July 22, 2018, 10:54:42 AM

Author Topic: Screen gamut  (Read 22432 times)

LetTheRightLensIn

  • Canon EF 400mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *********
  • Posts: 4757
Re: Screen gamut
« Reply #15 on: January 22, 2014, 10:31:28 PM »
Hello everyone,

To make a long story short, my computer broke and after discussions on the following thread, I settled for a IPS touchscreen ASUS N550JV as a replacement. Now, the non-touchscreen (but IPS) version was reviewed at a couple places and said to have small gamut. I decided to test the touchscreen version with my Spyder4Elite and was stunned by the results (see attachment).

Now, the screen does appear to be high contrast and vivid with neat colors, but I'm surprised nonetheless. I was therefore wondering if anyone is aware of images meant to visually check the screen gamut in order to confirm the calibration/test results. Images with purposefully large gamut that would make obvious deviations in tones in out of gamut areas for example.

Thanks.

That looks close to normal for a regular, non-wide gamut screen, maybe a trace farther short of sRGB than most but not by much. I expected you'd be talking about one of those screens that is like only 65% of sRGB or something like a few cheap laptops and lots of older tablets have/had.

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Screen gamut
« Reply #15 on: January 22, 2014, 10:31:28 PM »

jrista

  • Canon EF 400mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *********
  • Posts: 5319
  • EOL
    • Nature Photography
Re: Screen gamut
« Reply #16 on: January 22, 2014, 10:43:53 PM »
The X-Rite ColorMunki Display is a colorimeter.

Calibration is yet another area where some people seem to obsess, it is important to remain cognoscent of the fact that a profile, in and of itself, only has any relevance or use when compared to something else, "accurate" colour is a complete red herring and calibrating a monitor without regard to final output, be it an uncalibrated web users screen, a high end printer, or the local Costco, or where that print is then hung, what viewing conditions that web user has etc, really make single screen profiling a little pointless. Certainly nothing to obsess about.

A robust colour workflow is a wonderful thing but is way more than a decent monitor and profile, it starts at capture with custom camera profiles and ends with the final viewers viewing conditions.

In relation to the very broad scope you describe, you are indeed correct. However if you prefer to have a very accurate color-corrected personal workflow...from camera to printer...ColorMunki Design is the most consistent device I've found on the market in it's price range. (I don't know about the ColorMunki Display...I was looking for a device that would cover both screen and print calibration, which is what the Design does.) If you do color-corrected printing at home, the inconsistencies that the Spyder process introduces become very annoying. Since the last calibration I did after returning the ColorMunki, I simply stopped calibrating. My screen seems to naturally drift at a pretty slow rate, and NOT recalibrating keeps the current calibration in tact, and right now, my shadow tonality is excellent, greens and reds show up superbly, etc.

If these small details don't matter to you, then indeed...any old calibration device will do.

LetTheRightLensIn

  • Canon EF 400mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *********
  • Posts: 4757
Re: Screen gamut
« Reply #17 on: January 22, 2014, 10:46:17 PM »
The color filters of any colorimeter or spectrophotometer will fade over time. That isn't really limited to one brand or another or even one model or another. As far as I know, though, X-Rite's devices are all spectrophotometers:

Actually it does vary a lot by model. Stuff like i1D2 and older Spyders have unprotected gels and they decay a lot faster than the ones with glass and sealing. i1Display Pro for instance lasts a lot longer than the old i1D2.

x-rite makes lots of colorimeters, i1D2, i1D, i1Display Pro and such were all colorimeters. i1 Pro and i1 Pro II are spectros as is one of the colormunkis (there is a new colormunki, man their new naming is soooo confusing! i1 Display Pro and i1 Display and i1 Pro are 100% different and the latter is a spectro and the first two colorimeters! and I think colormunki is a spectro but the new colormunki display i think is a slowed down i1 display pro colorimeters, i forget the naming for the colormunkis so that might be wrong).

i1 Display Pro seems to have the least copy to copy variation of all the colorimeters that do not cost like $800+. Spyder4 seems to be OK but not up to the i1 Display Pro.


