+1 @ theSuede makes a good point at differing monitors / calibration methods affecting LUT vs. non-LUT. This is somewhat akin to my point that my two different monitor types CANNOT achieve the same level of luminance (CRT vs. LCD) ... i.e. non-LUT vs. LUT, the former CANNOT achieve what the latter can.
While I realize mine are mixed types and nobody else would be doing that, it points out that it matters a bit as to how the monitors were designed by the mfr and not all monitors have the same capability/method for establishing control ... i.e. some allow for making LUT adjustments ... others, only brightness controls. If a monitor is limited to manual adjustment of brightness/contrast controls, then (imo) expensive calibration equipment is of lesser value. If instead LUT adjustment is available, then the better calibration equipment is of much greater value.
Using a precision measuring device such as a micrometer makes good sense for precision work ... but not so much for a process that can\'t take advantage of its precision. I routinely use a vernier caliper for measuring hardwood dimension when cutting pieces for geometric cutting board designs. But for general construction / rough carpentry work, a good tape measure is all you need ... the process for dimensioning 2x4\'s simply doesn\'t have the same level of precision that hand planing hardwoods does, so even if you do use a vernier caliper to measure a 2x4 and find out it isn\'t square within .001\" ... \"ain\'t nuttin\' you\'re gonna do \'bout it\" ... you\'re simply going to use it. 2x4\'s are diminshed \"good enough\" for the task they are intended for @ \"nominal\' dimensions ... not precision tasks, so measuring 2x4\'s with a vernier caliper is a waste of time, money & effort (unless you have the ability to re-dimension them to such precision).
The difference between LUT vs. non-LUT is going to be the dividing line between what your expectations can be ... and the value of the differing calibration products from \'basic\' to \"professionally advanced\". If your system won\'t harness the precision of advanced \'scientific\' calibration equipment ... there is a degree of \"overkill\' with the more advanced calibration devices. Conversely, if your system has the capability for such precise adjustments, a \"basic\" calibration device won\'t get the job done properly.
LUT vs. non-LUT ... first order of business in assessing what your calibration approach/expectations should be relative to your monitor/system ... imo. Until that is established/defined ... it is easy to see why such \"mixed\" opinions exist as to \"critical\" vs. \"unnecessary\" ... likely some are assuming LUT, others not.
BTW ... I\'m \"clueless\" @ Mac on the LUT matter.
+1 @ theSuede makes a good point at differing monitors / calibration methods affecting LUT vs. non-LUT. This is somewhat akin to my point that my two different monitors CANNOT achieve the same level of luminance (CRT vs. LCD) ... i.e. non-LUT vs. LUT, the former CANNOT achieve what the latter can.
While I realize mine are mixed types and nobody else would be doing that, it points out that it matters a bit as to how the monitors were designed by the mfr and not all monitors have the same capability/method for establishing control ... i.e. some allow for making LUT adjustments ... others, only brightness controls. If a monitor is limited to manual adjustment of brightness/contrast controls, then (imo) expensive calibration equipment is of lesser value. If instead LUT adjustment is available, then the better calibration equipment is of much greater value.
Using a precision measuring device such as a micrometer makes good sense for precision work ... but not so much for a process that can\'t take advantage of its precision. I routinely use a vernier caliper for measuring hardwood dimension when cutting pieces for geometric cutting board designs. But for general construction / rough carpentry work, a good tape measure is all you need ... the process for dimensioning 2x4\'s simply doesn\'t have the same level of precision that hand planing hardwoods does, so even if you do use a vernier caliper to measure a 2x4 and find out it isn\'t square within .001\" ... \"ain\'t nuttin\' you\'re gonna do \'bout it\" ... you\'re simply going to use it. 2x4\'s are diminshed \"good enough\" for the task they are intended for @ \"nominal\' dimensions ... not precision tasks, so measuring 2x4\'s with a vernier caliper is a waste of time, money & effort (unless you have the ability to re-dimension them to such precision).
The difference between LUT vs. non-LUT is going to be the dividing line between what your expectations can be ... and the value of the differing calibration products from \'basic\' to \"professionally advanced\". If your system won\'t harness the precision of advanced \'scientific\' calibration equipment ... there is a degree of \"overkill\' with the more advanced calibration devices. Conversely, if your system has the capability for such precise adjustments, a \"basic\" calibration device won\'t get the job done properly.
LUT vs. non-LUT ... first order of business in assessing what your calibration approach/expectations should be relative to your monitor/system ... imo. Until that is established/defined ... it is easy to see why such \"mixed\" opinions exist as to \"critical\" vs. \"unnecessary\" ... likely some are assuming LUT, others not.
BTW ... I\'m \"clueless\" @ Mac on the LUT matter.
Dec 20, 2011 at 09:33 AM
Previous versions of RustyBug's message #10181401 « Why Color Profile? »
