I insist on nothing other than that I am confused, lol. How do I not do the LUT load?
from what happened to me, i'm more thinking that the second stage of your monitor profile turned out less than ideal, tricked by teh way you had the moinitor knobs adjusted and it happaned to make things look a little worse evenif the primaries technically might measure a little better (when i used the monitor controls on my monitor to get the xy in the CIE color chart for the primaries as close as I could the Y was somewhat off and it seemed my profile tried to correct for the Y to such a degree that is didnt care that xy got pushed into worse values, so it imrpoved saturation (not overblown) and intensity (not overdone) but made the actual looks of the colors worse).
maybe you coudl redo the profile using default monitor settings (and if that is how it was done, then maybe instead try pre-calibration with the monitor knobs)
do you have the problem where CS makes shadows look faded out and prevents black from showing (makes it dull gray) too??
anyway to prevent the LUT from loading go into msconfig and go to the startup section and try to find a program calls itself a gamma or LUT loader or is associated with the name of the profiling software you use and deselect it so it doesn't load at start.
alternately:
if you use nvidia go color controls and mess around the sliders and then reset them back before exiting (i froget which color screen, but doing this on one of them resets the LUT to original state)
if you have ATI (i think you said you did) then just go to the color panel and hit the button to "reactivate ATI color controls" and this will dump out whatever LUT your LUT loader may have loaded.
(some of this might help you, marlinspike, espeicially the part about trying to first adjust the monitor primaries and stuff, on my monitor leaving ALL controls at factory defauly, aside from swithc color temp from normal to cool1, makes the profile work best and now my color aware programs look subtly BETTER than my non-aware programs not worse)
first yes profile do come in two parts, the LUT fixes gamma and color temp along the grayscale ramp but only color aware programs can use the rest of the minor profile for further fine tuning.
CS4 doesn't work well if you use a relative blackpoint choice during calibration it works fine if you set absolute blackpoint during calibration.
for whatever reason other color aware programs have no problem with this.
it may even be that CS4 was the only one handling it correctly, not sure, either that or CS4 has a bug with this form of monitor profile
any success at last:
tips if you use coloreyes use absolute blackpoint
and if you use a samsung 244T monitor DO NOT TOUCH the primary/secondary hue/saturation controls they ONLY MESS THINGS UP and if you adjust them to make the monitor get better locations it makes the gamut have uneveness within it and messes things up and makes at least some calibration programs produce a worse profile, once that actually makes color-aware programs give worse results than non-aware
anyway i finally have all color-aware programs working great (better than non-color aware) and my non-color aware working ok (once the LUT is loaded)
i highly recommend people download colorhcfr to verify the sRGB primaries within CS4 and see if they measure better than from the program itself (non-color aware) to see if you made an ideal profile or not.
also check that deep shadows and blacks look good in CS4 and the same as LR2 or the like.
--
the problem is when I turn it (BPC) on in CS4 black disappears, I can paint with 0,0,0 and it looks like dark gray, not even close to what black looks liek on my monitor, all the fine details in my pics in the shadows loose contrast and it just turns into a gray mush.
You need to read up what BPC is, when it kicks in and why. Its doing exactly what its supposed to do and will only kick in when doing working space to output color space conversions. Its there to FIX a bug in old ICC profiles and older CMMs. You're moving down a rabbit hole from your original ideas about display calibration and ICC aware applications confusing yourself in the process. If you want to discuss BPC, you should start a new post. There IS no bug in CS4 (or 3, or 2 down to Photoshop 5 when ACE was introduced) in terms of BPC!
first yes profile do come in two parts, the LUT fixes gamma and color temp along the grayscale ramp but only color aware programs can use the rest of the minor profile for further fine tuning.
It doesn't "fix" anything and in fact in ICC aware applications, doesn't really make much of a difference (thanks again to Display Using Monitor Compensation). You can (and many do) calibrate with a LUT that does absolutely nothing! That's what a native gamma and white point setting in some calibration software would produce (they even SHOW you the LUT so you can see its a straight line, NULL).
CS4 doesn't work well if you use a relative blackpoint choice during calibration it works fine if you set absolute blackpoint during calibration.
It works fine and as designed. You just don't like the rendering. And " use a relative blackpoint choice during calibration " what the heck does that mean?
for whatever reason other color aware programs have no problem with this.
Its not a problem, they can't access the ACE CMM thus they can't access BPC.
it may even be that CS4 was the only one handling it correctly, not sure, either that or CS4 has a bug with this form of monitor profile
What profiles are using to make such a statement? You're soft proofing with printer profile or just converting working space to working space?
And I don't believe this is how it should look since it DOES NOT look like this in photomechanic, in Firefox3, or in Lightroom.
NONE (at least Firefox and Lightroom) soft proof to output profiles using BPC (because there's no need).
BPC is for OUTPUT profile conversions. In fact, by using the Customize Soft Proof option, simulate ink black, you're now turning off BPC, turning on an Absolute Colorimetric intent. The preview goes "soft and mushy" as the black point is shown to you as an Absolute convention, without BPC!
•Simulate Paper Color and Simulate Black Ink Off: This produces the
relative colorimetric intent with Black Point Compensation.
•Simulate Black Ink: This produces the relative colorimetric intent
without Black Point Compensation.
•Simulate Paper Color: This produces the absolute colorimetric intent
(no Black Point Compensation).
w00t, I figured it out! Ok, so I had originally "use my settings for this device" checked in the windows color management and the "profile associated with this device" was the profile my monitor calibrator made. Then I tried unchecking use my settings and some other profile that camewith the computer went into that associated profile slot.
Now I tried re-checking "use my settings for this device" and deleted the profile from the "profile associated with this device" so that there is NO profile associated in the windows color management. Now PS CS works!
Also, all the various non-color-calibrated things seem to be showing accurate colors as well (IE, windows photo gallery, my desktop)
w00t, I figured it out! Ok, so I had originally "use my settings for this device" checked in the windows color management and the "profile associated with this device" was the profile my monitor calibrator made. Then I tried unchecking use my settings and some other profile that camewith the computer went into that associated profile slot.
Now I tried re-checking "use my settings for this device" and deleted the profile from the "profile associated with this device" so that there is NO profile associated in the windows color management. Now PS CS works!
Also, all the various non-color-calibrated things seem to be showing accurate colors as well (IE, windows photo gallery, my desktop)
it sounds like you just deleted the monitor profile and made color-aware stuff work the same way as non-color aware.
sounds like maybe your calibrator didn't make a great profile (as happened to me at first).
NONE (at least Firefox and Lightroom) soft proof to output profiles using BPC (because there's no need).
BPC is for OUTPUT profile conversions. In fact, by using the Customize Soft Proof option, simulate ink black, you're now turning off BPC, turning on an Absolute Colorimetric intent. The preview goes "soft and mushy" as the black point is shown to you as an Absolute convention, without BPC!
•Simulate Paper Color and Simulate Black Ink Off: This produces the
relative colorimetric intent with Black Point Compensation.
•Simulate Black Ink: This produces the relative colorimetric intent
without Black Point Compensation.
•Simulate Paper Color: This produces the absolute colorimetric intent
(no Black Point Compensation).
are you saying BPC should not make a difference for screen display at least if soft proofing is turned off?
it didnt seem to be working that way, since i had proofing off and it was showing up on screen (when I used a profile made with relative blackpoint option checked, it no longer does now that I used teh absolute option instead in my calibration software)
It doesn't "fix" anything and in fact in ICC aware applications, doesn't really make much of a difference (thanks again to Display Using Monitor Compensation). You can (and many do) calibrate with a LUT that does absolutely nothing! That's what a native gamma and white point setting in some calibration software would produce (they even SHOW you the LUT so you can see its a straight line, NULL).
Using a LUT table fixes a monitor that is not calibrated well. How is fixing that not fixing anything? My monitor can NOT be adjusted to a consistent color temperature up and down the gray scale using the limited controls it has nor can it come close to a nice 2.2 gamma ramp. Using the LUT fixes those issues no matter what I use to display things.
Whether I load the LUT or not makes a HUGE difference in how all of my programs display things color aware or not. And in any case I'd sure rather have both types looking at least reasonably good instead of having all my non-color aware apps look hideous by skipping the LUT step.
Yeah, but I don't want to calibrate to the native points on my monitor, since they aren't that great looking and not all that close the D65 standard for movies or photography and the gamma curve is like 2.4 (at best, maybe more like 2.5) and kind of bendy.
