Monitor Calibration

[stayinwonderland]

Is there a way to calibrate my monitor without buying hardware?

 

Mine is a tricky bugger to get right.

[Stephen Thomas]

Always better with hardware, but there are some online tools to get you close. http://bit.ly/1gzSHpu

[Stephen Thomas]

Couldn't resist

[stayinwonderland]

weeeell, ok. But I wanted to know what the arch viz community were tending to go for. If I google it, I'll just get any old mumbo jumbo about calibration.

[Stephen Thomas]

I've always used hardware in office (Colormunki and Eye1) and just borrowed for home. Had a BenQ monitor that had decent built-in calibration once as well. I did once try an online tool, but can't remember which one. Involved squinting your eyes and adjusting till the square disappeared.

[Corey Beaulieu]

I've been battling this too...

 

I recently went a very brute force route by opening an image on a laptop (Mac Book Pro) where the monitor is integrated and, in my opinion, is "accurate." At the very least I would call this a stable environment where I trust that the color is good.

 

I then opened the same image in Photoshop on my workstation and went to tweaking the settings in the NVidia Color Calibration menu until it matched the laptop. It took a lot of effort, but since, my image have been a lot more accurate/stable between machines.

 

The only caveats are that I selected an ICC Profile called Adobe 1998 because my monitor had that as its own setting. I could have used the sRGB one, but there was a much harsher blackpoint that I didn't like. In PS I set the color settings to this ICC profile as well. I also set my brightness to a very low value, I think 20 and Contrast somewhere in the high middle, 60-70.

 

With all of this set up, I will admit that my desktop looks off, the max logo looks super saturated, but as soon as I get into Photoshop, everything makes sense. My images are traveling between machines the way I see them on my workstation and I am much happier with output.

 

I have read that the reason why PS looks good and that the rest looks weird has to do with Windows dropping the custom

LUT settings for default when it feels necessary and PS forces the select profile. There is a free software called PowerSupply that should override this, but I have yet to try it.

 

I hope this helps. it is such a pain when your monitor is the difference between an image being good or bad.

[Stephen Thomas]

I'm wondering though, if you don't use a hardware solution then how do you know that it's correct? Unless you can directly compare to a calibrated monitor then it seems very subjective.

[Corey Beaulieu]

I'm wondering though, if you don't use a hardware solution then how do you know that it's correct? Unless you can directly compare to a calibrated monitor then it seems very subjective.

 

this is the point behind the laptop... It is a leap of faith on my part that the Apple Machine color is "calibrated" or "good." I certainly feel there is a majority agreement that Apple has solid native calibration and while it can be changed or off, it was my best bet for a starting point without a Munki etc...

[RyderSK]

 

The only caveats are that I selected an ICC Profile called Adobe 1998 because my monitor had that as its own setting.

 

 

You haven't mentioned your monitor, but I presume wide-gamut Dell Ultrasharp ? (or Eizo/NEC with similar range) I would be cautious working in AdobeRGB in our pipeline (even though 3dsMax framebuffer will natively work in it under Windows, which will cause confusement in wide-gamut displays that drive me crazy, the later generation Dells can switch to regular sRGB output which is very preferred for non-print workflow, which I would say we are in)

 

I keep my displays (Dell 3011 and 2410) calibrated to insane brightness, since that is how displays of all my clients pretty much look like (and general public too) and makes my life easier.

[Corey Beaulieu]

I do indeed have a Dell Monitor. A U2410.

 

I know what I have setup is perhaps wrong or just strange, but I've tried so many things and never been happy with the results. This time I decided to take the beginner's mind route and just did whatever it took to get the results I was looking for.

[RyderSK]

Hah, so we share the same monitor :- ) Well than I can confess to you how much I f''''''''' hate it. The whole wide-gamut thing is pretty much a curse. With 3dsMax being color non-managed the mat editor and framebuffer show everything in AdobeRGB, Windows image viewer using sRGB in regular windows and AdobeRGB in fullscreen pretty much ignoring the assigned profile, every viewer outside of Mozilla being mixed in its color managed environment. Photoshop is pretty much the only place I can be safe I saw what I want to see on the web. I don't have nerves with dealing with color-managed workflow, I don't care, I don't want to care. All my clients view the images on some over-bright LED TN sRGB displays so it's pointless anyway.