Quote

Seeing as I plan to buy that NEC monitor, and I don't generally create printer calibrations anymore, and the $500 ColorMunki Design was just a bit expensive for me at the time. If you aren't intending to spend $1200 on a new monitor, though, the ColorMunki is pretty much the most accurate calibration device around. If you don't want to spend $500, then an i1Display Pro is probably sufficient (however, to be quite honest, I am not sure if that is a spectro or a colorimeter...either way, the reviews indicate it does an exquisite job.)

i1 Display Pro is a colorimeter but it has expanded vision compared to the prior i1D2 and it is VASTLY better in terms of copy to copy variation. I tested a few i1 Display Pro and they were identical for most measurements off by like 0.001 for a few and like .002 for one. The i1D2 were said to at times register, copy to copy, a color calibrated by one copy to measure 10 to even 20dE off often enough (not with all copies, but it wasn't that rare that their could be that much of a difference copy to copy)

i1 Display Pro having almost idenitcal performance for all copies means that the included conversion tables all apply well it has tables for regular CCFL, wide gamut CCFL, LED and such. it works especially well with NEC CCFL wide gamut PA monitors since that is the monitors they used to calibrate the tables.

It is much faster and somewhat more accurate at measuring dark shades than the affordable spectros.


LetTheRightLensIn

  • Canon EF 400mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *********
  • Posts: 4757
Re: Screen gamut
« Reply #18 on: January 22, 2014, 10:48:11 PM »
The X-Rite ColorMunki Display is a colorimeter.

Calibration is yet another area where some people seem to obsess, it is important to remain cognoscent of the fact that a profile, in and of itself, only has any relevance or use when compared to something else, "accurate" colour is a complete red herring and calibrating a monitor without regard to final output, be it an uncalibrated web users screen, a high end printer, or the local Costco, or where that print is then hung, what viewing conditions that web user has etc, really make single screen profiling a little pointless. Certainly nothing to obsess about.


Not really since:
1. most of the images you see will be on your monitor so it certainly makes sense to have it calibrated (ever more now that 4k+ monitors are coming out)
2. it means you won't have to alter all your photos and potentially completely reprocess them all when you get a new monitor
3. you can't even get to the other steps you mention if the first step isn't there

jrista

  • Canon EF 400mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *********
  • Posts: 5319
  • EOL
    • Nature Photography
Re: Screen gamut
« Reply #19 on: January 22, 2014, 10:56:26 PM »
The color filters of any colorimeter or spectrophotometer will fade over time. That isn't really limited to one brand or another or even one model or another. As far as I know, though, X-Rite's devices are all spectrophotometers:

Actually it does vary a lot by model. Stuff like i1D2 and older Spyders have unprotected gels and they decay a lot faster than the ones with glass and sealing. i1Display Pro for instance lasts a lot longer than the old i1D2.

x-rite makes lots of colorimeters, i1D2, i1D, i1Display Pro and such were all colorimeters. i1 Pro and i1 Pro II are spectros as is one of the colormunkis (there is a new colormunki, man their new naming is soooo confusing! i1 Display Pro and i1 Display and i1 Pro are 100% different and the latter is a spectro and the first two colorimeters! and I think colormunki is a spectro but the new colormunki display i think is a slowed down i1 display pro colorimeters, i forget the naming for the colormunkis so that might be wrong).

i1 Display Pro seems to have the least copy to copy variation of all the colorimeters that do not cost like $800+. Spyder4 seems to be OK but not up to the i1 Display Pro.

Ah, ok. So the i1Display Pro is a colorimeter. Well, that doesn't seem to hamper it's performance at all...reviews indicate it does a stellar job with high consistency.