It works fine and as designed. You just don't like the rendering. And " use a relative blackpoint choice during calibration " what the heck does that mean?
it's a lot worse than my just not liking the look it gave with my old profile, it made editing totally useless. Nothing matched the output from ANY other program and it doesn't match prints either. It's almost like the look you get when you mess up PC 0-255 vs. 16-235 video levels.
but now that i set the absolute option in my profile creation, CS4 makes stuff look like all the other programs (with the other profile if I had BPC on it looked washed out and not right at all, or at least not right for editing photos, maybe for seeing what the difference between my monitor looks compared to an ideal monitor with no backlight where black is or something and iwth it off the shadows looked too dark and like non-color aware programs).
anyway i should read up more about what the two choices in my profiling program do. It defaulted to relative so I thought that must make the most sense to use, but perhaps not. All I know is CS4 does not handle shadows and blacks in a way that is of any use for editing photos if I set relative. Hopefully using absolute does make the most sense overall and is not messing anything up that i have not noticed yet. I thought i had something about how using relative sets the gamma relative to what your (non-deal) monitor can actually produce for black and so is more sensible to use, but maybe i'm misremembering, or they are wrong, or I didn't interprate it properly. Or maybe CS4 should not be doing what it is doing when it converts to output profiles for monitors?
anyway pics of the choices follow (using absolute makes CS4 render images as other color-aware programs too and makes everything look good):
What profiles are using to make such a statement? You're soft proofing with printer profile or just converting working space to working space?
no soft proofing or anything
I had CS4 set to sRGB working space and had my monitor profile associated with my monitor in windows color management and just looking at pictures on the screen loaded into CS4, nothing more.
it sounds like you just deleted the monitor profile and made color-aware stuff work the same way as non-color aware.
sounds like maybe your calibrator didn't make a great profile (as happened to me at first).
No, I don't think so, because the colors are spot on, not simply very close to spot on like they were before I calibrated. I think what was happening is the Gretag Macbeth software is loading the profile when I boot (when I start the computer I do see the screen colors suddenly change when the desktop loads) and then by having that selected in windows color management color-aware programs were double profiling.
No, I don't think so, because the colors are spot on, not simply very close to spot on like they were before I calibrated. I think what was happening is the Gretag Macbeth software is loading the profile when I boot (when I start the computer I do see the screen colors suddenly change when the desktop loads) and then by having that selected in windows color management color-aware programs were double profiling.
that's what i thought too, but it turned out that I just hadn't made a good profile, i put my monitor controls back into the default state (inside the monitor menus) and in my case when I ran the profile now it looks better in color-aware programs.
I verified by using colorhcfr to measure sRGB primary locations that the LUT loading step has no affect on this, but in color aware programs IF I left the monitor profile attached to the monitor within windows color management then the primaries would shift (into numerically better position in both cases, but in visually better in the second case after I redid it, in the first case; the first time it improved the Y component but made the xy (sort of the shade) a bit worse)
but now that i set the absolute option in my profile creation, CS4 makes stuff look like all the other programs (with the other profile if I had BPC on it looked washed out and not right at all, or at least not right for editing photos, maybe for seeing what the difference between my monitor looks compared to an ideal monitor with no backlight where black is or something and iwth it off the shadows looked too dark and like non-color aware programs).
Digging your way deeper down a rabbit hole of misunderstanding color management. Now you're resorting to mucking around with the video card software/driver?
Your on your own. You're simply failing to understand a color management architecture that's worked since Photoshop 5 (circa 1998).
anyway i should read up more about what the two choices in my profiling program do. It defaulted to relative so I thought that must make the most sense to use, but perhaps not.
Defaulted to relative means nothing. All ICC profiles have that colorimetric table. NOT all have other tables (display and working space profiles). But whatever. You seem to have kludged together something that you believe works.
Using a LUT table fixes a monitor that is not calibrated well.
Nonsense (and in your mind).
There is NOTHING to calibrate on a CCFL LCD but the backlight intensity. Unless you're using a high bit, high end display that avoids 8-bit LUTs to the graphic card (which ONLY introduces banding into your display), the best starting point are to "calibrate" to a native gamma and white point (don't alter via the 8-bit LUT these options, just fingerprint them into the display profile and let the Display Using Monitor Compensation architecture of the ICC profile work in (Photoshop) using 21 bit precision. Otherwise, we adjust the high bit LUT inside the panel of the few worthy LCD's out there (Eizo, SpectraView etc).
How is fixing that not fixing anything?
I just told you!
My monitor can NOT be adjusted to a consistent color temperature up and down the gray scale using the limited controls it has nor can it come close to a nice 2.2 gamma ramp. Using the LUT fixes those issues no matter what I use to display things.
No, it doesn't! And unless this display of yours is a CRT, where you DID have physical control over the electronics, leaving again, the LUT nearly linear, you're not fixing anything. You have failed to understand the differences between calibration and profiling and the role of the display profile in ICC aware applications.
Whether I load the LUT or not makes a HUGE difference in how all of my programs display things color aware or not.
Far more with non ICC aware applications which don't preview the color correctly in either event.
IF you muck around with the 8-bit LUT and build a profile versus leaving the LUT linear and building a profile, the net results are the same in ICC aware applications with the banding cropping up because the LUTs are far from linear. Outside ICC aware applications, you still have the banding AND the color is wrong (because you're not using an ICC aware application). So you've double screwed yourself. Feel good?
And in any case I'd sure rather have both types looking at least reasonably good instead of having all my non-color aware apps look hideous by skipping the LUT step.
You mean you are aware that non ICC aware applications don't correctly or consistently preview the numbers correctly AND you prefer inferior quality from the ICC aware applications because you built this unnecessary LUT?
Yeah, but I don't want to calibrate to the native points on my monitor, since they aren't that great looking and not all that close the D65 standard for movies or photography and the gamma curve is like 2.4 (at best, maybe more like 2.5) and kind of bendy.
What makes you think D65 is a standard to calibrate to or that there are not applications for movies and photo's that can't handle color management properly? Bendy? Oh man, that rabbit hole you've dug is a deep one <g>.
Digging your way deeper down a rabbit hole of misunderstanding color management. Now you're resorting to mucking around with the video card software/driver?
Your on your own. You're simply failing to understand a color management architecture that's worked since Photoshop 5 (circa 1998).
Defaulted to relative means nothing. All ICC profiles have that colorimetric table. NOT all have other tables (display and working space profiles). But whatever. You seem to have kludged together something that you believe works.
who is talking baout graphics card driver settings?
those settings were in my ColorEyes pre-calibration settings page. They were a part of my CALIBRATION program and have nothing at all to do with my graphics card drivers.
And if I set COlorEyes to do a Relative profile then it looks fine in everything aside from CS4 where it looks a mess no matter how I set CS4 BPC (although much worse with BPC on). Now this may even been the truly correct interpretation of a Relative coloreyes profile for all i know, but it is useless for editing and may not even be a correct interpretation.
When I set colorseyes to do an absolute blackpoint calibration then everything looks the same in FF3,LR2,CS4, etc.
And if I set COlorEyes to do a Relative profile then it looks fine in everything aside from CS4 where it looks a mess no matter how I set CS4 BPC (although much worse with BPC on). Now this may even been the truly correct interpretation of a Relative coloreyes profile for all i know, but it is useless for editing and may not even be a correct interpretation.
When I set colorseyes to do an absolute blackpoint calibration then everything looks the same in FF3,LR2,CS4, etc.
Take it all up with coloreyes, got nothing to do with Photoshop's BPC. And all this talk of BPC has nothing to do with the original post.
>There is NOTHING to calibrate on a CCFL LCD but the backlight intensity. >Unless you're using a high bit, high end display that avoids 8-bit LUTs to >the graphic card (which ONLY introduces banding into your display), the >best starting point are to "calibrate" to a native gamma and white point >(don't alter via the 8-bit LUT these options, just fingerprint them into the >display profile and let the Display Using Monitor Compensation architecture >of the ICC profile work in (Photoshop) using 21 bit precision. Otherwise, >we adjust the high bit LUT inside the panel of the few worthy LCD's out >there (Eizo, SpectraView etc).
and yet their are certified HDTV calibrator who go around and calibrate LCD HDTVs and some sets have a full CMS that lets you move the primaries and secondaries around and on some sets the controls work quite well indeed which is a good thing since blu-ray players and cable boxes and so on don't support monitor profiles. So sometimes calibrating the set is the onyl choice or the best choice (some sets, especially HDTVs) have very good internal calibration systems running at 10,12 even 16bits and adjustments made there introduce far less banding than even using monitor profiles (most sets have 8bit interfaces so even if the monitor profile is odne in 16bits in the end it usually has to get passed through an 8bit barrier although some monitors do handle 10bit interfaces these days).
Granted some monitors, like my Samsung 244T, have a pretty hideous partial CMS that only seems to make the final calibration worse if those controls are touched and I can see it creating sudden transitions and other issues.
anyway onto LUTs, i'm not sure how you can say they can't be said to fix up monitor issues. I can go from something either cooler or warmer than D65 (and D65 is what HDTV/DVD/etc. expects the screen to be at) to vrying degrees at different gray levels and a very funky gamma curve to the proper oclor temp at all gray-scales and nice a smooth gamma curve of 2.2 without weird dips and jumps. My profiling program actually makes 16bit LUTs and I believe most recent graphics have full 16bit LUT support (perhaps i'm wrong and they truncate to 8bit but i thought they did 16bit these days even 4 years i recall reading that most had at leat 10bit LUT support).
Now maybe if you ONLY care about color-managed programs it can be in cases better to not bother with the LUT stage and have every last thing done in the other part of the profile, but then you are tossing out your desktop, non-color managed programs, HDTV playback, DVD/blu-ray playback and forcing them to all look like junk. Using a LUT loaded into your graphics card sure does fix up monitor issues and make all of those programs look WAY better. In my case, I'd rather have it, perhaps, make the color-aware program color profiling come out a tad worse and have all my other stuff look pretty good than get the 100% best possible profile for color-aware programs and be stuck with having DVD/blur-ray/TV/desktop etc. look way off. For a dedicated photoshop only setup maybe that's not the best, but unless the machine is setup in a procesing studio or something is seriosuly devoted to doing nothing much more than 2d still imaging, I don't see how skipping the LUT step is such a great thing to do.
