Basic Color vs. Other Profiling Software

Viewing 12 posts - 25 through 36 (of 88 total)
  • Author
    Topic: Basic Color vs. Other Profiling Software Read 20083 Times
  • Andrew Rodney
    Andrew Rodney
    Participant
    Posts: 303
    Basic Color vs. Other Profiling Software
    on: August 9, 2021 at 12:49 pm

    The “parameters” (targets) once accomplished are stored and can be easily and quickly recalled and loaded AND moved to differing computer systems where they can be loaded and utilized by others.

    Author “Color Management for Photographers" & "Photoshop CC Color Management" (pluralsight.com)

    Patrick Herold
    Patrick Herold
    Participant
    Posts: 6
    Re: Basic Color vs. Other Profiling Software
    Reply #1 on: August 9, 2021 at 1:03 pm

    The control of the panel that Andrew was referring to can best be thought of as a built-in graphics card.  These high end monitors, especially those with an extended gamut, make use of built-in graphic processing that is better than what’s built into the computer – so that you get 1024 points of “adjustment” of color – a more precise adjustment than what is available with most 8-bit graphics cards (256) that are in your computer.   Each manufacturer (NEC, Eizo) makes available its own software that can calibrate while talking to this built-in graphics card.     You obviously don’t want to calibrate these high end monitors without using software that will work with these advanced graphic processors.   basICColor Display is an independent software which supports many of these displays.  It might not support every NEC or every Eizo –  so do check to see if your model is supported.

    Mark D Segal
    Mark D Segal
    Silver Member
    Posts: 721
    Re: Basic Color vs. Other Profiling Software
    Reply #2 on: August 9, 2021 at 1:26 pm

    The control of the panel that Andrew was referring to can best be thought of as a built-in graphics card.  These high end monitors, especially those with an extended gamut, make use of built-in graphic processing that is better than what’s built into the computer – so that you get 1024 points of “adjustment” of color – a more precise adjustment than what is available with most 8-bit graphics cards (256) that are in your computer.   Each manufacturer (NEC, Eizo) makes available its own software that can calibrate while talking to this built-in graphics card.     You obviously don’t want to calibrate these high end monitors without using software that will work with these advanced graphic processors.   basICColor Display is an independent software which supports many of these displays.  It might not support every NEC or every Eizo –  so do check to see if your model is supported.

    Hi Pat – Yes, of course when dealing with independent software the primary check is whether it supports the monitor at all. But I think the question at play here is more granular, about the specific capabilities that the different products have for simulating various output conditions, and correspondingly which is preferable taking both price and functionality into account; I think this is what Elliot is basically concerned with.

    Mark D Segal Author: "Scanning Workflows with SilverFast 8, SilverFast HDR, Adobe Photoshop Lightroom and Adobe Photoshop". Please check the PhotoPXL Store for availability.

    Franz Herbert
    Franz Herbert
    Participant
    Posts: 10
    Re: Basic Color vs. Other Profiling Software
    Reply #3 on: August 9, 2021 at 2:15 pm

    I’m referring to far more than just switching Mark; Spectraview has proprietary control over the panel electronics.

    Yes, you can use another product, but I wouldn’t. I’d use (and do use) the full functionality between SpectraView hardware and software.

    Andrew,

    you have no idea what you are talking about. You make these blank statements that only demonstrate your ignorance, or your allegiance to big companies like Xrite and NEC.

    I control at least 30 parameters in the NEC panels, including setting luminance, chromaticities, 1D Lut, 3D Lut, uniformity and many more. Do you want me to have Will Hollingworth, the author of SpectraView, comment on this?

    basICColor display 6 gets the very best out of every kind of monitor, using DDC/CI controls for monitors from Dell, BenQ and many more. It may not be what you need if you only have an NEC, but it will get the very best out of your monitor, no matter what make, and it will make managing monitors so much easier, especially if you are a graphic professional who has to do work for print and video.

    Franz Herbert

     

    Andrew Rodney
    Andrew Rodney
    Participant
    Posts: 303
    Re: Basic Color vs. Other Profiling Software
    Reply #4 on: August 9, 2021 at 2:28 pm

    Sure Franz, have Will comment.

    Yes, I know your company provided a version for NEC outside of the US.