I also believe that a glass filter in front of the color filter will help reduce the rate at which the color filter fades...however it won't stop it from fading.

Quote

Seeing as I plan to buy that NEC monitor, and I don't generally create printer calibrations anymore, and the $500 ColorMunki Design was just a bit expensive for me at the time. If you aren't intending to spend $1200 on a new monitor, though, the ColorMunki is pretty much the most accurate calibration device around. If you don't want to spend $500, then an i1Display Pro is probably sufficient (however, to be quite honest, I am not sure if that is a spectro or a colorimeter...either way, the reviews indicate it does an exquisite job.)

i1 Display Pro is a colorimeter but it has expanded vision compared to the prior i1D2 and it is VASTLY better in terms of copy to copy variation. I tested a few i1 Display Pro and they were identical for most measurements off by like 0.001 for a few and like .002 for one. The i1D2 were said to at times register, copy to copy, a color calibrated by one copy to measure 10 to even 20dE off often enough (not with all copies, but it wasn't that rare that their could be that much of a difference copy to copy)

i1 Display Pro having almost idenitcal performance for all copies means that the included conversion tables all apply well it has tables for regular CCFL, wide gamut CCFL, LED and such. it works especially well with NEC CCFL wide gamut PA monitors since that is the monitors they used to calibrate the tables.

It is much faster and somewhat more accurate at measuring dark shades than the affordable spectros.

Yeah, the i1Display Pro is a very good calibration device. Interesting that it handles the dark shades better, spectros have lower precision at darker tones than they do at higher tones, so if it is not a spectro, that makes sense. I wonder how accurate it's middle tones are, though. That is really where the richest color shows up in any photo...shadows and highlights naturally have less color fidelity, where as the very broad range of midtones is where the vast bulk of color and fine tonality come from anyway.

privatebydesign

  • Canon EF 800mm f/5.6L IS
  • ***********
  • Posts: 6934
  • Would you take advice from a cartoons stuffed toy?
Re: Screen gamut
« Reply #20 on: January 22, 2014, 11:13:53 PM »
The X-Rite ColorMunki Display is a colorimeter.

Calibration is yet another area where some people seem to obsess, it is important to remain cognoscent of the fact that a profile, in and of itself, only has any relevance or use when compared to something else, "accurate" colour is a complete red herring and calibrating a monitor without regard to final output, be it an uncalibrated web users screen, a high end printer, or the local Costco, or where that print is then hung, what viewing conditions that web user has etc, really make single screen profiling a little pointless. Certainly nothing to obsess about.

A robust colour workflow is a wonderful thing but is way more than a decent monitor and profile, it starts at capture with custom camera profiles and ends with the final viewers viewing conditions.

In relation to the very broad scope you describe, you are indeed correct. However if you prefer to have a very accurate color-corrected personal workflow...from camera to printer...ColorMunki Design is the most consistent device I've found on the market in it's price range. (I don't know about the ColorMunki Display...I was looking for a device that would cover both screen and print calibration, which is what the Design does.) If you do color-corrected printing at home, the inconsistencies that the Spyder process introduces become very annoying. Since the last calibration I did after returning the ColorMunki, I simply stopped calibrating. My screen seems to naturally drift at a pretty slow rate, and NOT recalibrating keeps the current calibration in tact, and right now, my shadow tonality is excellent, greens and reds show up superbly, etc.

If these small details don't matter to you, then indeed...any old calibration device will do.

I just made a print booth with a set of $250 Solux bulbs, I take my printing pretty seriously. I am currently printing a group show for ten photographers. How much use is my viewing booth for this show? Zero. The viewing conditions at the venue are so removed from my calibrated and profiled screen and print booth as to nullify their use, I can't replicate the venues lighting in my print booth (with the full spectrum top of the range photographic viewing bulbs I have) and it would take a custom created screen profile made from light readings at the venue to get my screen close.

