- This topic has 8 replies, 2 voices, and was last updated 8 years ago by
.
-
Posts
-
First off thank you for this software! It really seems like great software and a great service to the world. That said, I’ve had some challenges understanding it’s use with my hardware, and would greatly appreciate any help.
Please forgive me if I’ve overlooked something basic. I’ve done my best to understand how to use the software, however, I feel I’m missing something, and I’ve had trouble finding answers in the documentation, wiki, and Argyll website–some of it being very technical and a bit over my head.
I’ve read some other forum posts, but I’m unsure if the advice given is also relevant to my situation–being there are differences.
My Setup:
Macbook Pro, Retina, 13-Inch, Late 2013, Color LCD, 2560×1600, Intel Iris
Mac OSX 10.10.5Colorometer: i1 Display 2 (i1D2)
DisplayCAL 3.1.3.1
Brightness (about halfway, using the interactive adjustment reading when first starting)Display and Instrument:
Color LCD @ 0, 0, 1280×800 (Primary)
Mode: LCD (generic)White drift and Black drift offSo it seems that the corrections available with the i1D2 for my Laptop are off, and I’m unsure if there’s anything that can be done about this. I first calibrated with “Auto”, and then a second time with “eye-one display 2 & Apple Cinema Display (white LED)”, with the later having better verification results. Should I try each one and see which works best after changing the color profile and verifying? How do I know which correction setting is the best to use? Do you have to purchase a new device to get more appropriate corrections to newer hardware?
I’ve tried downloading ccmx and ccss files (Apple > Color LCD), but they’re for different devices, and therefore cannot be used with the i1D2.
Following some suggestions, my latest attempt to calibrate has resulted in the attached html file. I followed the advice given on another post and used the following Profiling and Calibration Settings:
Calibration:
Unchecked “Interactive display adjustment”
Unchecked “Update Calibration”Whitepoint: As measured
White level: As measured
Gamma: 2.2
Calibration Speed: LowProfiling:
Quality: High
Auto Optimised
Amount of patches: 900+While my results are better for “Average ΔE*00” and “Maximum ΔE*00”, the results for “Measured vs. assumed target whitepoint ΔE*00” are still way off. I’m unsure what can be done so that I get good results. Can anything be done or changed to bring “Measured vs. assumed” into a good reading?
I remember seeing that some display have difficulty in the whitepoint arena. Perhaps this will be a good as I can get it.
The verification I’ve used:
Verification testchart (the attached results)
Extended verification testchartShould I be using a different chart for verification?
Thanks for any help. I’m doing my best to understand how to calibrate my monitor.
Hi,
I first calibrated with “Auto”, and then a second time with “eye-one display 2 & Apple Cinema Display (white LED)”, with the later having better verification results. Should I try each one and see which works best after changing the color profile and verifying?
That’s something you could try, and it’s not even necessary to run through a full calibration each time: Simply enable “Interactive display adjustment” and check which (if any) of the applicable corrections gives you the lowest deltaE for the whitepoint measures. Generally though I would always be a bit careful about user-contributed corrections, as they may or may not improve the absolute accuracy of your specific instrument on your specific display (and without a spectrometer or other higher accuracy instrument, there’s not really a way to check and be sure).
[…] the results for “Measured vs. assumed target whitepoint ΔE*00” are still way off.
I wouldn’t worry too much about it. This only becomes an issue when you plan to match several displays to one another or a known reference. The human visual system works in a “white relative” sense, i.e. it doesn’t matter so much what “white” is because vision adapts to it (within certain constraints).
I’m unsure what can be done so that I get good results.
You could try setting a whitepoint target for calibration (e.g. 6500K), but on Laptops the only way to achieve this target are the graphics card 1D videoLUTs, so this may introduce banding if the target is too far from the panel’s native white. As stated above, hitting a certain whitepoint target may not even be a concern.
Should I be using a different chart for verification?
