"DisplayCAL" is making me feel ashame.

[berserk]

As very impressed with ArgyllCMS I'm now up to try "DisplayCAL" that is using the same software engine.

OK - I have an LG 23" IPS monitor - pretty happy with it not the very most expensive but not cheap.Thinking that that IPS:s are normally rather good.

However my proud got a slap in my face...I'm feeling like a real fool. Now I have learnt I know nothing about monitors - not even my own one.

DisplayCAL asks me when starting the very program:

Do yo have:
1/ LCD generic adaptive?
2/ Refresh generic?
3/ Refresh generic HiRes?
4/ Refresh generic Adaptive HiRes?
5/ LCD generic?
etc....

Could refresh be the old cathode ones?

I stop there - I thought I knew enough to at least use my own monitor.
What Do You have - and can someone tell me what I have....

I guess....it's an "LCD generic" only.... but Wiki will not tell me...

Edit: OK - I'm reading the MAN-pages - but so far I have got no REAL insight. End Edit

 

[stratman]

I do not use this application, but the manual does give potential insights into your questions. Looks like the application is asking you to "Choose a measurement mode". Since you have an LCD monitor, it appears that either "LCD generic adaptive" or "LCD generic" would be proper choices based on the 5 choices you listed. However, it appears there are other choices based on you typing "etc...."

Depending on your calibration tool - either a colorimeter or spectrophotometer, the ability to use an "Adaptive" setting to good effect may improve results. Similar goes for choosing "HiRes" according to the quote below.

Experimentation may be in order to test results based on setting selections.

From https://displaycal.net/

Choosing a measurement mode
Some instruments may support different measurement modes for different types of display devices. In general, there are three base measurement modes: “LCD”, “Refresh” (e.g. CRT and Plasma are refresh-type displays) and “Projector” (the latter is only available if supported by the instrument). Some instruments like the Spyder 4/5 and ColorHug support additional measurement modes, where a mode is coupled with a predefined colorimeter correction (in that case, the colorimeter correction dropdown will automatically be set to “None”).
Variations of these measurement modes may be available depending on the instrument: “Adaptive” measurement mode for spectrometers uses varying integration times (always used by colorimeters) to increase accuracy of dark readings. “HiRes” turns on high resolution spectral mode for spectrometers like the i1 Pro, which may increase the accuracy of measurements.

 

[berserk]

Jepp...it has much to do with spectrometers vs calorimeters. If I can generalise those settings are not the monitors themselves. With spectrometers like I1pro and Colormunki Design/Photo etc you can expand the calibration to another level using adaptive and hiRes settings. So it should be in a way - -spectrometers functions in another way than calorimeters, and are of cause more expensive. That said - calorimeters are not that bad - just seems spectrometers are more capable and can give better profiles.
So when choosing a "monitor" in DisplayCAL You are choosing AS how You want the "monitor" measured.

This is said if I shall keep it short.

That manual is very interesting - I almost understand everting written there )).

I have read much color-managment text but either fallen asleep or lost all the red threads and given up. This manual is good and with pedagogical good explanations, I shall read that one more than one time as many things for me here fell on place.

By the way - so far I'm very impressed with DisplayCAL. It's like ArgyllCMS very convincing.

/berserk
Sweden

 

[Roy Sletcher]

Jepp...it has much to do with spectrometers vs calorimeters. If I can generalise those settings are not the monitors themselves. With spectrometers like I1pro and Colormunki Design/Photo etc you can expand the calibration to another level using adaptive and hiRes settings. So it should be in a way - -spectrometers functions in another way than calorimeters, and are of cause more expensive. That said - calorimeters are not that bad - just seems spectrometers are more capable and can give better profiles.
So when choosing a "monitor" in DisplayCAL You are choosing AS how You want the "monitor" measured.

This is said if I shall keep it short.

That manual is very interesting - I almost understand everting written there )).

I have read much color-managment text but either fallen asleep or lost all the red threads and given up. This manual is good and with pedagogical good explanations, I shall read that one more than one time as many things for me here fell on place.