>No, it doesn't! And unless this display of yours is a CRT, where you DID >have physical control over the electronics, leaving again, the LUT nearly >linear, you're not fixing anything. You have failed to understand the >differences between calibration and profiling and the role of the display >profile in ICC aware applications.
but you might have control over the internal LCD monitor engine, which in some cases always for less damaging corrections than external profiling, although certainly not always, the color egine in the 244T is pretty weak in some parts and the primary/secondary saturation and location controls appear to do a terrible job and onyl partial at that. In most modern higher end LCD HDTVs they do a pretty solid job and same for some of the better LCD monitors. Anyway yeah calibrating a monitor is separate from doing stuff with LUTs in gfx cards and making IC prifles.
>Far more with non ICC aware applications which don't preview the color >correctly in either event.
all i can say is I sure as heck am not willing to give up using a LUT to correct for my LCDs native. I get terrible black crush on movies and pictures and a rather wrong color balance that isn't even terribly even up and down the grayscale. Using a LUT inmy gfx card makes things look WAY better. And if i could make a monitor profile look fractionaly better by not using the LUT and purely profiling to the native LCD what can I say, i'd rather give up that minor difference for a huge difference in all my other stuff.
>IF you muck around with the 8-bit LUT and build a profile versus leaving >the LUT linear and building a profile, the net results are the same in ICC >aware applications with the banding cropping up because the LUTs are far >from linear. Outside ICC aware applications, you still have the banding AND >the color is wrong (because you're not using an ICC aware application). >So you've double screwed yourself. Feel good?
no i have not doubly screwed myself. the primaries and secondaries are not that far off from sRGB on my monitor so the gamut isn't THAT different so the lack of the ICC monitor awareness in my other software is nothing compared to how far off they are without the LUT. I mean come on you are saying that watching a blu-ray with my monitors up and down gamma curve (averaging to nearly gamma 2.5) and a color temp jumping around like D70-80 or D50-60 is going to look good?? The difference (using the LUT) between my non-color aware stuff and my color aware stuff is awfully minor in comparison between my non-color aware stuff using LUT and not using LUT. And if my gfx card dies have 16bit LUT support then i'm not sure the diference would even be visually distinguishable.
Now the totally dedicated photo editor who does nothing other than edit photos may prefer no LUT, but I sure don't. I supposed I could create LUTless profile and then unload the LUT and swap to that everytime I go to use CS4 or something. Whether that is worth it or not I'm not sure, maybe. First my profiler does make 16bit LUTs and perhaps my gfx card does utilize 16bits for the LUT and even if not even if the profile is 16bit it still has to pass through the 8bit interface to my particular monitor anyway (my HDTV might support 10bit) although granted if the gfx card is using an 8bit LUT perhaps applying the corrections that that might be a little bit less optimal than to the monitor straight through the card, but since the PC-monitor interface is 8bit in many cases you can still get a little banding from even the ICC profile anyway no matter it's bit depth so that makes the difference a little bit less extreme than it would be.
> AND you prefer inferior quality from the ICC aware applications because >you built this unnecessary LUT?
yeah I do because as I said my non-color managed stuff looks horrible without the LUT and i'd gladly trade that for a tiny change in the quality in color aware programs (although i guess i get into hot-swapping toa lutless profile for tiems when I use color-aware programs and back to the LUT for other stuff).
>What makes you think D65 is a standard to calibrate to or that there are >not applications for movies and photo's that can't handle color >management properly?
point me to a color-managed blu-ray player please. i'd love for them to exist. if you know of one please point me to it by all means. if you know of a color-managed ATSC program that will work with my ATSC tuner card please point me to it. etc. I did at least start using FF3 instead of IE7 so I do have that down now at least.
ffdshow and all that can be manipulated into some degree of color awareness but i'm not teribly sure they are any hacks out that allow it to work with the latest copy protections and trying to get it to use various filters from other programs for DTS-MA and so on, it's a real mess, and involves copying the many GB files to HD first, etc. and I don't recall having heard of anyone really getting it working properly for hollywood blu-ray titles yet.
bendy yeah. if i use my probe and colorhxfr to measure the gamma curve on my monitor as is, it is not a nice smooth curve and dips around from like gamma 2.6 to gamma 2, mostly around gamma 2.4-2.5. that is kind of bendy.
anyway i need to check if my gfx card truly supports a 16bit LUT or not. i'm pretty sure it does though.
Unless you're monitor is a circa 1993 CRT with P22 phosphors (which is what sRGB, a theoretical color space defines), you're way off bud.
Listen I never said they were exact or that I didn't wish they were closer, and if every last part of my computer could be made color-aware and every external blu-ray player and cable box and directv box could load in ICC profiles it would be awesome but they can't, and the fact is if I measure the primaries and secondaries they are not THAT far off, even if beyond the ideal at least within 3dE.
If I flip color-management off and on I can see the differnce, but for most of the shades it really isn't all that striking, although certainly much preferred to have management working.
Anyway the point is using a LUT makes all my non-color aware stuff look way better and the difference between my color-aware and not color-aware stuff is FAR, FAR, FAR less than between my non-color aware using the LUT or not using the LUT. How much the LUT makes a difference depends upon the set and what they used in the panel and how they tuned the internal engine defaults.
And on some TV's like the samsung 750 with a full CMS (i know it has at least a 10bit engine, maybe 12) you can dial them in on the set really close.
here are screen caps of color space of the 244T, not perfect, but not absolutely horrible, and yeah this doesn't show the Y in the plot and those values are a bit hot in many cases, but the dE chart shows that stuff):
and here is the plot measured from within CS4 (better):
not perfect, but not absolutely horrible, and yeah this doesn't show the Y in the plot and those values are a bit hot in many cases, but the dE chart shows that stuff)
Going even deeper down that hole, you realize that the deltaE values provided are virtually useless; they are generated by the same device that set the calibration and profile. So you're comparing the accuracy with the same device, not a known, higher grade reference device. And the values provided for the delta, you can specify them (and you are?) or its some preset group of colors the software selected? NOT all colors would report the same (try measuring dark browns)! With that, you're using a rubber ruler to measure the unit since the device can't tell us how inaccurate it might. That's good news considering the pretty poor values for deltaE you're getting (and just formula of deltaE is being provided? Makes a difference!).
And seeing the gamut in 3D provides vastly more information about the resulting profile. But not its accuracy!
Going even deeper down that hole, you realize that the deltaE values provided are virtually useless; they are generated by the same device that set the calibration and profile. So you're comparing the accuracy with the same device, not a known, higher grade reference device. And the values provided for the delta, you can specify them (and you are?) or its some preset group of colors the software selected? NOT all colors would report the same (try measuring dark browns)! With that, you're using a rubber ruler to measure the unit since the device can't tell us how inaccurate it might. That's good news considering the pretty poor values for deltaE you're getting (and just formula of deltaE is being provided? Makes a difference!).
And seeing the gamut in 3D provides vastly more information about the resulting profile. But not its accuracy!
well if my device is that useless than why in the world do you think it will suddenly produce the ideal profile if I skip the LUT step??
I mean so my device is useless to produce any claims that my LCD is at least within some ballpark of sRGB to begin with plus the LUT and yet if I skip the LUT step then suddenly you are willing to treat it as the sensor of all sensors??
sure it's not THE best probe but the Xrite X94 is known to be one of the best sensors out there that is not in the really crazy $$$$ (thousands of dollares) range, but yeah of course it is not perfect. And the whether it is measuring stuff reasonbly well or not it at least shows some general ballparks of the RELATIVE difference between the primary and secondary locations between LUT and LUT+rest of the profile even if both sets of #'s are off and even if it is not even measuring the relative difference between the two exactly at least it is giving some reasonable ballpark showing.
here I was just testing the 6 sRGB primaries and secondaries and nothing more. I do have other plots of the 16 step grayscale and 8 step saturation curves out to each secondary and primary.
Listen, I have the sensor I have, if you want to send me $10,000 for a top of the top sensor please go ahead.
I have the monitor I have and the HDTV I have. For non-color aware stuff what can I do? I can adjust the set as close as I can for the HDTV and that will have to do it for stuff with no color support of any sort and I can load a LUT for stuff run from my computer and I can run color aware stuff with the associated monitor profile. In that case, I have too much stuff that needs the set to be adjusted with the internal controls to bother swithching every internal setting back and forth everytime I do color-aware stuff or not and I don't care if that means my deep browns are 3% comprosmised to the most ideal possible way I could have things running with my color aware programs and my given sensor....