That is not saying there is no point to profiling, just to put what you do in isolation in perspective.

The only reason I mentioned the ColorMunki, is because, as has been said, X-Rite's naming policy is very confusing and you didn't differentiate between the ColorMunki Display, a colorimeter, and the ColorMunki Design, a spectrophotometer.

As for screen brightness, well this is so dependent on ambient light too. The specs for true colour critical work include ambient light levels that are depressingly low, room tone (no colour) levels, operators clothing colour and a plethora of other details that remove it ever more from where any output might be viewed.

There is a wonderful story that somebody high up in colour management tells, I forget who (maybe that darned Digital Dog guy), about a magazine editor arguing with the printers, and the picture editors about what image had this months "look". In a burst of frustration she took the last two choices outside to a news stand and put them in the rack for a couple of minutes, then chose one. When asked by all the "experts" what exactly she did and what she thought she could accomplish, she replied, "I wanted to see which looked best on the rack of a news stand, that is where they sell from".
Too often we lose sight of the fact that photography is about capturing light, if we have the ability to take control of that light then we grow exponentially as photographers. More often than not the image is not about lens speed, sensor size, DR, MP's or AF, it is about the light.

jrista

  • Canon EF 400mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *********
  • Posts: 5319
  • EOL
    • Nature Photography
Re: Screen gamut
« Reply #21 on: January 22, 2014, 11:26:11 PM »
The X-Rite ColorMunki Display is a colorimeter.

Calibration is yet another area where some people seem to obsess, it is important to remain cognoscent of the fact that a profile, in and of itself, only has any relevance or use when compared to something else, "accurate" colour is a complete red herring and calibrating a monitor without regard to final output, be it an uncalibrated web users screen, a high end printer, or the local Costco, or where that print is then hung, what viewing conditions that web user has etc, really make single screen profiling a little pointless. Certainly nothing to obsess about.

A robust colour workflow is a wonderful thing but is way more than a decent monitor and profile, it starts at capture with custom camera profiles and ends with the final viewers viewing conditions.

In relation to the very broad scope you describe, you are indeed correct. However if you prefer to have a very accurate color-corrected personal workflow...from camera to printer...ColorMunki Design is the most consistent device I've found on the market in it's price range. (I don't know about the ColorMunki Display...I was looking for a device that would cover both screen and print calibration, which is what the Design does.) If you do color-corrected printing at home, the inconsistencies that the Spyder process introduces become very annoying. Since the last calibration I did after returning the ColorMunki, I simply stopped calibrating. My screen seems to naturally drift at a pretty slow rate, and NOT recalibrating keeps the current calibration in tact, and right now, my shadow tonality is excellent, greens and reds show up superbly, etc.

If these small details don't matter to you, then indeed...any old calibration device will do.

I just made a print booth with a set of $250 Solux bulbs, I take my printing pretty seriously. I am currently printing a group show for ten photographers. How much use is my viewing booth for this show? Zero. The viewing conditions at the venue are so removed from my calibrated and profiled screen and print booth as to nullify their use, I can't replicate the venues lighting in my print booth (with the full spectrum top of the range photographic viewing bulbs I have) and it would take a custom created screen profile made from light readings at the venue to get my screen close.

That is not saying there is no point to profiling, just to put what you do in isolation in perspective.

You can't concern yourself too much about external viewing circumstances. They are effectively infinite. Having a personal color-correct workflow still produces color-accurate prints. One of the reasons I bought the DataColor SpyderPrint was it's ability to produce a variety of color profiles for known illuminants from a single source calibration. You generate one profile, then generate profiles for different lighting like tungsten, sunlight, D50, D65, etc. You simply had to choose the right profile for the lighting to print in such a way that color would be accurate under that specific kind of lighting.