By the way - so far I'm very impressed with DisplayCAL. It's like ArgyllCMS very convincing.

/berserk
Sweden

I did not find your message clear on the profiling hardware you are using. If you using the i1display Pro, then I am pretty sure that it is a colorimeter and not a spectrophotometer, but for an emissive display monitor that is probably preferable to a spectro.

Maybe I have the wrong interpretation of your message - just trolling late at night. Sorry if I have muddied the waters and caused confusion. Time for bed.
rs

 

[berserk]

OK - I was night-trolling myself. Went to bed around 4 in the morning. Reading the manual (RTFM:ing) You know. Here in Sweden we are 8 hours before those living in New-York

But to make it clear I am myself mixing them up now and then - not being fresh in mind.

But in the end if You read my posting - here I referred to "spectrometers" as those used for both emmisive and reflective measuring and calorimeters mostly used for emmisive measurement.

From the manpages:

-----------

Colorimeters

• CalMAN X2 (treated as i1 Display 2)
• Datacolor/ColorVision Spyder 2
• Datacolor Spyder 3 (since Argyll CMS 1.1.0)
• Datacolor Spyder 4 (since Argyll CMS 1.3.6)
• Datacolor Spyder 5 (since Argyll CMS 1.7.0)
• Hughski ColorHug (Linux support since Argyll CMS 1.3.6, Windows support with newest ColorHug firmware since Argyll CMS 1.5.0, fully functional Mac OS X support since Argyll CMS 1.6.2)
• Hughski ColorHug2 (since Argyll CMS 1.7.0)
• Image Engineering EX1 (since Argyll CMS 1.8.0)
• Klein K10-A (since Argyll CMS 1.7.0. The K-1, K-8 and K-10 are also reported to work)
• Lacie Blue Eye (treated as i1 Display 2)
• Sencore ColorPro III, IV & V (treated as i1 Display 1)
• Sequel Imaging MonacoOPTIX/Chroma 4 (treated as i1 Display 1)
• X-Rite Chroma 5 (treated as i1 Display 1)
• X-Rite ColorMunki Create (treated as i1 Display 2)
• X-Rite ColorMunki Smile (since Argyll CMS 1.5.0)
• X-Rite DTP92
• X-Rite DTP94
• X-Rite/GretagMacbeth/Pantone Huey
• X-Rite/GretagMacbeth i1 Display 1
• X-Rite/GretagMacbeth i1 Display 2/LT (the HP DreamColor/Advanced Profiling Solution versions of the instrument are also reported to work)
• X-Rite i1 Display Pro, ColorMunki Display (since Argyll CMS 1.3.4. The HP DreamColor, NEC SpectraSensor Pro and SpectraCal C6 versions of the instrument are also reported to work)

Spectrometers

• JETI specbos 1211/1201 (since Argyll CMS 1.6.0)
• JETI spectraval 1511/1501 (since Argyll CMS 1.9.0)
• X-Rite ColorMunki Design/Photo (since Argyll CMS 1.1.0)
• X-Rite/GretagMacbeth i1 Monitor (since Argyll CMS 1.0.3)
• X-Rite/GretagMacbeth i1 Pro (the EFI ES-1000 version of the instrument is also reported to work)
• X-Rite i1 Pro 2 (since Argyll CMS 1.5.0)
• X-Rite/GretagMacbeth Spectrolino

----------------------------------

According to this man-text I'm having a Spectrometer. They are often the somewhat more expensive instruments.

As You see there in the list, "X-Rite i1 Display Pro" AND "X-Rite I1 Pro" (not marked "Display") are two different instruments. As there are "X-Rite Colormunki Display" and "Colormunki Design/Photo". Calorimeters vs Spectrometers. The X-rite home-site describes them and the difference.

I must say the list above is impressive - one soft for all those instruments - the author must have interest, knowledge and stubborness - behind that. Not so surprised - Linux-people often do that little extra and "open source softs" are often very good as many people around the authors are taking part in the development and picking on the author when something goes wrong.
I can not imagine that they make money - just having fun when making better softs than the originators of the hardware we buy. My respect - there is hope!!!

