Monitor Calibration

[CaptMike]

Does the Display Calibrator Assistant
http://support.apple.com/kb/PH10632

replace or eliminate the need to otherwise "calibrate" the monitor using 3rd party items such as Spyder4Pro ?
http://spyder.datacolor.com/portfolio-view/spyder4pro/

 

[thekev]

No. I'd avoid overwriting profiles made with the display calibrator assistant. They often generate weird behavior. Not everyone absolutely needs to calibrate these things. It's just to provide better consistency over time and between devices. Even non-device specific targets reference something. It's also important to note that at the user level, you aren't directly setting hardware levels, and you have no method of compensating for uniformity issues in most displays. In that sense you're also dependent on the QA of the display oem.

 

[CaptMike]

No. I'd avoid overwriting profiles made with the display calibrator assistant. They often generate weird behavior. Not everyone absolutely needs to calibrate these things. It's just to provide better consistency over time and between devices. Even non-device specific targets reference something. It's also important to note that at the user level, you aren't directly setting hardware levels, and you have no method of compensating for uniformity issues in most displays. In that sense you're also dependent on the QA of the display oem.

So if I understand, you said "No" the Apple Display Calibrator Assistant does not replace the need to use a 3rd party calibration device.

I will be sending photo files to pro labs for large prints.

 

[thekev]

So if I understand, you said "No" the Apple Display Calibrator Assistant does not replace the need to use a 3rd party calibration device.

I will be sending photo files to pro labs for large prints.

It does not work the way you think. In either case you're rewriting a profile to modify instructions in a way designed to match specified target values. You can specify what you want in terms of color temperature and other things. It will try to match them, but it's ultimately limited by the display hardware, the profile type (matrix or LUT), and the accuracy of the measurement device. The profile also describes the capabilities of the display so that color managed software can compensate as needed. None of that is perfect, but it's usually good enough.

On the printing end you have entirely different hardware. That printer has different behavior. Some inkjets can print certain colors that your display cannot fully reproduce in terms of saturation, so expecting to hold the print up next to the display in office lighting and see a perfect match is essentially a fallacy. The light you view the print under may be fundamentally different from your display. Basically profiling to a known target that isn't too much of a strain on the capability of the display should help prevent you from being way off, but it doesn't completely replace the need to work with the lab. Typically with creating really large prints, it's normal to do a smaller version first for matching reference unless you work with them regularly and really really trust their interpretation.

I hope that helps. If you aren't buying a colorimeter, I do not suggest using the built in assistant instead. Just go with the default and see if it's close enough. That thing breaks more than it fixes.

 

[CaptMike]

It does not work the way you think. In either case you're rewriting a profile to modify instructions in a way designed to match specified target values. You can specify what you want in terms of color temperature and other things. It will try to match them, but it's ultimately limited by the display hardware, the profile type (matrix or LUT), and the accuracy of the measurement device. The profile also describes the capabilities of the display so that color managed software can compensate as needed. None of that is perfect, but it's usually good enough.

On the printing end you have entirely different hardware. That printer has different behavior. Some inkjets can print certain colors that your display cannot fully reproduce in terms of saturation, so expecting to hold the print up next to the display in office lighting and see a perfect match is essentially a fallacy. The light you view the print under may be fundamentally different from your display. Basically profiling to a known target that isn't too much of a strain on the capability of the display should help prevent you from being way off, but it doesn't completely replace the need to work with the lab. Typically with creating really large prints, it's normal to do a smaller version first for matching reference unless you work with them regularly and really really trust their interpretation.

I hope that helps. If you aren't buying a colorimeter, I do not suggest using the built in assistant instead. Just go with the default and see if it's close enough. That thing breaks more than it fixes.

Hi

You said: "That printer has different behavior. Some inkjets can print certain colors that your display cannot fully reproduce in terms of saturation, so expecting to hold the print up next to the display in office lighting and see a perfect match is essentially a fallacy. "

As I mentioned above, I will use a professional lab for the photo printing.

So again, when that is going to be accomplished, will the imac monitor need to be calibrated to match that of the lab?

 

[thekev]

So again, when that is going to be accomplished, will the imac monitor need to be calibrated to match that of the lab?

I don't think I'm going to be successful in explaining this entirely. Either way it isn't guaranteed to match. Calibrating helps. It should get you 80% of the way there. Typically it leaves you with a cleaner looking greyscale and cleans up a few weird or inconsistent gains in the display behavior. It compensates somewhat for drift or at least tracks the gamut so images can be displayed as best as possible. It doesn't guarantee you an exact match, even if you choose an appropriate brightness level. If this was possible, would anyone ever really need to replace their display?

 

[scottgoh]

i just purchase the ColorMunki Photo to calibrate the monitor and printer...
keep u posted.
cheers,
scott

 

[jdavtz]

Does the Display Calibrator Assistant
http://support.apple.com/kb/PH10632

replace or eliminate the need to otherwise "calibrate" the monitor using 3rd party items such as Spyder4Pro ?
http://spyder.datacolor.com/portfolio-view/spyder4pro/

No it doesn't. It uses your eyes to decide what's correct, whereas a hardware calibrator will measure what's "correct", as in equal to a reference value.

As mentioned, this in itself doesn't guarantee matching with prints, but it does give you a consistent starting point.

If you don't start with a calibrated monitor, any adjustments you make on screen are really just guesses.

 

[CaptMike]

No it doesn't. It uses your eyes to decide what's correct, whereas a hardware calibrator will measure what's "correct", as in equal to a reference value.

