theSuede
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
|
Yes, but the main problem here as I see it is to NOT put people off calibrating their screens... That's why I'm quite disappointed in many of the softwares you get with many of the cheaper profiling solutions.
The screens should NOT end up as being "very different", that's hrow's main point, and in this he is absolutely right.
MY main point is that the most important (first step, basic level CM) things are that your screens:
1) Have (about) the same WB temp
2) Are about as bright as each other, and about as bright as the recommended value - with small adjustments for ambient light and preference
3) Have the correct tone curve - this is maybe the most important thing in a "normal gamut" screen
4) Have a reasonably correct profile, so that color intensitys are shown correctly, with the right hue angle.
Point (1) and (2) are pretty easy with most heads/softwares and screens. Most softs have an option saying "manual adjustment" where you fiddle around with the physical controls on your screen until some kind of measurement indicator says "yeah, keep it here". Most screens use the "contrast" denominator for setting maximum screen luminance.
Point (3) is a BIT more complicated, since it often includes playing around with the other screen lightness option, "brightness". This will screw up measurement (2), so often you have to do this over again, like:
Do adjustment (1)+(2), and then adjustment (3). Now (2) will have changed slightly - start over.
Most of the time this needs to be repeated at least once, but it only takes a minute or so... Or 30s if you have done it before.
After this your screens should be showing similar "whitepoint brightness", "color temperature" and "total contrast". And this is as far as you can take the screen with CALIBRATION, which is the more physical part of the setup, fiddling around with controls on the screen. Their gamma curves (the midtone brightness) might still differ a bit, but you need a screen with programmable LUT's or continually adjustable gamma to make this right. Most people don't, so on to the PROFILING.
Here you HAVE to tell the software to let the screen be "as it were", and don't let the software fiddle around with absolute whitepoint or whitebalance. The ONLY two things a profile on a cheaper screen should do are:
1) Correct the tone curve so that you get a smooth, correct slope gamma
2) Inform the computer about the maximum saturation and hue of the R, G and B channel outputs.
........
After the "calibration step", which WILL be a manual labor for most people (we often forget that most ppl don't have tax deductable premium range programmable hardware screens...) the screens should be pretty similar, except for the midtone brightnesses and absolute color accuracy (hue and saturation).
After the profiling step (that again, should NOT adjust maximum brightness and WB!) and the application of the screen profile in the system, midtone brightness curves and a color not on the edge of what the screens are capable of should show as almost identical.
If not, then something is WRONG - and you might need brand-specific support. Get it, in the end it's worth it. At least, "get close", and verify by measurement.
But don't obsess over absolute accuracy - that's for people in the high volume production business, where accuracy is needed to be able to guarantee customers consistent results. Here it can be a 100k$ loss to get a print run botched, an then you have to show hard proof to the customer that you're "within contract specification" unless you want to waste a few tons of printed material.
|
