A Photography forum. PhotoBanter.com

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » PhotoBanter.com forum » Digital Photography » Digital Photography
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Tweaking monitor calibration



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #51  
Old March 22nd 11, 09:38 PM posted to comp.sys.mac.system,rec.photo.digital
Better Info[_6_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 242
Default Tweaking monitor calibration

On Tue, 22 Mar 2011 12:52:20 -0400, Tom Stiller
wrote:

In article ,
(Floyd L. Davidson) wrote:

However... note the story above about the friend's
mother! I can't do that. Not even close. Consider how
that works with sound too, which we see demonstrations
of every day by talented musicians, so I for one have no
problem believing that lady did the same thing with
color. Not all musicians, but perhaps most, can whistle
any given note, on call. If they sing or play multiple
instruments, they can often hit a given note within a
few Hz at will on all of them. And then they can go
down the road to the next music shop, pick up a violin
for example, and tune it to within a few Hz of exactly
what they played on a piano two days before. That's the
same as selecting the colors of cloth.


Unlike sound, there is always "clutter" in vision experiments outside
the laboratory. Surrounds, lighting, and other factors distort the
mind's perception. Consider:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/tomstiller/5550052613/


Yet a musician or talented perfect-pitch singer can produce a given note on
cue, even in the middle of a full orchestra that's playing, or even during
the cacophony during warm-up. Explain how a musician can perfectly tune
their instrument during an orchestra's warm-up. The same is true for color
acuity.

Whenever a scene on my monitor is overwhelmed by a color-tint and I'm
needing to adjust it, then I merely swipe my eyes across the room to reset
their fatigued color perception. If instead the scene is real and is
overwhelmed by the colors of a sunset and there is no base-average to reset
my color acuity, I take into account all I know and clearly remember about
sunsets to realize that it is being flooded with reds and blues, adjusting
my perception of colors accordingly. This isn't rocket-surgery.

Just because you and others can't do it, doesn't mean that all can't do it.
Some people would rather dwell on the excuses of why they can't do it, or
invent excuses for why they can't do it.

"See? He can't do it because of X, that's why I can't do it because of X.
Therefore it follows that nobody can do it because of X."

Wrong.







  #52  
Old March 22nd 11, 09:42 PM posted to comp.sys.mac.system,rec.photo.digital
Outing Trolls is FUN![_5_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 359
Default Tweaking monitor calibration

On Tue, 22 Mar 2011 10:29:56 -0500, nospam wrote:

In article , Tom
Stiller wrote:

Unlike sound, there is always "clutter" in vision experiments outside
the laboratory. Surrounds, lighting, and other factors distort the
mind's perception. Consider:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/tomstiller/5550052613/


another good illusion is this one:

http://www.psy.ritsumei.ac.jp/~akitaoka/Monspiral4.jpg

it looks like there are blue spirals, but they're actually green, the
same green as in the green spirals. measure it.


It must bug you to no end how badly you failed that Color-IQ test, eh?

So much for you being the color-management X-Spurt.

Outted again!

LOL!!!!!

  #53  
Old March 22nd 11, 09:52 PM posted to comp.sys.mac.system,rec.photo.digital
Better Info[_6_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 242
Default Tweaking monitor calibration

On Tue, 22 Mar 2011 17:26:35 +0100, MartinC wrote:

Savageduck wrote:

Then report back, being honest (can you do that?).

I got 76, but not sure what it actually means

I got 18, for what it's worth.


Just for the Hell of it, I got a 4.


Gosh... got a zero. It took me some time to figure out that it meant that
all 4 rows were correct.

But I have to admit that I'm a photographer and use a triniton CRT monitor,
callibrated with the Spyder Pro device.

Those pastel hues are a nightmare on flat screens, so anyone with less than
10 errors is completely excused...

Even on a non-triniton CRT monitor it will be very very hard to see.


I wouldn't excuse them at all. If you only saw how low-contrast this old
burnt CRT monitor is that I'm using for surfing. An old Gateway EV910 on
its last legs. They almost looked all gray to me this time when I went
there. Knowing it was going to be a real challenge this time when I saw the
test again. I thought I should see what happens anyway, and as a test for
this monitor. Still, I got 0 wrong and it only took about 3-4 minutes to
sort them.