I am not a 100% dedicated photoshop and nothing else user, I don't actually have a dedicated editing studio and I do actually use my computer from everything from games to TV to movies to internet to image processing to 3D rendering to writing research papers and when I use the HDTV I run many things into it that either support no external calibration at all or a LUT only and I don't feel like having to go into the menus and reset all the settings everything I swap back and forth to CS4 just to get a slightly (perhaps) better purely ICC aware programs profile using no LUT and keeping monitor controls at the default (although since my HDTV has something a 12bit full CMS that appears to work pretty well and my devices can only talk to it at 8 bits I'm failing to see, in that case, how leaving the TV settings all linear and soley using the external ICC profile in color aware programs would necessarily work out better) and as for my monitor I will try a no-LUT based method and if it actualy appears to be way better maybe I will sometimes go and unload the LUT, go into Vista swap profiles and then run CS4 and then switch back each time, at times, but if my gfx card really is supporting 16bit LUTs as it claims then I'm not sure this difference will necessarily be worth it.
Maybe the Lutless profile will give me the perfect dark browns or maybe it won't make much of a differnce compared to my color profile on top of the LUT.
Going even deeper down that hole, you realize that the deltaE values provided are virtually useless; they are generated by the same device that set the calibration and profile. So you're comparing the accuracy with the same device, not a known, higher grade reference device. And the values provided for the delta, you can specify them (and you are?) or its some preset group of colors the software selected? NOT all colors would report the same (try measuring dark browns)! With that, you're using a rubber ruler to measure the unit since the device can't tell us how inaccurate it might. That's good news considering the pretty poor values for deltaE you're getting (and just formula of deltaE is being provided? Makes a difference!).
And seeing the gamut in 3D provides vastly more information about the resulting profile. But not its accuracy!
also the LUT doesn't even change the locations of the primaries and secondaries at all, so in that case for the non-color aware measurement I wasn't even using the same probe to test itself it was a first order measurement, they all measure out exactly the same LUT loaded or not.
at least I don't have a fluroescent green primary like some hidef projectors....
well if my device is that useless than why in the world do you think it will suddenly produce the ideal profile if I skip the LUT step??
I didn't say your device was useless, but I'm suspecting after all this, your understanding of this process might be moving into that direction.
The LUT is useless (unnecessary) in color managed application. And getting the LUT to a particular state can degrade the quality of what you're viewing in and out of color managed application.
I mean so my device is useless to produce any claims that my LCD is at least within some ballpark of sRGB to begin with plus the LUT and yet if I skip the LUT step then suddenly you are willing to treat it as the sensor of all sensors??
Back to some comment about your device being useless. Where did that come from? Its getting progressively less likely this discussion will continue based on both your misunderstandings of color management but worse, your attitude. Go ahead and muck around any way you wish with your so called calibration process but lets at least protect some of the innocents who might be reading this and actually thinking you're on the right track.
sure it's not THE best probe but the Xrite X94 is known to be one of the best sensors out there that is not in the really crazy $$$$ (thousands of dollares) range, but yeah of course it is not perfect.
Where did the probe (colorimeter) and its make or price come into this? Can you stay on topic? UNLESS you're trying to calibrate the white point of a wide gamut display, that colorimeter is just fine and yes, one of the best made (well it ain't made anymore...). That colorimeter has a filter matrix which isn't expecting a wide gamut and could produce some errors in the white point.
What you failed to grasp above is that you can't measure the accuracy of a process using the same device! If you think your foot is exactly 12 inches (and lets say its 11.9), no matter how many times you measure a foundation for my new home, its not the correct measurement (albeit, it might be close enough), you can't say your measurement accuracy is correct until you take a known, reference grade measuring device (your $2 tape measure) and compare it to your foot. You could take a device that's 10000X more accurate than that $2 tape measure and find that its off by 1/000 of an inch. Makes no difference in your foundation. But you can't hand the building inspector a piece of paper that says you measured with your foot twice, or a dozen times and yes, its the exact size you think it is and add a difference matrix (which is what deltaE is). Get it? That report in your software is there to make you feel good and nothing more. Its to be removed from evidence.
I am not a 100% dedicated photoshop and nothing else user....
Got nothing to do with dedication. There are only TWO types of applications as far as handling numeric values that represent color: those that do it correctly and those that do it incorrectly. Computers only understand numbers. Numbers alone do NOT define color appearance! You must associate a color space with the numbers. ICC aware applications do this, non ICC aware applications dont' have a clue about color spaces. Even then, said numbers will not preview correctly until you also define a display profile for the Display Using Monitor Compensation I keep trying to get you to get your head around. You don't need any LUT for this to work. Outside ICC aware applications, LUT or not, all bets are off. Its as simple as that. If you want to further digress, dig deeper down that rabbit hole, you'll be traveling down that delusional hole on your own. I'm staying up here in the bright sunlight, there's no reason to go farther.
>The LUT is useless (unnecessary) in color managed application. And >getting the LUT to a particular state can degrade the quality of what >you're viewing in and out of color managed application.
but as I have said a thousand times I am not aware of a single ICC profile aware TV,DVD,HD DVD,Blu-ray player for a PC nor am I aware of any external devices such as stand alone players or cable boxes that can load ICC profiles so the best I can do for those ones is to either adjust the monitor controls for external stuff and use a LUT with the non-ICC managed PC stuff. And I also like my desktop wallpaper and so on to look better than it does without the LUT as well.
I do NOT have a special photoshop only dedicated setup where I do nothing other than CS4,Photomechanic and the like and care about nothing else. If I did then yeah maybe in many cases skipping the LUT stage work work out better (sometiems probably barely distinguishably better sometimes maybe somewhat if not radically distinguishably better).
>Back to some comment about your device being useless. Where did that >come from? Its getting progressively less likely this discussion will continue >based on both your misunderstandings of color management but worse, >your attitude. Go ahead and muck around any way you wish with your so >called calibration process but lets at least protect some of the innocents >who might be reading this and actually thinking you're on the right track.
my attitude right....
>Where did the probe (colorimeter) and its make or price come into this? >Can you stay on topic
>UNLESS you're trying to calibrate the white point of a wide gamut display, >that colorimeter is just fine and yes, one of the best made (well it ain't >made anymore...). That colorimeter has a filter matrix which isn't >expecting a wide gamut and could produce some errors in the white point.
good to know, but my monitor isn't wide gamut, but good to know for future reference.
>What you failed to grasp above is that you can't measure the accuracy of >a process using the same device!
what you failed to grasp is that the first plot, measuring my monitor's sRGB primaries and secondaries did NOT rely on anything calibrated by my probe. Yeah I had the LUT loaded, but that DOES NOT change the xyY values of the primaries and secondaries, which is all I measured there. So I was not using a device to test it's own calibration in that plot. That was the bare monitor for all intents and purposes.
Now in the second plot (which wasn't even the main point of original contention, that my monitor was so hopelessly far off from the sRGB gamut that I may as well not even bother with a LUT for non-color aware stuff or whatever you were going on about) yeah I did use the same probe to verify the very profile it created and without some $10,000 probe to verify it, yeah I can't verify it perfectly and yeah no device (but if I use some other $300 device who is to say that it's differnces from ideal will be much more useful, if at all than just using mine again, they may be in such a way to even mix things up more). And yes maybe mine says that 12 inches is 11 inches and that 3 inches are 4 inches but there is still some utility in using the same device to test a monitor that you used to create the ICC profile for, since the calibration does NOT build a giant table of all 16 million possible shades each one with a direct mapping and since the systematic error in a probe is hardly ever uniform across it's measurement range there is still some utility in it more than you are implying even if there are issues with it to be sure and let's not forget that the systematic and random errors in the probe are often far, far less than the monitor's difference in its original state to the target than to the color-ware corrected state and the target and as I said not uniform and vary from shade to shade that it measures.
It's not quite the same scenario as using the ruler which is a uniform percentage off for each distance measured and where you have specifically measured every single thing that needs to be measured and where to then go back and measure them again after alteration, not that there are not certain issues with it.
> If you think your foot is exactly 12 inches (and lets say its 11.9), no >matter how many times you measure a foundation for my new home, its >not the correct measurement (albeit, it might be close enough), you can't >say your measurement accuracy is correct until you take a known, >reference grade measuring device (your $2 tape measure) and compare it
yes, i am well aware of this
> ICC aware applications do this, non ICC aware applications dont' have a >clue about color spaces.
yes, and as I said, I was not correct at first. Originally I though the LUT loader stage loaded everything needed for correction into the graphics card including the color space transformations. I thought that they got sent sRGB colorspace and then they knew how to do the transform to the monitor colorspace and not just the gamma ramps or if you had a wide gamut monitor that the driver for that in combination with aware programs would allow it to work ok.
Anwyay, yes that was wrong, only color aware apps know anything about the color space and only they apply that transformation.
but few programs are color aware and some combination of internal monitor adjustment and LUT use can greatly improve the look of non-colro aware stuff and as I showed even my 244T's colorspace while certainly not ideal sRGB by any means is not WILDLY different and toggling back and forth between colro aware and non doesn't always even look all that different, not that I don't prefer the color aware. So it sure as heck is useful to use the probe and software to build a correction LUT to at least get it balanced evenly to D65 up and down the scale and to a gamma 2.2 curve for movie viewing. Again, the difference between an ideal reference display setup and my monitor as is is far greater than my monitor plus the LUT loaded into the gfx card.
> Even then, said numbers will not preview correctly until you also define a >display profile for the Display Using Monitor Compensation I keep trying to >get you to get your head around.