These days, I assume daylight and/or sunlight viewing. I stopped concerning myself with the ability to produce prints that look good under the extreme orange-yellow light of a tungsten bulb. Too costly. Most people spend the most time looking at prints during the day, which would be either 5000K-5500K sunlight, or 6500K daylight. I calibrate my screen to D55, or 5500 kelvin, and my workflow produces correct, accurate color for those conditions.

The only reason I mentioned the ColorMunki, is because, as has been said, X-Rite's naming policy is very confusing and you didn't differentiate between the ColorMunki Display, a colorimeter, and the ColorMunki Design, a spectrophotometer.

Actually, I clearly stated it was the ColorMunki Design, and I even linked to the ColorMunki Design web site from where I took the quote about it being a spectro...

As for screen brightness, well this is so dependent on ambient light too. The specs for true colour critical work include ambient light levels that are depressingly low, room tone (no colour) levels, operators clothing colour and a plethora of other details that remove it ever more from where any output might be viewed.

I have 5000K CRI 89 lighting at my workstation, where I wear black. I always calibrate at night under pure artificial lighting, as I normally print at night. My workstation is also directly and pretty evenly illuminated. The Spyder3 and Spyder4, as well as ColorMunki and i1Display devices all take ambient lighting measurements.

As for where the output is viewed, again...I don't think that matters so much. You can't control the infinitely varying situations where your output might be viewed. All you can do is control your specific workflow. In the case of prints, if you assume the most common viewing circumstances...indoors during the daytime for people who buy your prints, you greatly narrow the potential viewing scenarios you have to account form.

Color calibration isn't about calibrating the world. It's about calibrating your workflow. That's it.

There is a wonderful story that somebody high up in colour management tells, I forget who (maybe that darned Digital Dog guy), about a magazine editor arguing with the printers, and the picture editors about what image had this months "look". In a burst of frustration she took the last two choices outside to a news stand and put them in the rack for a couple of minutes, then chose one. When asked by all the "experts" what exactly she did and what she thought she could accomplish, she replied, "I wanted to see which looked best on the rack of a news stand, that is where they sell from".

I think she was damn right!  ;D  She narrowed the potential viewing circumstances to the one that seemed most important. That's all you can do. You can't calibrate the world....you can only calibrate your workflow.

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Screen gamut
« Reply #21 on: January 22, 2014, 11:26:11 PM »

privatebydesign

  • Canon EF 800mm f/5.6L IS
  • ***********
  • Posts: 6934
  • Would you take advice from a cartoons stuffed toy?
Re: Screen gamut
« Reply #22 on: January 22, 2014, 11:38:44 PM »

You can't concern yourself too much about external viewing circumstances.

Nonsense, final output viewing is the goal, not some isolated and insular workspace that we create. Though the output is of course not limited to printing, there are many great printers that write on this subject regularly, Ctein and John Paul Caponigro, being my two favourites, though I don't agree with all their ideas, at the foundation of all great printers workflow is a clear understanding of where an image will be displayed. It is the first question any serious printer will ask, sure if you don't know then a "regular" print can be made, but that isn't the complete way nor is it going to get you anything like optimal results.
Too often we lose sight of the fact that photography is about capturing light, if we have the ability to take control of that light then we grow exponentially as photographers. More often than not the image is not about lens speed, sensor size, DR, MP's or AF, it is about the light.

privatebydesign

  • Canon EF 800mm f/5.6L IS
  • ***********
  • Posts: 6934
  • Would you take advice from a cartoons stuffed toy?
Re: Screen gamut
« Reply #23 on: January 22, 2014, 11:42:34 PM »

The only reason I mentioned the ColorMunki, is because, as has been said, X-Rite's naming policy is very confusing and you didn't differentiate between the ColorMunki Display, a colorimeter, and the ColorMunki Design, a spectrophotometer.

Actually, I clearly stated it was the ColorMunki Design, and I even linked to the ColorMunki Design web site from where I took the quote about it being a spectro...



No, you didn't.

If you want to truly test out your screen and see what it is truly capable of, you should probably pick up an X-Rite ColorMunki. ColorMunki is a true spectrophotometer, which is a scientific-grade high precision device that will perform a much more realistic and accurate calibration of your screen, and should theoretically work for any gamut.
Too often we lose sight of the fact that photography is about capturing light, if we have the ability to take control of that light then we grow exponentially as photographers. More often than not the image is not about lens speed, sensor size, DR, MP's or AF, it is about the light.

privatebydesign

  • Canon EF 800mm f/5.6L IS
  • ***********
  • Posts: 6934
  • Would you take advice from a cartoons stuffed toy?
Re: Screen gamut
« Reply #24 on: January 22, 2014, 11:46:12 PM »

I think she was damn right!  ;D  She narrowed the potential viewing circumstances to the one that seemed most important. That's all you can do. You can't calibrate the world....you can only calibrate your workflow.

She was, that is why I referenced the anecdote. But she was working to the output viewing conditions, not the sterile fully profiled and managed workstation conditions.

Final output viewing conditions are all that matters, if you are outputting your images, if you aren't then by definition it is moot because you don't have any.
Too often we lose sight of the fact that photography is about capturing light, if we have the ability to take control of that light then we grow exponentially as photographers. More often than not the image is not about lens speed, sensor size, DR, MP's or AF, it is about the light.

jrista

  • Canon EF 400mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *********
  • Posts: 5319
  • EOL
    • Nature Photography
Re: Screen gamut
« Reply #25 on: January 22, 2014, 11:48:49 PM »

You can't concern yourself too much about external viewing circumstances.

Nonsense, final output viewing is the goal, not some isolated and insular workspace that we create. Though the output is of course not limited to printing, there are many great printers that write on this subject regularly, Ctein and John Paul Caponigro, being my two favourites, though I don't agree with all their ideas, at the foundation of all great printers workflow is a clear understanding of where an image will be displayed. It is the first question any serious printer will ask, sure if you don't know then a "regular" print can be made, but that isn't the complete way nor is it going to get you anything like optimal results.

I agree in certain circumstances. For example, if you are going to be exhibiting your work at a gallery, and you can gather the specifics of the kind of lighting they use, then you absolutely want to print according to those specific viewing circumstances.

I am thinking more of the general circumstance. You, or maybe a lab, print on a regular basis for potentially thousands of customers. The average customer couldn't give you any meaningful information about what kind of light is going to fall on the print when it is being viewed, and even if they did, it would only be correct some of the time. Even if you did know, you still aren't going to be recalibrating your system every time for different output circumstances. You do something like what DataColor SpyderPrint does...generate a profile, then extrapolate potential alternative light sources and white points from that. And you simply select the profile you need for those special prints. However you calibrate your system to one single baseline...you don't keep recalibrating it for each of potentially countless output circumstances.

jrista

  • Canon EF 400mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *********
  • Posts: 5319
  • EOL
    • Nature Photography
Re: Screen gamut
« Reply #26 on: January 22, 2014, 11:51:15 PM »

The only reason I mentioned the ColorMunki, is because, as has been said, X-Rite's naming policy is very confusing and you didn't differentiate between the ColorMunki Display, a colorimeter, and the ColorMunki Design, a spectrophotometer.

Actually, I clearly stated it was the ColorMunki Design, and I even linked to the ColorMunki Design web site from where I took the quote about it being a spectro...



No, you didn't.

If you want to truly test out your screen and see what it is truly capable of, you should probably pick up an X-Rite ColorMunki. ColorMunki is a true spectrophotometer, which is a scientific-grade high precision device that will perform a much more realistic and accurate calibration of your screen, and should theoretically work for any gamut.