[Corey Beaulieu]

I work in a fairly large studio and before we send our final images out, they go from my monitor to my manager's monitor and then on to the associate principals monitor. I got so tired of them thinking I did something wrong because all of my color and brightness values shifted. We go back to my monitor and everything would look correct. I had to just strong arm the monitor into something I could trust. For the Profile jumps, you should check this out: http://entechtaiwan.com/util/ps.shtm I think in my earlier post I wrote Power Supply, I meant Power Strip.

 

I do have a 2 monitor setup where I keep the side one on sRGB and did pretty much the same thing to match the colors, I just don't think it looks as good. But it is where I view my Max stuff: Materials and Render.

 

I would suggest that you tone down the brightness. I see your point, but man, your eyes... It looks weird for about 10 minuutes. Go for a walk, a coffee.... when you come back it's like nothing changed. Everything seems bright again. I even had to turn the brightness down on my phone because it was hurting my eyes after softening my monitor.

[RyderSK]

I readjust it, I keep few profiles, I know it's bad for my eyes and they tell me the same when it get's past 5am in morning. I keep it around 50perc. for regular work but 100 for post-production. It's PWM modulated brightness after all and anything lower would probably make me dizzy.

[Crazy Homeless Guy]

I would recommend buying hardware for calibration. It is worth it. Guessing at the calibration is difficult and subjective.

 

Start off by buying this book and reading chapter 1 on color management.

http://goo.gl/P85bWA

 

My current profiler is i1DisplayPro, and it is the one I recommend to anyone that asks. In my opinion it is the best low budget profiler available. I have used i1Pro, Spyder2, Spyder3, and ColorMunki. The only one that matched the i1DisplayPro was the i1Pro, but the 1iPro is overkill if you only want to calibrate your monitor. All of the others left me feeling like the color was not quite right.

http://goo.gl/GxBAZf

 

As for monitors.... monitor is everything. Well maybe not everything but I would take a weaker CPU or less RAM if it meant a better monitor.

 

If you have the larger budget then I would recommend a NEC display or Apple Cinema display. The NECPA271w or a 27" Cinema will run between $1,000-$1,300 U.S.

 

If you have a lower budget then the look at the HPZR24w. These will probably run $350-$400. I found it to be a good display for the price and run these monitors on my home system. I would have no problems with running them in a work environment.

http://goo.gl/dFpVlA

 

I am very much in the camp of sticking to sRGB color space. It is a K.I.S.S. mentality (Keep It Simple Stupid.) Yes AdobeRGB will get you more colors but it is a nightmare when sending proofs to clients or worse yet the first time you render an animation and discover everything is supersaturated when you are finished because video files don't understand ICC profiles. I find that sticking to sRGB gives me less headaches and more control over the final product.

 

@Corey What does the Power Strip software do? I find a bit of color drift on my NEC monitor during the day, or at least I have it in my head that it does. The mornings are a hair on the red side but after it warms up for a few hours things balance out.

 

I also agree that MacBooks have good color for a laptop. I have never had luck calibrating one, but the color is decent straight out of the box.

Edited February 14, 2014 by Crazy Homeless Guy

[RyderSK]

 

 

If you have the larger budget then I would recommend a NEC display or Apple Cinema display. The NECPA271w or a 27" Cinema will run between $1,000-$1,300 U.S.

 

I find this slightly odd suggestion since they are such different panels but you grouped them together. The NEC, while pretty superior panel and monitor, is 14bit 97perc. aRGB wide gamut monitor. I doubt most visualizers do print-proofing so how would it benefit a visualizer compared to pitfalls of poor color managment in most 3D apps ? Only asking because I am not convinced completely against or for.

The AppleCinema on other hand is regular 8bit panel (usually identical/same factory model to Dell Ultrasharp counterpart)

 

I wouldn't suggest either monitor for digital visualization, but instead any higher-end 8bit non-widegamut matte finish 27"+ 2.5k(and 4k also now) px Dell (if you like IPS) or currently also Asus (PLS). It's considerably cheaper, more convenient and factory calibration is perfect. Downfalls are PWC modulation (flickering at low brightness), recent LED backlighting is not that even in every piece (on most models it usually is quite even though, it depends) compared to former CFL.