>You don't need any LUT for this to work. Outside ICC aware applications, >LUT or not, all bets are off. Its as simple as that.
listen i have said a thousand times that i was wrong at first when I though the LUT loader loaded everything needed for the full correction into teh gfx card.
and I said that you don't need a LUT to make the ICC profile work perfectly for color aware programs if you profile it without using the LUT.
but I also said a 10000000 times that most of my stuff IS NOT COLOR AWARE! and that I much like the look a LUT corrected desktop to just tossing it to the monitor as is.
I also said that when it comes to my HDTV where i need to hook up stuff with no correction at all I need to adjust the sets internal controls as closely to sRGB color space and to the D65/gamma 2.2 most movies and TV expect to be viewed at as encoded for broadcast or on disc. And I do not want to have to go into the menus and switch them back to defaults and unload my LUT everytime I swap between CS4 work and not on that set.
And with an excellent color engine in my TV set (if not my monitor) adjusting things there as much as possible before profiling can lead to less banding since the profile will have less to correct and the interface to my set from my computer is 8bit.
It may or may not be worth it for when I use my computer monitor to create a profile not using any LUT and unload and swap each time I go to CS4 or not, but I'm not sure the difference will be great enough to be worth the bother especially with a 16bit LUT.
> If you want to further digress, dig deeper down that rabbit hole, you'll be >traveling down that delusional hole on your own. I'm staying up here in the >bright sunlight, there's no reason to go farther.
all i can say is i'm happy in my delusions and watching some blu-rays USING a LUT rather than watching them at gamma avg 2.4 varying from at least 2.1 to 2.6 and color temp bouncing all over up and down the grayscale either too hot or too cold by far. Kind of funnt how watching a nice gamma curve at 2.2 is delusional while watchin a movie at D80 and a bendy gamma curve avg 2.5 is sane....
and again where does one get a color aware blu-ray player?????
show us....
listen, thanks for being one of the ones who got me onto the difference between the LUT loaded into the gfx card step and the rest of the profile, a very crucial point. I had thought the profile loaders loaded the entire set of corrections, all the stuff the LUT does as well as the color space transform, but they do not. Only color-aware apps can do the transform to monitor space correction. But I already got this part like a week ago and readily admitted whever I had posted abotu this that I had been incorrect. And if I ever get a wide gamut monitor it is good to know about the X94 issues, etc.
but i'm not as dumb as you seem to think nor are my mathematical and scientific skills quite as weak with all your talk about deep rabbit holes and delusions, i could say more, but I will just leave it at that....
and not everyone only uses color-aware apps and nothing else and using a LUT darn well can be helpful for non-color aware stuff depending upon your monitor (my hdtv can be adjusted with controls to the point that the LUT doesnt do a whole lot but the color-ware apps do).
what i've found affects the color-ware apps ultimate performance the most is the controls you set on the monitor, sometimes what works best for making the monitor/tv itself be overall the best is NOT the best way to set it to get the most out of color-ware apps, this difference can be relatively large, seems to be much more so than trying LUT vs LUTless profiling. Major thing to look out for is moving primaries and secondaries since some sets have such a poor CMS system all it does is make a warped mess than the profilers dont deal with well an din other cases setting saturations for overall best fit for monitor alone calibration don't let the primaries get as close to the ideal as they could be so sometimes leaving that set on defaut (likely overdone by itself) allws the profiling to work better since it can adjust for any problems and this lets it reach out far enough to perhaps hit the xy and Y locations of the pirmaries.
is blue when I look at it in the smugmug gallery (the correct color), but it's purple when I look at it in a forum where I have embedded it. It's also purple if I use the link I posted to view it. But go through the smugmug gallery clicks and it shows blue. Any ideas?
For some reason there is one profile I can't disassociate from my monitor in the win xp color settings. I'm thinking this is causing the Eye1 D2 to double profile.
Comments
from what happened to me, i'm more thinking that the second stage of your monitor profile turned out less than ideal, tricked by teh way you had the moinitor knobs adjusted and it happaned to make things look a little worse evenif the primaries technically might measure a little better (when i used the monitor controls on my monitor to get the xy in the CIE color chart for the primaries as close as I could the Y was somewhat off and it seemed my profile tried to correct for the Y to such a degree that is didnt care that xy got pushed into worse values, so it imrpoved saturation (not overblown) and intensity (not overdone) but made the actual looks of the colors worse).
maybe you coudl redo the profile using default monitor settings (and if that is how it was done, then maybe instead try pre-calibration with the monitor knobs)
do you have the problem where CS makes shadows look faded out and prevents black from showing (makes it dull gray) too??
anyway to prevent the LUT from loading go into msconfig and go to the startup section and try to find a program calls itself a gamma or LUT loader or is associated with the name of the profiling software you use and deselect it so it doesn't load at start.
alternately:
if you use nvidia go color controls and mess around the sliders and then reset them back before exiting (i froget which color screen, but doing this on one of them resets the LUT to original state)
if you have ATI (i think you said you did) then just go to the color panel and hit the button to "reactivate ATI color controls" and this will dump out whatever LUT your LUT loader may have loaded.
(some of this might help you, marlinspike, espeicially the part about trying to first adjust the monitor primaries and stuff, on my monitor leaving ALL controls at factory defauly, aside from swithc color temp from normal to cool1, makes the profile work best and now my color aware programs look subtly BETTER than my non-aware programs not worse)
first yes profile do come in two parts, the LUT fixes gamma and color temp along the grayscale ramp but only color aware programs can use the rest of the minor profile for further fine tuning.
CS4 doesn't work well if you use a relative blackpoint choice during calibration it works fine if you set absolute blackpoint during calibration.
for whatever reason other color aware programs have no problem with this.
it may even be that CS4 was the only one handling it correctly, not sure, either that or CS4 has a bug with this form of monitor profile
any success at last:
tips if you use coloreyes use absolute blackpoint
and if you use a samsung 244T monitor DO NOT TOUCH the primary/secondary hue/saturation controls they ONLY MESS THINGS UP and if you adjust them to make the monitor get better locations it makes the gamut have uneveness within it and messes things up and makes at least some calibration programs produce a worse profile, once that actually makes color-aware programs give worse results than non-aware
anyway i finally have all color-aware programs working great (better than non-color aware) and my non-color aware working ok (once the LUT is loaded)
i highly recommend people download colorhcfr to verify the sRGB primaries within CS4 and see if they measure better than from the program itself (non-color aware) to see if you made an ideal profile or not.
also check that deep shadows and blacks look good in CS4 and the same as LR2 or the like.
--
You need to read up what BPC is, when it kicks in and why. Its doing exactly what its supposed to do and will only kick in when doing working space to output color space conversions. Its there to FIX a bug in old ICC profiles and older CMMs. You're moving down a rabbit hole from your original ideas about display calibration and ICC aware applications confusing yourself in the process. If you want to discuss BPC, you should start a new post. There IS no bug in CS4 (or 3, or 2 down to Photoshop 5 when ACE was introduced) in terms of BPC!
It doesn't "fix" anything and in fact in ICC aware applications, doesn't really make much of a difference (thanks again to Display Using Monitor Compensation). You can (and many do) calibrate with a LUT that does absolutely nothing! That's what a native gamma and white point setting in some calibration software would produce (they even SHOW you the LUT so you can see its a straight line, NULL).
It works fine and as designed. You just don't like the rendering. And " use a relative blackpoint choice during calibration " what the heck does that mean?
Its not a problem, they can't access the ACE CMM thus they can't access BPC.
What profiles are using to make such a statement? You're soft proofing with printer profile or just converting working space to working space?
Author "Color Management for Photographers"
http://www.digitaldog.net/
NONE (at least Firefox and Lightroom) soft proof to output profiles using BPC (because there's no need).
BPC is for OUTPUT profile conversions. In fact, by using the Customize Soft Proof option, simulate ink black, you're now turning off BPC, turning on an Absolute Colorimetric intent. The preview goes "soft and mushy" as the black point is shown to you as an Absolute convention, without BPC!
•Simulate Paper Color and Simulate Black Ink Off: This produces the
relative colorimetric intent with Black Point Compensation.
•Simulate Black Ink: This produces the relative colorimetric intent
without Black Point Compensation.
•Simulate Paper Color: This produces the absolute colorimetric intent
(no Black Point Compensation).
Author "Color Management for Photographers"
http://www.digitaldog.net/
Now I tried re-checking "use my settings for this device" and deleted the profile from the "profile associated with this device" so that there is NO profile associated in the windows color management. Now PS CS works!
Also, all the various non-color-calibrated things seem to be showing accurate colors as well (IE, windows photo gallery, my desktop)
it sounds like you just deleted the monitor profile and made color-aware stuff work the same way as non-color aware.
sounds like maybe your calibrator didn't make a great profile (as happened to me at first).
are you saying BPC should not make a difference for screen display at least if soft proofing is turned off?
it didnt seem to be working that way, since i had proofing off and it was showing up on screen (when I used a profile made with relative blackpoint option checked, it no longer does now that I used teh absolute option instead in my calibration software)
anyway i do need to read up more on BPC
Using a LUT table fixes a monitor that is not calibrated well. How is fixing that not fixing anything? My monitor can NOT be adjusted to a consistent color temperature up and down the gray scale using the limited controls it has nor can it come close to a nice 2.2 gamma ramp. Using the LUT fixes those issues no matter what I use to display things.
Whether I load the LUT or not makes a HUGE difference in how all of my programs display things color aware or not. And in any case I'd sure rather have both types looking at least reasonably good instead of having all my non-color aware apps look hideous by skipping the LUT step.
Yeah, but I don't want to calibrate to the native points on my monitor, since they aren't that great looking and not all that close the D65 standard for movies or photography and the gamma curve is like 2.4 (at best, maybe more like 2.5) and kind of bendy.
it's a lot worse than my just not liking the look it gave with my old profile, it made editing totally useless. Nothing matched the output from ANY other program and it doesn't match prints either. It's almost like the look you get when you mess up PC 0-255 vs. 16-235 video levels.
but now that i set the absolute option in my profile creation, CS4 makes stuff look like all the other programs (with the other profile if I had BPC on it looked washed out and not right at all, or at least not right for editing photos, maybe for seeing what the difference between my monitor looks compared to an ideal monitor with no backlight where black is or something and iwth it off the shadows looked too dark and like non-color aware programs).
anyway i should read up more about what the two choices in my profiling program do. It defaulted to relative so I thought that must make the most sense to use, but perhaps not. All I know is CS4 does not handle shadows and blacks in a way that is of any use for editing photos if I set relative. Hopefully using absolute does make the most sense overall and is not messing anything up that i have not noticed yet. I thought i had something about how using relative sets the gamma relative to what your (non-deal) monitor can actually produce for black and so is more sensible to use, but maybe i'm misremembering, or they are wrong, or I didn't interprate it properly. Or maybe CS4 should not be doing what it is doing when it converts to output profiles for monitors?
anyway pics of the choices follow (using absolute makes CS4 render images as other color-aware programs too and makes everything look good):
no soft proofing or anything
I had CS4 set to sRGB working space and had my monitor profile associated with my monitor in windows color management and just looking at pictures on the screen loaded into CS4, nothing more.
No, I don't think so, because the colors are spot on, not simply very close to spot on like they were before I calibrated. I think what was happening is the Gretag Macbeth software is loading the profile when I boot (when I start the computer I do see the screen colors suddenly change when the desktop loads) and then by having that selected in windows color management color-aware programs were double profiling.
that's what i thought too, but it turned out that I just hadn't made a good profile, i put my monitor controls back into the default state (inside the monitor menus) and in my case when I ran the profile now it looks better in color-aware programs.
I verified by using colorhcfr to measure sRGB primary locations that the LUT loading step has no affect on this, but in color aware programs IF I left the monitor profile attached to the monitor within windows color management then the primaries would shift (into numerically better position in both cases, but in visually better in the second case after I redid it, in the first case; the first time it improved the Y component but made the xy (sort of the shade) a bit worse)
Digging your way deeper down a rabbit hole of misunderstanding color management. Now you're resorting to mucking around with the video card software/driver?
Your on your own. You're simply failing to understand a color management architecture that's worked since Photoshop 5 (circa 1998).
Defaulted to relative means nothing. All ICC profiles have that colorimetric table. NOT all have other tables (display and working space profiles). But whatever. You seem to have kludged together something that you believe works.
Author "Color Management for Photographers"
http://www.digitaldog.net/
Nonsense (and in your mind).
There is NOTHING to calibrate on a CCFL LCD but the backlight intensity. Unless you're using a high bit, high end display that avoids 8-bit LUTs to the graphic card (which ONLY introduces banding into your display), the best starting point are to "calibrate" to a native gamma and white point (don't alter via the 8-bit LUT these options, just fingerprint them into the display profile and let the Display Using Monitor Compensation architecture of the ICC profile work in (Photoshop) using 21 bit precision. Otherwise, we adjust the high bit LUT inside the panel of the few worthy LCD's out there (Eizo, SpectraView etc).
I just told you!
No, it doesn't! And unless this display of yours is a CRT, where you DID have physical control over the electronics, leaving again, the LUT nearly linear, you're not fixing anything. You have failed to understand the differences between calibration and profiling and the role of the display profile in ICC aware applications.
Far more with non ICC aware applications which don't preview the color correctly in either event.
IF you muck around with the 8-bit LUT and build a profile versus leaving the LUT linear and building a profile, the net results are the same in ICC aware applications with the banding cropping up because the LUTs are far from linear. Outside ICC aware applications, you still have the banding AND the color is wrong (because you're not using an ICC aware application). So you've double screwed yourself. Feel good?
You mean you are aware that non ICC aware applications don't correctly or consistently preview the numbers correctly AND you prefer inferior quality from the ICC aware applications because you built this unnecessary LUT?
What makes you think D65 is a standard to calibrate to or that there are not applications for movies and photo's that can't handle color management properly? Bendy? Oh man, that rabbit hole you've dug is a deep one <g>.
Author "Color Management for Photographers"
http://www.digitaldog.net/
who is talking baout graphics card driver settings?
those settings were in my ColorEyes pre-calibration settings page. They were a part of my CALIBRATION program and have nothing at all to do with my graphics card drivers.
And if I set COlorEyes to do a Relative profile then it looks fine in everything aside from CS4 where it looks a mess no matter how I set CS4 BPC (although much worse with BPC on). Now this may even been the truly correct interpretation of a Relative coloreyes profile for all i know, but it is useless for editing and may not even be a correct interpretation.
When I set colorseyes to do an absolute blackpoint calibration then everything looks the same in FF3,LR2,CS4, etc.
Take it all up with coloreyes, got nothing to do with Photoshop's BPC. And all this talk of BPC has nothing to do with the original post.
Author "Color Management for Photographers"
http://www.digitaldog.net/
and yet their are certified HDTV calibrator who go around and calibrate LCD HDTVs and some sets have a full CMS that lets you move the primaries and secondaries around and on some sets the controls work quite well indeed which is a good thing since blu-ray players and cable boxes and so on don't support monitor profiles. So sometimes calibrating the set is the onyl choice or the best choice (some sets, especially HDTVs) have very good internal calibration systems running at 10,12 even 16bits and adjustments made there introduce far less banding than even using monitor profiles (most sets have 8bit interfaces so even if the monitor profile is odne in 16bits in the end it usually has to get passed through an 8bit barrier although some monitors do handle 10bit interfaces these days).
Granted some monitors, like my Samsung 244T, have a pretty hideous partial CMS that only seems to make the final calibration worse if those controls are touched and I can see it creating sudden transitions and other issues.
anyway onto LUTs, i'm not sure how you can say they can't be said to fix up monitor issues. I can go from something either cooler or warmer than D65 (and D65 is what HDTV/DVD/etc. expects the screen to be at) to vrying degrees at different gray levels and a very funky gamma curve to the proper oclor temp at all gray-scales and nice a smooth gamma curve of 2.2 without weird dips and jumps. My profiling program actually makes 16bit LUTs and I believe most recent graphics have full 16bit LUT support (perhaps i'm wrong and they truncate to 8bit but i thought they did 16bit these days even 4 years i recall reading that most had at leat 10bit LUT support).
Now maybe if you ONLY care about color-managed programs it can be in cases better to not bother with the LUT stage and have every last thing done in the other part of the profile, but then you are tossing out your desktop, non-color managed programs, HDTV playback, DVD/blu-ray playback and forcing them to all look like junk. Using a LUT loaded into your graphics card sure does fix up monitor issues and make all of those programs look WAY better. In my case, I'd rather have it, perhaps, make the color-aware program color profiling come out a tad worse and have all my other stuff look pretty good than get the 100% best possible profile for color-aware programs and be stuck with having DVD/blur-ray/TV/desktop etc. look way off. For a dedicated photoshop only setup maybe that's not the best, but unless the machine is setup in a procesing studio or something is seriosuly devoted to doing nothing much more than 2d still imaging, I don't see how skipping the LUT step is such a great thing to do.
>No, it doesn't! And unless this display of yours is a CRT, where you DID >have physical control over the electronics, leaving again, the LUT nearly >linear, you're not fixing anything. You have failed to understand the >differences between calibration and profiling and the role of the display >profile in ICC aware applications.
but you might have control over the internal LCD monitor engine, which in some cases always for less damaging corrections than external profiling, although certainly not always, the color egine in the 244T is pretty weak in some parts and the primary/secondary saturation and location controls appear to do a terrible job and onyl partial at that. In most modern higher end LCD HDTVs they do a pretty solid job and same for some of the better LCD monitors. Anyway yeah calibrating a monitor is separate from doing stuff with LUTs in gfx cards and making IC prifles.
>Far more with non ICC aware applications which don't preview the color >correctly in either event.
all i can say is I sure as heck am not willing to give up using a LUT to correct for my LCDs native. I get terrible black crush on movies and pictures and a rather wrong color balance that isn't even terribly even up and down the grayscale. Using a LUT inmy gfx card makes things look WAY better. And if i could make a monitor profile look fractionaly better by not using the LUT and purely profiling to the native LCD what can I say, i'd rather give up that minor difference for a huge difference in all my other stuff.
>IF you muck around with the 8-bit LUT and build a profile versus leaving >the LUT linear and building a profile, the net results are the same in ICC >aware applications with the banding cropping up because the LUTs are far >from linear. Outside ICC aware applications, you still have the banding AND >the color is wrong (because you're not using an ICC aware application). >So you've double screwed yourself. Feel good?
no i have not doubly screwed myself. the primaries and secondaries are not that far off from sRGB on my monitor so the gamut isn't THAT different so the lack of the ICC monitor awareness in my other software is nothing compared to how far off they are without the LUT. I mean come on you are saying that watching a blu-ray with my monitors up and down gamma curve (averaging to nearly gamma 2.5) and a color temp jumping around like D70-80 or D50-60 is going to look good?? The difference (using the LUT) between my non-color aware stuff and my color aware stuff is awfully minor in comparison between my non-color aware stuff using LUT and not using LUT. And if my gfx card dies have 16bit LUT support then i'm not sure the diference would even be visually distinguishable.
Now the totally dedicated photo editor who does nothing other than edit photos may prefer no LUT, but I sure don't. I supposed I could create LUTless profile and then unload the LUT and swap to that everytime I go to use CS4 or something. Whether that is worth it or not I'm not sure, maybe. First my profiler does make 16bit LUTs and perhaps my gfx card does utilize 16bits for the LUT and even if not even if the profile is 16bit it still has to pass through the 8bit interface to my particular monitor anyway (my HDTV might support 10bit) although granted if the gfx card is using an 8bit LUT perhaps applying the corrections that that might be a little bit less optimal than to the monitor straight through the card, but since the PC-monitor interface is 8bit in many cases you can still get a little banding from even the ICC profile anyway no matter it's bit depth so that makes the difference a little bit less extreme than it would be.
> AND you prefer inferior quality from the ICC aware applications because >you built this unnecessary LUT?
yeah I do because as I said my non-color managed stuff looks horrible without the LUT and i'd gladly trade that for a tiny change in the quality in color aware programs (although i guess i get into hot-swapping toa lutless profile for tiems when I use color-aware programs and back to the LUT for other stuff).
>What makes you think D65 is a standard to calibrate to or that there are >not applications for movies and photo's that can't handle color >management properly?
point me to a color-managed blu-ray player please.
i'd love for them to exist.
if you know of one please point me to it by all means.
if you know of a color-managed ATSC program that will work with my ATSC tuner card please point me to it.
etc.
I did at least start using FF3 instead of IE7 so I do have that down now at least.
ffdshow and all that can be manipulated into some degree of color awareness but i'm not teribly sure they are any hacks out that allow it to work with the latest copy protections and trying to get it to use various filters from other programs for DTS-MA and so on, it's a real mess, and involves copying the many GB files to HD first, etc. and I don't recall having heard of anyone really getting it working properly for hollywood blu-ray titles yet.
bendy yeah. if i use my probe and colorhxfr to measure the gamma curve on my monitor as is, it is not a nice smooth curve and dips around from like gamma 2.6 to gamma 2, mostly around gamma 2.4-2.5. that is kind of bendy.
anyway i need to check if my gfx card truly supports a 16bit LUT or not.
i'm pretty sure it does though.
Unless you're monitor is a circa 1993 CRT with P22 phosphors (which is what sRGB, a theoretical color space defines), you're way off bud.
Author "Color Management for Photographers"
http://www.digitaldog.net/
Listen I never said they were exact or that I didn't wish they were closer, and if every last part of my computer could be made color-aware and every external blu-ray player and cable box and directv box could load in ICC profiles it would be awesome but they can't, and the fact is if I measure the primaries and secondaries they are not THAT far off, even if beyond the ideal at least within 3dE.
If I flip color-management off and on I can see the differnce, but for most of the shades it really isn't all that striking, although certainly much preferred to have management working.
Anyway the point is using a LUT makes all my non-color aware stuff look way better and the difference between my color-aware and not color-aware stuff is FAR, FAR, FAR less than between my non-color aware using the LUT or not using the LUT. How much the LUT makes a difference depends upon the set and what they used in the panel and how they tuned the internal engine defaults.
And on some TV's like the samsung 750 with a full CMS (i know it has at least a 10bit engine, maybe 12) you can dial them in on the set really close.
here are screen caps of color space of the 244T, not perfect, but not absolutely horrible, and yeah this doesn't show the Y in the plot and those values are a bit hot in many cases, but the dE chart shows that stuff):
and here is the plot measured from within CS4 (better):
Going even deeper down that hole, you realize that the deltaE values provided are virtually useless; they are generated by the same device that set the calibration and profile. So you're comparing the accuracy with the same device, not a known, higher grade reference device. And the values provided for the delta, you can specify them (and you are?) or its some preset group of colors the software selected? NOT all colors would report the same (try measuring dark browns)! With that, you're using a rubber ruler to measure the unit since the device can't tell us how inaccurate it might. That's good news considering the pretty poor values for deltaE you're getting (and just formula of deltaE is being provided? Makes a difference!).
And seeing the gamut in 3D provides vastly more information about the resulting profile. But not its accuracy!
Author "Color Management for Photographers"
http://www.digitaldog.net/
well if my device is that useless than why in the world do you think it will suddenly produce the ideal profile if I skip the LUT step??
I mean so my device is useless to produce any claims that my LCD is at least within some ballpark of sRGB to begin with plus the LUT and yet if I skip the LUT step then suddenly you are willing to treat it as the sensor of all sensors??
sure it's not THE best probe but the Xrite X94 is known to be one of the best sensors out there that is not in the really crazy $$$$ (thousands of dollares) range, but yeah of course it is not perfect. And the whether it is measuring stuff reasonbly well or not it at least shows some general ballparks of the RELATIVE difference between the primary and secondary locations between LUT and LUT+rest of the profile even if both sets of #'s are off and even if it is not even measuring the relative difference between the two exactly at least it is giving some reasonable ballpark showing.
here I was just testing the 6 sRGB primaries and secondaries and nothing more. I do have other plots of the 16 step grayscale and 8 step saturation curves out to each secondary and primary.
Listen, I have the sensor I have, if you want to send me $10,000 for a top of the top sensor please go ahead.
I have the monitor I have and the HDTV I have. For non-color aware stuff what can I do? I can adjust the set as close as I can for the HDTV and that will have to do it for stuff with no color support of any sort and I can load a LUT for stuff run from my computer and I can run color aware stuff with the associated monitor profile. In that case, I have too much stuff that needs the set to be adjusted with the internal controls to bother swithching every internal setting back and forth everytime I do color-aware stuff or not and I don't care if that means my deep browns are 3% comprosmised to the most ideal possible way I could have things running with my color aware programs and my given sensor....
I am not a 100% dedicated photoshop and nothing else user, I don't actually have a dedicated editing studio and I do actually use my computer from everything from games to TV to movies to internet to image processing to 3D rendering to writing research papers and when I use the HDTV I run many things into it that either support no external calibration at all or a LUT only and I don't feel like having to go into the menus and reset all the settings everything I swap back and forth to CS4 just to get a slightly (perhaps) better purely ICC aware programs profile using no LUT and keeping monitor controls at the default (although since my HDTV has something a 12bit full CMS that appears to work pretty well and my devices can only talk to it at 8 bits I'm failing to see, in that case, how leaving the TV settings all linear and soley using the external ICC profile in color aware programs would necessarily work out better) and as for my monitor I will try a no-LUT based method and if it actualy appears to be way better maybe I will sometimes go and unload the LUT, go into Vista swap profiles and then run CS4 and then switch back each time, at times, but if my gfx card really is supporting 16bit LUTs as it claims then I'm not sure this difference will necessarily be worth it.
Maybe the Lutless profile will give me the perfect dark browns or maybe it won't make much of a differnce compared to my color profile on top of the LUT.
also the LUT doesn't even change the locations of the primaries and secondaries at all, so in that case for the non-color aware measurement I wasn't even using the same probe to test itself it was a first order measurement, they all measure out exactly the same LUT loaded or not.
at least I don't have a fluroescent green primary like some hidef projectors....
I didn't say your device was useless, but I'm suspecting after all this, your understanding of this process might be moving into that direction.
The LUT is useless (unnecessary) in color managed application. And getting the LUT to a particular state can degrade the quality of what you're viewing in and out of color managed application.
Back to some comment about your device being useless. Where did that come from? Its getting progressively less likely this discussion will continue based on both your misunderstandings of color management but worse, your attitude. Go ahead and muck around any way you wish with your so called calibration process but lets at least protect some of the innocents who might be reading this and actually thinking you're on the right track.
Where did the probe (colorimeter) and its make or price come into this? Can you stay on topic? UNLESS you're trying to calibrate the white point of a wide gamut display, that colorimeter is just fine and yes, one of the best made (well it ain't made anymore...). That colorimeter has a filter matrix which isn't expecting a wide gamut and could produce some errors in the white point.
What you failed to grasp above is that you can't measure the accuracy of a process using the same device! If you think your foot is exactly 12 inches (and lets say its 11.9), no matter how many times you measure a foundation for my new home, its not the correct measurement (albeit, it might be close enough), you can't say your measurement accuracy is correct until you take a known, reference grade measuring device (your $2 tape measure) and compare it to your foot. You could take a device that's 10000X more accurate than that $2 tape measure and find that its off by 1/000 of an inch. Makes no difference in your foundation. But you can't hand the building inspector a piece of paper that says you measured with your foot twice, or a dozen times and yes, its the exact size you think it is and add a difference matrix (which is what deltaE is). Get it? That report in your software is there to make you feel good and nothing more. Its to be removed from evidence.