Sorry, even the quality of the monitor is no excuse.
  #54  
Old March 22nd 11, 10:58 PM posted to comp.sys.mac.system,rec.photo.digital
Eric Stevens
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 13,611
Default Tweaking monitor calibration

On Tue, 22 Mar 2011 17:26:35 +0100, MartinC
wrote:

Savageduck wrote:

Then report back, being honest (can you do that?).

I got 76, but not sure what it actually means

I got 18, for what it's worth.


Just for the Hell of it, I got a 4.


Gosh... got a zero. It took me some time to figure out that it meant that
all 4 rows were correct.

But I have to admit that I'm a photographer and use a triniton CRT monitor,
callibrated with the Spyder Pro device.

Those pastel hues are a nightmare on flat screens, so anyone with less than
10 errors is completely excused...

Even on a non-triniton CRT monitor it will be very very hard to see.


My last Trinitron monitor died several years ago. You are very lucky
that yours is still going.

My experience (Nanao/Eiso, Hitachi) is that while Trinitrons still
look good even when several years old, they do in fact lose their
initial sharpness. You will get a shock when you replace it with a new
monitor.

Regards,

Eric Stevens
  #55  
Old March 22nd 11, 11:04 PM posted to comp.sys.mac.system,rec.photo.digital
MartinC
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2
Default Tweaking monitor calibration

Eric Stevens wrote:

My last Trinitron monitor died several years ago. You are very lucky
that yours is still going.

My experience (Nanao/Eiso, Hitachi) is that while Trinitrons still
look good even when several years old, they do in fact lose their
initial sharpness. You will get a shock when you replace it with a new
monitor.


I know, that's why I only use it for photo-processing... ;-)

  #56  
Old March 23rd 11, 12:06 AM posted to comp.sys.mac.system,rec.photo.digital
Better Info[_6_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 242
Default Tweaking monitor calibration

On Tue, 22 Mar 2011 12:52:20 -0400, Tom Stiller
wrote:

In article ,
(Floyd L. Davidson) wrote:

However... note the story above about the friend's
mother! I can't do that. Not even close. Consider how
that works with sound too, which we see demonstrations
of every day by talented musicians, so I for one have no
problem believing that lady did the same thing with
color. Not all musicians, but perhaps most, can whistle
any given note, on call. If they sing or play multiple
instruments, they can often hit a given note within a
few Hz at will on all of them. And then they can go
down the road to the next music shop, pick up a violin
for example, and tune it to within a few Hz of exactly
what they played on a piano two days before. That's the
same as selecting the colors of cloth.


Unlike sound, there is always "clutter" in vision experiments outside
the laboratory. Surrounds, lighting, and other factors distort the
mind's perception. Consider:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/tomstiller/5550052613/


BTW: I'm glad you (and others) posted optical illusions like these to try
to justify the (erroneous) flip-side of the argument. These are good
examples to show just how much that color & visual memory can correct for
these situations that all others will automatically assume are hard facts,
instead of illusions.

I have a hobby of collecting as many optical illusions as I can. And
there's a good reason for this. Take for example the green & "blue" spiral
one. At first glance it's easy to be deceived into thinking there's blue in
that image. However, my knowing it is an intentional optical illusion will
make me examine it further before settling on that first impression. Basing
my perception on my MEMORY of colors and how they are used in optical
illusions. It was then not difficult at all to see that there was no blue
in those spirals. Others who don't have as much memory about colors and
optical illusions will always see blue throughout that image. (In the
tighter spirals however, then visual-resolution has to meld the magenta and
green into blue. This further enhancing the illusion that blue must persist
in the outer spirals.)

This is how color & vision memory can be put to better use. The more you
have experience with all manner of situations, and what causes them, then
you can override your base first-impression instincts and examine it
further, now knowing that your MEMORY should be relied on more than
first-impressions.

I particularly enjoy the optical-illusions where color and shape is used to
induce the sense of motion when indeed there is none. There's been some
excellent ones designed around that principle. Khaki-colored wheels that
rotate, brown-bean shapes that undulate on a green background, etc. Motion
visually induced in a still-image by colors and shapes alone.

Here's just 2 of the many I've collected.

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5027/5551547540_a0d633ec4a.jpg

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5228/5551547550_b5f73a18c2.jpg

During my arts-era, greatly inspired by Escher, I would use principles like
these in my artwork. I would always impart some little thing into my
drawings and paintings that could not exist in the real world. A stream
that could not quite flow in the direction it was flowing (causing the
viewer's memory to give it motion), tree-branches that shouldn't have
crossed in front of those others, etc. Some slight skew of perception that
nobody else would easily notice, if ever. Unless they too had as much
experience with the natural-world as I did. People were almost always
unaware of why they were fascinated to study the image further and didn't
tire of doing so.