 

I don't disagree the top of the line NEC/EIZO are excellent monitors for print, but do they even make sense for regular renderer ? I am mostly asking for brainstorming purpose because I don't necessarily agree that top high-end is always the best choice regardless of conditions

[Crazy Homeless Guy]

I find this slightly odd suggestion since they are such different panels but you grouped them together. The NEC, while pretty superior panel and monitor, is 14bit 97perc. aRGB wide gamut monitor. I doubt most visualizers do print-proofing so how would it benefit a visualizer compared to pitfalls of poor color managment in most 3D apps ? Only asking because I am not convinced completely against or for.

The AppleCinema on other hand is regular 8bit panel (usually identical/same factory model to Dell Ultrasharp counterpart)

 

I wouldn't suggest either monitor for digital visualization, but instead any higher-end 8bit non-widegamut matte finish 27"+ 2.5k(and 4k also now) px Dell (if you like IPS) or currently also Asus (PLS). It's considerably cheaper, more convenient and factory calibration is perfect. Downfalls are PWC modulation (flickering at low brightness), recent LED backlighting is not that even in every piece (on most models it usually is quite even though, it depends) compared to former CFL.

 

I don't disagree the top of the line NEC/EIZO are excellent monitors for print, but do they even make sense for regular renderer ? I am mostly asking for brainstorming purpose because I don't necessarily agree that top high-end is always the best choice regardless of conditions

 

In full disclosure I grouped them together because they are the 2 that I use on my workstation but I would recommend them regardless of whether or not I was using them. I look at my monitors for 10+ hours a day and I am picky in regards to color tones and accuracy.

 

If you can share some specs on the Asus displays I am interested but the flickering and unevenness of color would make me hesitant. Those are some red flags considering the amount of time we spend looking into our displays.

 

We started of using the Cinema displays for a few reasons but the quality of the color straight out of the box on a Cinema display is very good. I still calibrate mine but the shift after calibrating is minimal on the Cinemas. However their feature set and glossy screens are horrible. But the color is very nice.

 

As for the NEC display... the glossy screen on the Cinema started to wear on me. I always felt like I was looking through a sheet of glass to see the rendering I was working on, and god forbid I needed to do any color correction during daylight hours. So we went in search of what we could get for roughly the same price. The NECs came in a bit more expensive but I have been far happier with the monitor than I am with my Cinema display.

 

We have a few Dell Ultra sharps in the office but we have had them for a few years and I don't think they have the ability to switch back and forth between sRGB and AdobeRGB which makes them a no go for me. It will probably drive you bonkers when I tell you that the majority of the time I keep my NEC set to sRGB color space.

[RyderSK]

No I know what you mean... I use Dell U2410, I can't switch it to sRGB, I've been desperate with it for long time...it's getting ditched for first regular 8bit 4K IPS this year and I am only keeping the U3011 as side display.

Eizo Flexscan, Dell Ultrasharp, Apple Cinema, NecPA, HP ZR,etc... they aren't really different in display quality for most part they even often feature identical panel by LG, but with varying feature set. But if you don't use that feature (14bit wide gamut) what is the point of going for the one that has that :- ) ?

 

Regarding flickering/unevness of backlighting it's only either that or that. LEDs (because they aren't true LED displays but LED backlit displays) might feature unevness on occasional piece disregarding the price of the display, and flickering is pretty much on every PWM regulated CCFL backlit panel (so even yours) due to the tech. It only affects very low brightness levels and some people don't even notice it at all (like me), but other find it almost vomit inducing/heavy eye straining, depends.

 

It's true the NEC avoids all the pitfalls of worse displays (like poor LED design of U2713 or tinting on ASUS PLS displays), but so does the top Ultrasharps (U2711) for half of price omitting the feature set.

