W and the difference was night and day with Delta E's but it was in the darkest values where this became so apparent rather than the lighter values.

While I don't doubt for a second different people perceive different whites, truth is this carries through the entire color gamut. Long before calibration came into existence via hardware/software solutions just for grins and giggles I routinely asked interns and other associates to profile my monitor with the the rather crude on screen methods based upon human visual perception. As you might guess no ever came close to getting anywhere near close enough including myself. This experiment became nearly comical once hardware/software solutions became available for comparison.

[Doug Gray]

I agree with both statements. Before acquiring the NEC MDSV SENSOR3 by X-Rite I used the i1Pro sensor to calibrate my PA271W and the difference was night and day with Delta E's but it was in the darkest values where this became so apparent rather than the lighter values.

Spectros are noisier than colorimeters and so they get worse as luminance decreases. Even taking longer samples only helps somewhat because there is also a significant drift issue.

[Czornyj]

"Art is wrong", apparently you have some empirical knowledge regarding this and other statements. I am willing to listen but how can you prove such statements? BTW read the link, still not 100% convinced but thanks again.

1) Here's evaluation of my PA311D's factory calibration accuracy - I used a 6nm FWHM spectrometer to check the effect of setting chromatic coordinates in Multiprofiler/OSD menu:


As you can clearly see the achieved white point is deadly accurate colorimetrically, with no slightest ∆E*00 error.
2) After I confirmed that the white point of my PA311D can be considered as reference I measured it and my MBP16's Retina XDR, both set to x0,313 y 0,329 (D65) using standard PFS Phosphor .edr that contains one SPD curve measurement of Panasonic PFS IPS panel in Lenovo P70, and had checked that the measurement results were different, with smaller or bigger errors for various i1D3 samples (that depends of how close to standard CMF an actual copy of i1D3 is)
3) Then I swiched the standard PFS .edr to PFS Family .edr custom made for HP, that contains a couple of SPD curves - after the switch the measurements were back spot on, for both PA311D, Retina XDR, and all my i1D3s samples.

[routlaw]

Thanks @Czornyj for the additional info, understood part 1, but Part 2 & 3 is a bit more confusing. The introduction of the Lenovo seems to muddy the waters, not sure how this one relates.

At the end of the day I don't really know what to make of this given the adamant opposite points of view regarding monitor calibration and associated workflows.

[TechTalk]

Not sure what the acronym OCF refers to...

OCF could refer to Off-Camera Flash, Obsessive-Compulsive Foundation, or dozens of other things. In this case, it's a reference to Optical Compensation Films of which there are a variety.

LCD displays consist of several complex components. When you start to examine the component parts, you find that there are layers of complexity within each component. There are polarizers sandwiched into an LCD panel and if you examine their structure, you find that a simple sheet of polarizing film has several individual component layers in a combined stack. [Fortunately, in this link most of the acronyms are defined as they arise. It's a helpful way of writing for readers that may not be familiar with acronyms which don't enjoy widespread use.]

...regardless for the work I do QHD is probably the better screen resolution unless someone can prove me wrong.

What's right is what works for you based on your individual methods and preferences.

[TechTalk]

At the end of the day I don't really know what to make of this given the adamant opposite points of view regarding monitor calibration and associated workflows.

I'm not sure if I'm included in the adamant points of view regarding monitor calibration and associated workflows. I think that I've described situations where calibration is typically required by the situation — 1) the person in charge of production requires calibration for quality control and consistency throughout the production chain or 2) a specialized use has critical tolerances which leads to a greater need for verifying the accuracy of all devices used. I've indicated that few fall into those categories where calibration would be required, and for those that do; it is the use situation that dictates calibration and not the quality or stability of the device.

An example of a specialized use with critical tolerances would be medical diagnostic monitors. I mention it as an example and a bit of Eizo history trivia, because the Eizo ColorEdge line is an outgrowth of their medical products line. Their medical monitor product line existed prior to their creative line and most of what we associate with ColorEdge products (uniformity equalizer, stability enhancements, self-calibration, etc.) originated in their medical diagnostic monitors.

The one thing that I have been adamant about is that people expressing an interest in the topic of calibration should first understand what it is and what it isn't and should not be misled by the misuse of terminology. I've tried to accomplish that without adding to any confusion which may exist.

[TechTalk]

...If you want to believe in Holy Calibration Almighty...

I don't know what Holy Calibration Almighty is, but I'm guessing that it's where you go to have your calibration measuring instruments blessed. It may be something like a NIST (National Institute of Standards and Technology) Certificate of Calibration.

[David Eichler]

Many (all?) newer Apple displays are calibrated at the factory. That's good. Unless the calibration isn't ideal for your needs. Then you need to recalibrate to those aim points.
What we also do not know is if the displays change behavior over time (most likely yes) so again, recalibration.
Get an i1Display Pro if you can afford one.

I have been calibrating a 2017 iMac with an i1Display Pro and have been unable to see any difference between the before and after views, even after a month or more. This applies to color and brightness.