Composition is just the tip of the iceberg on why someone enjoys looking at
a still image.

There's much more to perception than what meets the eye.




  #57  
Old March 23rd 11, 01:42 AM posted to comp.sys.mac.system,rec.photo.digital
Eric Stevens
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 13,611
Default Tweaking monitor calibration

On Tue, 22 Mar 2011 18:06:18 -0500, Better Info
wrote:

On Tue, 22 Mar 2011 12:52:20 -0400, Tom Stiller
wrote:

In article ,
(Floyd L. Davidson) wrote:

However... note the story above about the friend's
mother! I can't do that. Not even close. Consider how
that works with sound too, which we see demonstrations
of every day by talented musicians, so I for one have no
problem believing that lady did the same thing with
color. Not all musicians, but perhaps most, can whistle
any given note, on call. If they sing or play multiple
instruments, they can often hit a given note within a
few Hz at will on all of them. And then they can go
down the road to the next music shop, pick up a violin
for example, and tune it to within a few Hz of exactly
what they played on a piano two days before. That's the
same as selecting the colors of cloth.


Unlike sound, there is always "clutter" in vision experiments outside
the laboratory. Surrounds, lighting, and other factors distort the
mind's perception. Consider:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/tomstiller/5550052613/


BTW: I'm glad you (and others) posted optical illusions like these to try
to justify the (erroneous) flip-side of the argument. These are good
examples to show just how much that color & visual memory can correct for
these situations that all others will automatically assume are hard facts,
instead of illusions.

I have a hobby of collecting as many optical illusions as I can. And
there's a good reason for this. Take for example the green & "blue" spiral
one. At first glance it's easy to be deceived into thinking there's blue in
that image. However, my knowing it is an intentional optical illusion will
make me examine it further before settling on that first impression. Basing
my perception on my MEMORY of colors and how they are used in optical
illusions. It was then not difficult at all to see that there was no blue
in those spirals. Others who don't have as much memory about colors and
optical illusions will always see blue throughout that image. (In the
tighter spirals however, then visual-resolution has to meld the magenta and
green into blue. This further enhancing the illusion that blue must persist
in the outer spirals.)

This is how color & vision memory can be put to better use. The more you
have experience with all manner of situations, and what causes them, then
you can override your base first-impression instincts and examine it
further, now knowing that your MEMORY should be relied on more than
first-impressions.

I particularly enjoy the optical-illusions where color and shape is used to
induce the sense of motion when indeed there is none. There's been some
excellent ones designed around that principle. Khaki-colored wheels that
rotate, brown-bean shapes that undulate on a green background, etc. Motion
visually induced in a still-image by colors and shapes alone.

Here's just 2 of the many I've collected.

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5027/5551547540_a0d633ec4a.jpg

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5228/5551547550_b5f73a18c2.jpg


Neither of those work for me.

During my arts-era, greatly inspired by Escher, I would use principles like
these in my artwork. I would always impart some little thing into my
drawings and paintings that could not exist in the real world. A stream
that could not quite flow in the direction it was flowing (causing the
viewer's memory to give it motion), tree-branches that shouldn't have
crossed in front of those others, etc. Some slight skew of perception that
nobody else would easily notice, if ever. Unless they too had as much
experience with the natural-world as I did. People were almost always
unaware of why they were fascinated to study the image further and didn't
tire of doing so.

Composition is just the tip of the iceberg on why someone enjoys looking at
a still image.

There's much more to perception than what meets the eye.




Regards,

Eric Stevens
  #58  
Old March 23rd 11, 05:15 AM posted to comp.sys.mac.system,rec.photo.digital
nospam
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 24,165
Default Tweaking monitor calibration

In article ], isw
wrote:

it also doesn't work very well since there's no hardware puck.

Do you have any hard evidence of that? I looked and could find none.
Folks *who understand it* say it gives results very close to what
hardware calibrators provide.


what folks are those? everything i've seen is that at best, it might be
close, if you know what to look for when eyeballing it.