Got nothing to do with dedication. There are only TWO types of applications as far as handling numeric values that represent color: those that do it correctly and those that do it incorrectly. Computers only understand numbers. Numbers alone do NOT define color appearance! You must associate a color space with the numbers. ICC aware applications do this, non ICC aware applications dont' have a clue about color spaces. Even then, said numbers will not preview correctly until you also define a display profile for the Display Using Monitor Compensation I keep trying to get you to get your head around. You don't need any LUT for this to work. Outside ICC aware applications, LUT or not, all bets are off. Its as simple as that. If you want to further digress, dig deeper down that rabbit hole, you'll be traveling down that delusional hole on your own. I'm staying up here in the bright sunlight, there's no reason to go farther.
Author "Color Management for Photographers"
http://www.digitaldog.net/
but as I have said a thousand times I am not aware of a single ICC profile aware TV,DVD,HD DVD,Blu-ray player for a PC nor am I aware of any external devices such as stand alone players or cable boxes that can load ICC profiles so the best I can do for those ones is to either adjust the monitor controls for external stuff and use a LUT with the non-ICC managed PC stuff. And I also like my desktop wallpaper and so on to look better than it does without the LUT as well.
I do NOT have a special photoshop only dedicated setup where I do nothing other than CS4,Photomechanic and the like and care about nothing else. If I did then yeah maybe in many cases skipping the LUT stage work work out better (sometiems probably barely distinguishably better sometimes maybe somewhat if not radically distinguishably better).
>Back to some comment about your device being useless. Where did that >come from? Its getting progressively less likely this discussion will continue >based on both your misunderstandings of color management but worse, >your attitude. Go ahead and muck around any way you wish with your so >called calibration process but lets at least protect some of the innocents >who might be reading this and actually thinking you're on the right track.
my attitude right....
>Where did the probe (colorimeter) and its make or price come into this? >Can you stay on topic
>UNLESS you're trying to calibrate the white point of a wide gamut display, >that colorimeter is just fine and yes, one of the best made (well it ain't >made anymore...). That colorimeter has a filter matrix which isn't >expecting a wide gamut and could produce some errors in the white point.
good to know, but my monitor isn't wide gamut, but good to know for future reference.
>What you failed to grasp above is that you can't measure the accuracy of >a process using the same device!
what you failed to grasp is that the first plot, measuring my monitor's sRGB primaries and secondaries did NOT rely on anything calibrated by my probe. Yeah I had the LUT loaded, but that DOES NOT change the xyY values of the primaries and secondaries, which is all I measured there. So I was not using a device to test it's own calibration in that plot. That was the bare monitor for all intents and purposes.
Now in the second plot (which wasn't even the main point of original contention, that my monitor was so hopelessly far off from the sRGB gamut that I may as well not even bother with a LUT for non-color aware stuff or whatever you were going on about) yeah I did use the same probe to verify the very profile it created and without some $10,000 probe to verify it, yeah I can't verify it perfectly and yeah no device (but if I use some other $300 device who is to say that it's differnces from ideal will be much more useful, if at all than just using mine again, they may be in such a way to even mix things up more). And yes maybe mine says that 12 inches is 11 inches and that 3 inches are 4 inches but there is still some utility in using the same device to test a monitor that you used to create the ICC profile for, since the calibration does NOT build a giant table of all 16 million possible shades each one with a direct mapping and since the systematic error in a probe is hardly ever uniform across it's measurement range there is still some utility in it more than you are implying even if there are issues with it to be sure and let's not forget that the systematic and random errors in the probe are often far, far less than the monitor's difference in its original state to the target than to the color-ware corrected state and the target and as I said not uniform and vary from shade to shade that it measures.
It's not quite the same scenario as using the ruler which is a uniform percentage off for each distance measured and where you have specifically measured every single thing that needs to be measured and where to then go back and measure them again after alteration, not that there are not certain issues with it.
> If you think your foot is exactly 12 inches (and lets say its 11.9), no >matter how many times you measure a foundation for my new home, its >not the correct measurement (albeit, it might be close enough), you can't >say your measurement accuracy is correct until you take a known, >reference grade measuring device (your $2 tape measure) and compare it
yes, i am well aware of this
> ICC aware applications do this, non ICC aware applications dont' have a >clue about color spaces.
yes, and as I said, I was not correct at first. Originally I though the LUT loader stage loaded everything needed for correction into the graphics card including the color space transformations. I thought that they got sent sRGB colorspace and then they knew how to do the transform to the monitor colorspace and not just the gamma ramps or if you had a wide gamut monitor that the driver for that in combination with aware programs would allow it to work ok.
Anwyay, yes that was wrong, only color aware apps know anything about the color space and only they apply that transformation.
but few programs are color aware and some combination of internal monitor adjustment and LUT use can greatly improve the look of non-colro aware stuff and as I showed even my 244T's colorspace while certainly not ideal sRGB by any means is not WILDLY different and toggling back and forth between colro aware and non doesn't always even look all that different, not that I don't prefer the color aware. So it sure as heck is useful to use the probe and software to build a correction LUT to at least get it balanced evenly to D65 up and down the scale and to a gamma 2.2 curve for movie viewing. Again, the difference between an ideal reference display setup and my monitor as is is far greater than my monitor plus the LUT loaded into the gfx card.
> Even then, said numbers will not preview correctly until you also define a >display profile for the Display Using Monitor Compensation I keep trying to >get you to get your head around.
>You don't need any LUT for this to work. Outside ICC aware applications, >LUT or not, all bets are off. Its as simple as that.
listen i have said a thousand times that i was wrong at first when I though the LUT loader loaded everything needed for the full correction into teh gfx card.
and I said that you don't need a LUT to make the ICC profile work perfectly for color aware programs if you profile it without using the LUT.
but I also said a 10000000 times that most of my stuff IS NOT COLOR AWARE! and that I much like the look a LUT corrected desktop to just tossing it to the monitor as is.
I also said that when it comes to my HDTV where i need to hook up stuff with no correction at all I need to adjust the sets internal controls as closely to sRGB color space and to the D65/gamma 2.2 most movies and TV expect to be viewed at as encoded for broadcast or on disc. And I do not want to have to go into the menus and switch them back to defaults and unload my LUT everytime I swap between CS4 work and not on that set.
And with an excellent color engine in my TV set (if not my monitor) adjusting things there as much as possible before profiling can lead to less banding since the profile will have less to correct and the interface to my set from my computer is 8bit.
It may or may not be worth it for when I use my computer monitor to create a profile not using any LUT and unload and swap each time I go to CS4 or not, but I'm not sure the difference will be great enough to be worth the bother especially with a 16bit LUT.
> If you want to further digress, dig deeper down that rabbit hole, you'll be >traveling down that delusional hole on your own. I'm staying up here in the >bright sunlight, there's no reason to go farther.
all i can say is i'm happy in my delusions and watching some blu-rays USING a LUT rather than watching them at gamma avg 2.4 varying from at least 2.1 to 2.6 and color temp bouncing all over up and down the grayscale either too hot or too cold by far. Kind of funnt how watching a nice gamma curve at 2.2 is delusional while watchin a movie at D80 and a bendy gamma curve avg 2.5 is sane....
and again where does one get a color aware blu-ray player?????
show us....
but i'm not as dumb as you seem to think nor are my mathematical and scientific skills quite as weak with all your talk about deep rabbit holes and delusions, i could say more, but I will just leave it at that....
and not everyone only uses color-aware apps and nothing else and using a LUT darn well can be helpful for non-color aware stuff depending upon your monitor (my hdtv can be adjusted with controls to the point that the LUT doesnt do a whole lot but the color-ware apps do).
what i've found affects the color-ware apps ultimate performance the most is the controls you set on the monitor, sometimes what works best for making the monitor/tv itself be overall the best is NOT the best way to set it to get the most out of color-ware apps, this difference can be relatively large, seems to be much more so than trying LUT vs LUTless profiling. Major thing to look out for is moving primaries and secondaries since some sets have such a poor CMS system all it does is make a warped mess than the profilers dont deal with well an din other cases setting saturations for overall best fit for monitor alone calibration don't let the primaries get as close to the ideal as they could be so sometimes leaving that set on defaut (likely overdone by itself) allws the profiling to work better since it can adjust for any problems and this lets it reach out far enough to perhaps hit the xy and Y locations of the pirmaries.
I'm back on XP. Still can't get this working.
0R 0G 255B is purple in Photoshop.
The towel in this photo http://davidson.smugmug.com/photos/195301775_oTn9s-XL.jpg
is blue when I look at it in the smugmug gallery (the correct color), but it's purple when I look at it in a forum where I have embedded it. It's also purple if I use the link I posted to view it. But go through the smugmug gallery clicks and it shows blue. Any ideas?
For some reason there is one profile I can't disassociate from my monitor in the win xp color settings. I'm thinking this is causing the Eye1 D2 to double profile.