 

But this isn't true for Apple CinemaLED, which is really just outdated (by now heavily) monitor with identical quality and feature set as any Ultrasharp outside of glossy screen. So if you don't even like the glossy screen, why suggest the panel at all again :- ) ? The only benefit (depeneding to whom) is truly the glossy screen and of course, the aesthetique. But display wise, not really.

 

Edit: Some quick digging to remember the LG panel name reveals the NEC shares the same CCFL back-lit panel LM270WQ2 panel as Dell Ultrasharp 2711 (The Apple uses LM270WQ1), so outside of the feature set lending it utmost color accuracy for print, it's debatable if most folks benefit from going so high. If your company bought it, it's great :- ) But for those who buy it themselves, they shouldn't feel bad for owning anything subpar imho, since they get the same panel nonetheless and with Dell the same level of factory calibration from box.

 

I think I remember Jeff owning the same NEC and writting really positive review on it here 2 years ago maybe ? So really I am not arguing anything against supremacy of this display...just unnecessity.

 

Heh, sorry for raving on about this. Maybe I am just tired from this topic often being target by display elitists on internet :- ) When arguments quickly loose and it becomes "You don't have Eizo ? Well then enjoy your cheap shitty display" and sometimes people believe in that. Matter of fact you can get excellent displays for as low as 150 euros today and I am very serious about it. Times changes a lot, but notion of certain supremacy stayed here and there on tech forums

Edited February 14, 2014 by RyderSK

[Crazy Homeless Guy]

The Cinema was a poor suggestion. Outdated technology and not very versatile in terms of features. The reason I included them on the list was simply that I know what color temperature to expect when I plug them into a computer. They have been consistent in that regard, but at that price point they should be.

 

I would love to see the old hardware recommendations come back. AJLynn used to post monthly updates on the best hardware to buy at multiple levels. I think they were jr., entry, mid, pro, or something in the order of that. They were great in understanding what you were getting for your money. They were well researched an unbiased in reporting.

[Guest dialog]

I have to agree that it is pointless to try and calibrate your monitor. I agree with Juraj and the fact that literally every monitor in our office is completely different in brands, sizes, models and settings it makes a render look 200 different ways depending on who in the office is viewing it. This will be the same for anyone at home, or any of the crap projectors that are used to present these images on the road to clients.

 

On top of that, every single printer in our office prints completely different colour ranges and you never know which printer is available for print. If the client is serious about print, then maybe calibrating it to the professional print shops printer is the only time I could see this being a benefit.

 

Just like any TV... each one will display the programming different no matter how great of a calibration job the editors did...just go yo your local electronics store and see the same program played on 30 different TVs...%90 of them are completely different.

[RyderSK]

I have to agree that it is pointless to try and calibrate your monitor

 

Wait what though, who said that in this thread ? Calibration is definitely a must, but done properly.

Definitely not something to do by eye without hardware.

I think it's quite worth to do so especially in large office because of what you describe, sounds like sharing

visual files to be quite nightmare because of this.

[numerobis]

I have to agree that it is pointless to try and calibrate your monitor. I agree with Juraj and the fact that literally every monitor in our office is completely different in brands, sizes, models and settings it makes a render look 200 different ways depending on who in the office is viewing it. This will be the same for anyone at home, or any of the crap projectors that are used to present these images on the road to clients.

 

On top of that, every single printer in our office prints completely different colour ranges and you never know which printer is available for print. If the client is serious about print, then maybe calibrating it to the professional print shops printer is the only time I could see this being a benefit.

So you're saying that because the image may look wrong on the screen of your client it is ok to also use an uncalibrated monitor and make wrong adjustments to the image?

If this works for you and your clients... ok. And sure, even a 100% calibrated monitor can give you different results when you look at it under different lighting conditions. And i think no one here will work under standard light conditions. But i think it's still much better to have a proper calibrated display as reference even if your client will see a different picture because you have at least a defined starting point and the certainty that your adjustments are ok. If your client then wants you to make adjustments to it... ok.

 

And concerning good looking precalibrated apple displays... even a hardware calibrated display has to be recalibrated every few weeks to correct the normal deviation that comes over time. So even if it "looks" good when you buy it, it will shift over the months/years.

[Guest dialog]

I guess it's not Totally pointless...

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk