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. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#51
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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 | |
|
|
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 |