The one you used is just about right for a quick check of the profile.
Wow! Thank you for the quick reply! Appreciate the assistance.
[…] the results for “Measured vs. assumed target whitepoint ΔE*00” are still way off.
I wouldn’t worry too much about it. This only becomes an issue when you plan to match several displays to one another or a known reference. The human visual system works in a “white relative” sense, i.e. it doesn’t matter so much what “white” is because vision adapts to it (within certain constraints).
Would this be a general problem for photographic prints? My aim with this software is to calibrate my displays as best I can, to then process photographic images for print–which are soft-proofed with calibrated paper profiles within Photoshop.
I’m unsure what can be done so that I get good results.
You could try setting a whitepoint target for calibration (e.g. 6500K), but on Laptops the only way to achieve this target are the graphics card 1D videoLUTs, so this may introduce banding if the target is too far from the panel’s native white. As stated above, hitting a certain whitepoint target may not even be a concern.
I’m a bit unsure what is meant by “graphics card 1D videoLUTs”. A quick search seems to suggest this may be related to PC (Linux or Windows) and I’m unsure how it may relate to Macintosh. As seen below, within Mac OSX, you can custom Calibrate the monitor to D65 (I assume this is 6500K). However, the laptop was already configured to this setting prior to calibration. Gamma being set to 2.2.
Perhaps I should calibrate with D50.
Thanks again for all the support. I get the general feel that I should be able to get fairly accurate results for print work with the i1D2, and can avoid purchasing a new colorometer–even with the hardware combination that I have. It’s great to have an alternative to iMatch, which no longer supports the OS that I’m running. In fact, they seem to stop developing the version a year prior to my purchase. It’s unfortunate to be software locked out of perfectly working hardware. Thanks to DisplayCAL, it seems I may yet be in luck!
If I’m at all misled just let me know. Appreciate your expertise.
My aim with this software is to calibrate my displays as best I can, to then process photographic images for print–which are soft-proofed with calibrated paper profiles within Photoshop.
Depends. Can you get a reasonable soft-proof match to paper white under the (hopefully controlled) light you use to view the prints? If not, then the whitepoint may need altering.
I’m a bit unsure what is meant by “graphics card 1D videoLUTs”. A quick search seems to suggest this may be related to PC (Linux or Windows)
It applies to all platforms.
Hi,
I first calibrated with “Auto”, and then a second time with “eye-one display 2 & Apple Cinema Display (white LED)”, with the later having better verification results. Should I try each one and see which works best after changing the color profile and verifying?
That’s something you could try, and it’s not even necessary to run through a full calibration each time: Simply enable “Interactive display adjustment” and check which (if any) of the applicable corrections gives you the lowest deltaE for the whitepoint measures. Generally though I would always be a bit careful about user-contributed corrections, as they may or may not improve the absolute accuracy of your specific instrument on your specific display (and without a spectrometer or other higher accuracy instrument, there’s not really a way to check and be sure).
Interesting… I went through all 19 correction settings to interactively check the white point–without any display adjustments between or during tests–and found out the “Matrix: eye-one display 2 & Intelli Proof 232” gave the most aligned desired results. Monitor set at 65D, 2.2 Gamma, and using a color profile generated from Apple Cinema Display from previous calibration.
Correction: Matrix: eye-one display 2 & Intelli Proof 232 For example here’s Auto:
Correction: Auto And “Apple Cinema Display”
Correction: Matrix eye-one display 2 & Apple Cinema Display (white LED) My understanding is that I should use the correction “Matrix: eye-one display 2 & Intelli Proof 232” for calibration, proofing, and verifying my LT LCD.
What I’m having trouble understanding is how does the correction used know the reading is good? Couldn’t you adjust to a correction–if you had manual adjustments? Therefore, you could adjust the correction to match the screen colors–even if they were grossly off. In this I’m a bit confused. I’ll trust that it’s the right thing to do though.