As mentioned, this in itself doesn't guarantee matching with prints, but it does give you a consistent starting point.

If you don't start with a calibrated monitor, any adjustments you make on screen are really just guesses.

Thank you, this answers my question.

 

[Tri-stan]

The worst thing for me on the New iMac's is the black Crush.

A lot of fine shadow detail and dark grey's are completely missing from my images and just display black. I have not bought a new iMac yet but have tested an iMac in the store with sRGB images as this is what this display is capable of showing.

No way am I going to buy one until either TFT Central verifies that the panel is good or unless people have said that a calibration fixes this issue. It should not be this way out of the factory, no way for a $2000.00 machine.

 

[Hopsdaballa04]

If I remember right the late 2012 iMac is individually calibrated at the factory. I think this is pretty silly as everything I have read has suggested it is best to calibrate the monitor to your work environment.

The below information is found on Apple's website.


Vivid, true-to-life color. Every time.
Everything you see on the big, glossy display — from skin tones and dark shadows to bright blue skies and green fields — is rich and vibrant. And the colors are more true to life, too. That’s because every iMac display is individually color-calibrated using state-of-the-art spectroradiometers to match color standards recognized around the world.

 

[johto]

The worst thing for me on the New iMac's is the black Crush.

A lot of fine shadow detail and dark grey's are completely missing from my images and just display black. I have not bought a new iMac yet but have tested an iMac in the store with sRGB images as this is what this display is capable of showing.

No way am I going to buy one until either TFT Central verifies that the panel is good or unless people have said that a calibration fixes this issue. It should not be this way out of the factory, no way for a $2000.00 machine.

Ugh? Of course hardware calibration fixe this issue, why would it not? Theres nothing wrong with the panel

 

[Tri-stan]

If I remember right the late 2012 iMac is individually calibrated at the factory. I think this is pretty silly as everything I have read has suggested it is best to calibrate the monitor to your work environment.

The below information is found on Apple's website.


Vivid, true-to-life color. Every time.
Everything you see on the big, glossy display — from skin tones and dark shadows to bright blue skies and green fields — is rich and vibrant. And the colors are more true to life, too. That’s because every iMac display is individually color-calibrated using state-of-the-art spectroradiometers to match color standards recognized around the world.

That is only true when they actuary configure the equipment correctly. With the iMac that I saw in the store it is if they were looking through a colidascope when they calibrated the screen. Not every iMac is created equally. P.S all settings default!

Ugh? Of course hardware calibration fixe this issue, why would it not? Theres nothing wrong with the panel

A calibration tool can only fix color issues to a certain extent. If the panel's baseline calibration is too far out it is very hard to fix one issue and not have another one appear.

 

[xgman]

The display calibrator works just fine. Just save it with a different name and it doesn't change anything about the stock imac one. If you do the "advanced" calibration and do it very carefully, you can improve the display. I like it even more than the datacolor spyder calibration if done right.

 

[naktak]

Use hardware to calibrate if you're not satisfied. Using the software and your eyes are rough guesses at best.

 

[Ocgasman]

I hardware calibrate with X-rite. Prints are spot on using an Epson 3880. Sending your files to an outside lab will be hit or miss. Even using Costco's paper profiles on a calibrated pro monitor and printing at Costco will show variations. Just the nature of printing.

 

[thekev]

Ugh? Of course hardware calibration fixe this issue, why would it not? Theres nothing wrong with the panel

This is just a misuse of terms that is confusing you. You aren't calibrating the display hardware directly. When people say "hardware calibration" on here, they often mean that the output values used to write the profile are measured by a physical hardware device. It's still manipulating how the gpu sees the display and compensating from there. The stock profile doesn't output linear values. If it did and you still saw the black crush, it's unlikely that you'd be able to solve it. Apple seems to use really high gamma value targets on some channels. That might be part of it. I would emphasize that you are very dependent on how they set things at the factory, as they would have the ability to address hardware settings directly.

If I remember right the late 2012 iMac is individually calibrated at the factory. I think this is pretty silly as everything I have read has suggested it is best to calibrate the monitor to your work environment.

Well you could go pretty far with this, but generally what they mean is that the display brightness and color temperature should look similar to the white from your printer under the same light. That isn't the most exact method of doing this, but it's often close enough. Typically I'd start with sRGB, Adobe RGB, or native target settings in the calibration stage, see how it matches, and tweak it from there. Given that you're doing everything from the profiling stage, you really don't want to tweak it further than necessary. I could input 4000K as a white point target, but the results would likely look like crap.

The below information is found on Apple's website.


Vivid, true-to-life color. Every time.
Everything you see on the big, glossy display — from skin tones and dark shadows to bright blue skies and green fields — is rich and vibrant. And the colors are more true to life, too. That’s because every iMac display is individually color-calibrated using state-of-the-art spectroradiometers to match color standards recognized around the world.

This is somewhat ambiguous as there isn't just one standard, and the gamut does not encompass an infinite volume. I would point out that this could be recognized as hardware calibration. They're calibrating hardware. When you plug in that X-rite device, you're just writing a profile to replace that "colorlcd" one with something specific to your display to best match the specified target values at that specific point in the display's life. Further they're measured in the center, so you are still held hostage by the color and luminance uniformity and other things. I want to see more of the newest ones up close.

 

[oldgeezer]

Consider also that prints and screen images are inherently different in that with prints you see reflected light but the light from the display is direct light. They'll never look the same.