Your taking that out of context. Click the damn link in my quote about the ColorMunki...it takes you directly to the ColorMunki Design web page. Everything I put after my quote assumes you actually READ the quote and clicked the link...since it came BEFORE.

privatebydesign

  • Canon EF 800mm f/5.6L IS
  • ***********
  • Posts: 6934
  • Would you take advice from a cartoons stuffed toy?
Re: Screen gamut
« Reply #27 on: January 23, 2014, 12:02:39 AM »

The only reason I mentioned the ColorMunki, is because, as has been said, X-Rite's naming policy is very confusing and you didn't differentiate between the ColorMunki Display, a colorimeter, and the ColorMunki Design, a spectrophotometer.

Actually, I clearly stated it was the ColorMunki Design, and I even linked to the ColorMunki Design web site from where I took the quote about it being a spectro...



No, you didn't.

If you want to truly test out your screen and see what it is truly capable of, you should probably pick up an X-Rite ColorMunki. ColorMunki is a true spectrophotometer, which is a scientific-grade high precision device that will perform a much more realistic and accurate calibration of your screen, and should theoretically work for any gamut.

Your taking that out of context. Click the damn link in my quote about the ColorMunki...it takes you directly to the ColorMunki Design web page. Everything I put after my quote assumes you actually READ the quote and clicked the link...since it came BEFORE.

No it didn't. This is the entirety of your first post in the thread.

Thanks, the appearance was quite good out of the box, but still better once calibrated.

Mainly, the thing is that based on the machine price and reviews on the web, I was not expecting these kind of results. Not only the Spyder4Elite gives 97% sRGB, but the deltaEs are all under 5, and mostly under 3 which seems pretty good to me.

I just wanted a way to crosscheck these results without getting another screen calibrator. I had thought that there might have been images meant to show/emphasize the gamut limits of a screen or something like that.

Owning a DataColor Spyder myself (I actually bought the full DataColor suite during the Spyder3 days), I would point out that I do not believe DataColor's devices, including the Spyder4, are actually capable of calibrating displays to anything other than sRGB. Their devices are colorimeters, rather than spectrophotometers, and as such they are not as accurate and seem to be tuned to calibrating your screen relative to the sRGB gamut rather than the AdobeRGB gamut. DataColor has claimed there are software features that can be used to calibrate wide-gamut displays, however even with the latest software updates and 'elite' software, I have never been able to get anything other than sRGB calibration out of my Spyder devices for all of my screens.

If you want to truly test out your screen and see what it is truly capable of, you should probably pick up an X-Rite ColorMunki. ColorMunki is a true spectrophotometer, which is a scientific-grade high precision device that will perform a much more realistic and accurate calibration of your screen, and should theoretically work for any gamut.


See, no mention of ColorMunki Display and no link? Just X-Rite ColorMunki, and no link, so apart from those two details you were right about mentioning Display and a link.
Too often we lose sight of the fact that photography is about capturing light, if we have the ability to take control of that light then we grow exponentially as photographers. More often than not the image is not about lens speed, sensor size, DR, MP's or AF, it is about the light.

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Screen gamut
« Reply #27 on: January 23, 2014, 12:02:39 AM »

privatebydesign

  • Canon EF 800mm f/5.6L IS
  • ***********
  • Posts: 6934
  • Would you take advice from a cartoons stuffed toy?
Re: Screen gamut
« Reply #28 on: January 23, 2014, 12:13:13 AM »

You can't concern yourself too much about external viewing circumstances.

Nonsense, final output viewing is the goal, not some isolated and insular workspace that we create. Though the output is of course not limited to printing, there are many great printers that write on this subject regularly, Ctein and John Paul Caponigro, being my two favourites, though I don't agree with all their ideas, at the foundation of all great printers workflow is a clear understanding of where an image will be displayed. It is the first question any serious printer will ask, sure if you don't know then a "regular" print can be made, but that isn't the complete way nor is it going to get you anything like optimal results.

I agree in certain circumstances. For example, if you are going to be exhibiting your work at a gallery, and you can gather the specifics of the kind of lighting they use, then you absolutely want to print according to those specific viewing circumstances.