Going to run a quick test to see results. Will post.
Results attached of using “Matrix: eye-one display 2 & Intelli Proof 232″ on MacBookPro (late 2013) 13”.
Profile .icc created:
Apple MacBook Pro 13in Late 2013 – Color LCD ’12, VCGT, 6362K, 75 cd/m², Gamma 2.2, i1 Display 2, 2016-04-15I was unable to load the correction file:
Hope all this helps someone. Thanks for the help. I will see how prints hold up to the corrections.
My understanding is that I should use the correction “Matrix: eye-one display 2 & Intelli Proof 232” for calibration, proofing, and verifying my LT LCD.
I’m not sure if that is good match for your Laptop display. The Quato Intelli Proof monitors (discontinued since Quato went out of business) were professional, wide gamut (mostly) CFFL-backlit softproofing monitors. Only corrections with “White LED” in the description should be applicable to your situation.
I was unable to load the correction file:
You can’t share vendor corrections in the online database because they cannot be made available under a public domain license.
I’m honestly a bit confused by the recommendations given on this post. Perhaps I’m missing something along the way. It was my understanding that I was to find the correction with lowest deltaE, however, now it seems that doesn’t seem to be the case, and I shouldn’t have followed those steps.
I first calibrated with “Auto”, and then a second time with “eye-one display 2 & Apple Cinema Display (white LED)”, with the later having better verification results. Should I try each one and see which works best after changing the color profile and verifying?
That’s something you could try, and it’s not even necessary to run through a full calibration each time: Simply enable “Interactive display adjustment” and check which (if any) of the applicable corrections gives you the lowest deltaE for the whitepoint measures…
As can be seen below, looks like the correction with the lowest deltaE is possibly a bad fit.
My understanding is that I should use the correction “Matrix: eye-one display 2 & Intelli Proof 232” for calibration, proofing, and verifying my LT LCD.
I’m not sure if that is good match for your Laptop display. The Quato Intelli Proof monitors (discontinued since Quato went out of business) were professional, wide gamut (mostly) CFFL-backlit softproofing monitors. Only corrections with “White LED” in the description should be applicable to your situation.
I thought I was providing a ccmx or ccss dependent on my display and colorometer, though I now remember vaguely that it was written that only a spectrometer can provide these settings, regarding:
I was unable to load the correction file:
You can’t share vendor corrections in the online database because they cannot be made available under a public domain license.
I’m unsure what else I can do now with my laptop and colorometer. It seems to me that I’m unable to use the software to make an adjustment fitting for the display using an appropriate correction–which must be provided by the company or someone with a spectrometer. Potentially the only thing to do is either buy a new display, new colorometer/spectrometer, or use white LED correction, but know that it’s going to be off, and the whitepoint may be off.
Any recommendations on proceeding forward? If I’ve missed something or am off base please let me know. Thanks a bunch, appreciate the feedback.
It was my understanding that I was to find the correction with lowest deltaE
Yes, but only from the applicable ones (i.e. assumedly white LED only, because that is your Laptop’s backlight type). I couldn’t find any information on the Intelli Proof 232, being a discontinued product, that’s why I said I wasn’t sure if it’s applicable to your situation. As I understand it, the MacBook Retina display is an IPS panel with white LED backlight and sRGB-ish gamut. The Intelli Proof is likely also an IPS panel, but with unknown backlight type (possibly CCFL if it’s an older model), and likely wide-gamut, being a softproof monitor.
Potentially the only thing to do is either buy a new display, new colorometer/spectrometer, or use white LED correction, but know that it’s going to be off, and the whitepoint may be off.
A new/different display won’t necessarily help, although a suitable external display can get around the problem of the Laptop internal display not being adjustable in terms of RGB gains. Ultimately you are aimimg for a good screen-to-print match, so I would hold off on any purchase decision until you have exhausted all options to achieve that with your current gear.