People who are not skilled at something, or don't understand how it's
supposed to work, should not be surprised if the performance they get
from it is less than optimum ...


which is for all intents, just about everyone. most people don't
understand colour management and are not going to get good results by
calibrating by eye. those who are skilled at eyeballing it know the
limitations of human vision. they'll get better results, but not as
good as hardware.

in any event, you didn't answer my question. what folks say eyeballing
it is just as good? name some. i'm curious to see who they are and what
they have to say.

here's one who agrees with me:
http://www.colorwiki.com/wiki/Monito...using_hardware
_better.3F_Why_use_it_instead_of_software_alone.3F

Is using hardware better? Why use it instead of software alone?

When only software is used, you are left to guess at the phosphor
colors the monitor displays. With a hardware instrument the red,
green and blue phosphor colors, as well as the white points, are all
accurately measured and this builds a much more accurate profile. It
also takes into consideration the aging of your monitor.

worst case it's
not close at all, especially on a display that varies with viewing
angle (i.e., most laptops).


I hope you're not claiming that a hardware calibrator can somehow make
the angle dependency go away.


it does for the calibration procedure because the puck is placed
directly on the screen, it does not move and is always at the same
angle every time the calibration is done. you'll get consistent and
accurate results.

obviously, the angle dependency doesn't go away for the user, which
makes eyeballing it and getting consistent results effectively
impossible.
  #59  
Old March 23rd 11, 05:21 AM posted to comp.sys.mac.system,rec.photo.digital
isw
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 212
Default Tweaking monitor calibration

In article ,
nospam wrote:

In article ], isw
wrote:

it also doesn't work very well since there's no hardware puck.


Do you have any hard evidence of that? I looked and could find none.
Folks *who understand it* say it gives results very close to what
hardware calibrators provide.


what folks are those? everything i've seen is that at best, it might be
close, if you know what to look for when eyeballing it.


People who are not skilled at something, or don't understand how it's
supposed to work, should not be surprised if the performance they get
from it is less than optimum ...

worst case it's
not close at all, especially on a display that varies with viewing
angle (i.e., most laptops).


I hope you're not claiming that a hardware calibrator can somehow make
the angle dependency go away.

Isaac
  #60  
Old March 23rd 11, 08:21 AM posted to comp.sys.mac.system,rec.photo.digital
Better Info[_6_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 242
Default Tweaking monitor calibration

On Tue, 22 Mar 2011 23:15:39 -0500, nospam wrote:

In article ], isw
wrote:

it also doesn't work very well since there's no hardware puck.

Do you have any hard evidence of that? I looked and could find none.
Folks *who understand it* say it gives results very close to what
hardware calibrators provide.

what folks are those? everything i've seen is that at best, it might be
close, if you know what to look for when eyeballing it.


People who are not skilled at something, or don't understand how it's
supposed to work, should not be surprised if the performance they get
from it is less than optimum ...


which is for all intents, just about everyone. most people don't
understand colour management and are not going to get good results by
calibrating by eye. those who are skilled at eyeballing it know the
limitations of human vision. they'll get better results, but not as
good as hardware.

in any event, you didn't answer my question. what folks say eyeballing
it is just as good? name some. i'm curious to see who they are and what
they have to say.

here's one who agrees with me:
http://www.colorwiki.com/wiki/Monito...using_hardware
_better.3F_Why_use_it_instead_of_software_alone.3 F

Is using hardware better? Why use it instead of software alone?

When only software is used, you are left to guess at the phosphor
colors the monitor displays. With a hardware instrument the red,
green and blue phosphor colors, as well as the white points, are all
accurately measured and this builds a much more accurate profile. It
also takes into consideration the aging of your monitor.

worst case it's
not close at all, especially on a display that varies with viewing
angle (i.e., most laptops).


I hope you're not claiming that a hardware calibrator can somehow make
the angle dependency go away.


it does for the calibration procedure because the puck is placed
directly on the screen, it does not move and is always at the same
angle every time the calibration is done. you'll get consistent and
accurate results.

obviously, the angle dependency doesn't go away for the user, which
makes eyeballing it and getting consistent results effectively
impossible.


You enjoy respewing just what you read on the net, don't you.

 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Monitor Calibration. Colorvision Calibration Looks Incorrect Haydon Digital Photography 7 May 23rd 07 09:52 PM
LCD monitor calibration Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark) Digital Photography 12 February 1st 07 12:34 PM
Monitor Calibration Jeff Digital Photography 10 December 19th 06 07:18 PM
Do I really need monitor calibration if.... Dave R knows who Digital Photography 20 February 18th 05 03:10 AM
Monitor Calibration elziko Digital Photography 0 January 13th 05 12:14 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 04:06 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 PhotoBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.