I am thinking more of the general circumstance. You, or maybe a lab, print on a regular basis for potentially thousands of customers. The average customer couldn't give you any meaningful information about what kind of light is going to fall on the print when it is being viewed, and even if they did, it would only be correct some of the time. Even if you did know, you still aren't going to be recalibrating your system every time for different output circumstances. You do something like what DataColor SpyderPrint does...generate a profile, then extrapolate potential alternative light sources and white points from that. And you simply select the profile you need for those special prints. However you calibrate your system to one single baseline...you don't keep recalibrating it for each of potentially countless output circumstances.

And I was just trying to put in perspective the comparative futility that obsessing about the last few percent of accurate profiling and calibration is. A robust colour managed workflow is a good general practice, but spending excessive time and money on "better" is rarely worth it, especially when you consider the workstation to be nothing more than an intermediate step from capture to final output viewing. and the wide gamut of conditions that might encompass.
Too often we lose sight of the fact that photography is about capturing light, if we have the ability to take control of that light then we grow exponentially as photographers. More often than not the image is not about lens speed, sensor size, DR, MP's or AF, it is about the light.

jrista

  • Canon EF 400mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *********
  • Posts: 5319
  • EOL
    • Nature Photography
Re: Screen gamut
« Reply #29 on: January 23, 2014, 12:19:07 AM »

You can't concern yourself too much about external viewing circumstances.

Nonsense, final output viewing is the goal, not some isolated and insular workspace that we create. Though the output is of course not limited to printing, there are many great printers that write on this subject regularly, Ctein and John Paul Caponigro, being my two favourites, though I don't agree with all their ideas, at the foundation of all great printers workflow is a clear understanding of where an image will be displayed. It is the first question any serious printer will ask, sure if you don't know then a "regular" print can be made, but that isn't the complete way nor is it going to get you anything like optimal results.

I agree in certain circumstances. For example, if you are going to be exhibiting your work at a gallery, and you can gather the specifics of the kind of lighting they use, then you absolutely want to print according to those specific viewing circumstances.

I am thinking more of the general circumstance. You, or maybe a lab, print on a regular basis for potentially thousands of customers. The average customer couldn't give you any meaningful information about what kind of light is going to fall on the print when it is being viewed, and even if they did, it would only be correct some of the time. Even if you did know, you still aren't going to be recalibrating your system every time for different output circumstances. You do something like what DataColor SpyderPrint does...generate a profile, then extrapolate potential alternative light sources and white points from that. And you simply select the profile you need for those special prints. However you calibrate your system to one single baseline...you don't keep recalibrating it for each of potentially countless output circumstances.

And I was just trying to put in perspective the comparative futility that obsessing about the last few percent of accurate profiling and calibration is. A robust colour managed workflow is a good general practice, but spending excessive time and money on "better" is rarely worth it, especially when you consider the workstation to be nothing more than an intermediate step from capture to final output viewing. and the wide gamut of conditions that might encompass.

It is less about accuracy and more about consistency. I thought I made that relatively clear in all my words...but perhaps you are not really reading everything I've written. I wrote a lot about the inconsistencies of the DataColor products, vs. the consistency and accuracy of the ColorMunki Design...the fundamental issue that I've had (after years of use with multiple devices, starting with a Spyder2, actually) is lack of consistency with DataColor's products from calibration to calibration.

Anyway, there has been more than enough context in everything I've written to avoid any of the ambiguities you seem to be picking up. Even if you pulled that quote from a prior answer, if you had actually read everything, you would have known I was referring to the ColorMunki Design by the time you made which device I was talking about an issue.

We obviously disagree here, and I'd rather not continue to hijack IMG_001's thread with another endless debate that goes exactly nowhere...so, TTFN!  :P

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Screen gamut
« Reply #29 on: January 23, 2014, 12:19:07 AM »