I used the soft in Linux before it came to Windows - but when it comes to making photos - I feel more comfy in the commercial world of Windows. Mostly because of when reading and learning "darkroom" - 98% are referring to the Windows-Adobe way -As a matter of fact - I'm a Linuxer since long - however Adobe et all for some reason do not like Linux he) .... "dual boot" solved that problem for me. (I did not mention Mac's here - the one I hear are for the real pixel-snobs...)

/berserk
Sweden
Pensioner - former Viking and M.Sc.-civilengineer.
Nowadays just having fun...

 

[berserk]

OK...been at their forum.

It seems as calorimeters are much faster and much better to read the black point on a monitors and are therefore preferred for calibrating monitors more exact.
Also a spectrometer needs to be calibrated now and then during the "exact measuring" choice.

I hope that that is in a way academic - otherwise I have to use my old Spyder4 for calibrating my monitor and the x-rite just for for just the printer.

As a serious hobbyist - I do not like to buy another better calorimeter. But but...I can afford it....

Let's say .... I have spend to much money on photographing/printing...in that way I'm not in sane.
My wife agrees!!!!
Especially as ink/print has big limitations - that is take one of your favorite oil painting at home - try to make "something" that should look like a replica. I can not - and is in a way impossible. I have come so far that I almost see no difference in soft proofing - that is also afterwards i have done correction layers in PS that I have saved - using just before printing to get a better match and luminance.
In a way a perfectly calibrated monitor and a perfect calibrated printer only gives me "as near as I think is possible".
There are no perfect equipment that can beat the human perception - eye and brain.

That's why I think many calls it "art". "Art" is a broader perspective - and I can easier defend my "photo art" rather than what was exactly photographed.

/berserk

 

[Ink stained Fingers]

I'm not sure to understand what you would get out of a 'better' colorimeter - better in which sense ?

 

[Roy Sletcher]

There are no perfect equipment that can beat the human perception - eye and brain.

Hmmm!!! Human vision and the human brain are notoriously unreliable for colour perception and interpretation.

This short TED talk on youtube explains a small part of the problem:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mf5otGNbkuc
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mf5otGNbkuc
Now who are you going to believe? Your lying eyes or me?

Not trying to diminish your opinion or what you have written. Just trying to expand the concept that relying on human judgment is unreliable.

The matter is further complicated by the fact that a significant percentage of the male population at large suffers from some sort of colour vision deficiency. Most who suffer from it vigorously deny their defect


rs

 

[berserk]

Ink stained Fingers wrote:
I'm not sure to understand what you would get out of a 'better' colorimeter - better in which sense ?

If You mean my Spyder4 - mine is about three years old and I suppose there is a new better ones. Perhaps a new I1- Display. (Eh...more money...)

If you mean what I wrote otherwise:
I was a bit surprised myself - I just was sneaking around the "DisplayCAL" forum. Faster response time and better reading of the blackpoint a calorimeter. I might have got it wrong - but I suggest You go there -
https://hub.displaycal.net/forums/

As a serious hobby-photographer I always thought a spectrometer was at least as good.

As who I am - I'm ready to pay for a good equipment and learn a good work-flow with results I like - AND then forget about it concentrating on taking photos.
It is not that easy and not that cheap.

You know...when coming home - load the pics, photoshoping and print with descent result without hassle.

Every time I have left the printing to an external service/business - I'm not happy with result and that was expensive as well.

For me simplifying things are essential however sometimes it's not easy. One ink, no more than four sorts of paper, one printer. Profiles and different adjustment layers for that and of cause an a workflow that you can rely on.

OK - there is a solution to that - just looking at your already photoshoped photos on the monitor only.
I think many do that!

 

[berserk]

@Roy Sletcher

I repeat - take one of Your favorite oil-paintings at home and try to make a replica!

For sure you need all that equipment and hard job, I'm in there - but You will never get real result!

Which is best? When judging - which is best one when you use your eyes and your brain even when one has flaws with eyes and colorblindness.

I never managed that - the brain and eyes have a broader spectrum than any of my equipment. Whatever I bought for $$$$$$.