    Now, do tell us the cost of of your product outside that area (if you are still providing it there) and the cost for SpectraView too, that would be useful to the conversion.

    Gotta say: allegiance to big companies like Xrite and NEC? Nope. Calm down a bit, and do search your memory for the guy who was using your fine products, probably before anyone here (I still have a ColorBlind dongle). 😉

    Author “Color Management for Photographers" & "Photoshop CC Color Management" (pluralsight.com)

    Andrew Rodney
    Andrew Rodney
    Participant
    Posts: 303
    Re: Basic Color vs. Other Profiling Software
    Reply #5 on: August 9, 2021 at 2:31 pm

    “basICColor display 6 gets the very best out of every kind of monitor, using DDC/CI controls for monitors from Dell, BenQ and many more. It may not be what you need if you only have an NEC, but it will get the very best out of your monitor, no matter what make, and it will make managing monitors so much easier, especially if you are a graphic professional who has to do work for print and video.”

    Colorimetric proof of concept would also be useful here!

    And some may wish to view this post:

    https://forum.luminous-landscape.com/index.php?topic=138216.msg1217250#msg1217250

    Author “Color Management for Photographers" & "Photoshop CC Color Management" (pluralsight.com)

    Franz Herbert
    Franz Herbert
    Participant
    Posts: 10
    Re: Basic Color vs. Other Profiling Software
    Reply #6 on: August 10, 2021 at 2:16 am

    Here is an example of a calibration / profile of a Dell UP2516D monitor, to D50 using L* as the tonal curve and 160 cd/m2 luminance. The brightness and the gains of the monitor were set by display 6 via DDC/CI.

    Regarding the cost of display 6, the basic version is available at Chromix.com for $89.

    I searched a bit for SpectraView II, it seems to cost $99.

    Andrew Rodney
    Andrew Rodney
    Participant
    Posts: 303
    Re: Basic Color vs. Other Profiling Software
    Reply #7 on: August 10, 2021 at 8:51 am

    Your “example” proves what in terms of my questions?

    “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.”-Carl Sagan

    The difference in price of $10 is useful without a direct comparison of capabilities but a good start.

    Have you reached Will to comment here?

    Author “Color Management for Photographers" & "Photoshop CC Color Management" (pluralsight.com)

    Mark D Segal
    Mark D Segal
    Silver Member
    Posts: 721
    Re: Basic Color vs. Other Profiling Software
    Reply #8 on: August 10, 2021 at 9:17 am

    I think it would be helpful for Andrew to expand on what he means by “colorimetric proof of concept”. It’s not obvious to me what’s packed into those four words. What’s the concept needing to be proved? What is “colorimetric proof” (I take it from the phrase that “colorimetric” is an adjective to the noun “proof”, and from there how will this proof provide answers to the practical questions with which Elliot opened this thread?

    Well, maybe I was just a bit dense having these questions crossing my mind, because Franz seems to have understood that perhaps it just means the quantitative performance of the software, looking at those variables which are of greatest operational significance to the end-user. So thank-you Franz, the discussion now gets down to actual operational information that is both granular and tangible. That said, to appreciate it, you need to look at the Attachments Franz thoughtfully provided and understand what they mean. (And as a side-note, kudos to Kevin Raber and his IT team for developing a slick method of formatting attachments so that they are truly and conveniently very readable.)

    So perhaps useful here is a bit of a walk-through the kinds of things that would matter to the end-user of both the software and the monitor.

    In the first illustration we get to see:

    -the stage of the process we are in (green band at the bottom);

    -whether we are using a workflow or entering an editing function (to edit the profile parameters for the workflow)

    -the device being used to take the measurements (in this case an X-Rite i1 Display Pro ( a relatively inexpensive entry-level device in the professional tier)

    -the applicable display illumination technology

    -whether the profile accounts for viewing conditions

    -the gamut volume allowed by the display and its profile

    -the button you click to generate a detailed report of the display validation, and

    -whether this profile passed the validation test.

    In the second illustration we learn the detailed validation results:

    -we’re dealing with a “softproofing” workflow (parameters set for softproofing)

    -the target white point is D50 and the profiling achieved that value exactly.

    -the contrast curve (tonal response) chosen was L*

    -the chosen White Luminance was 160cd/M2 and th achieved luminance is 160.4 (pretty darn accurate!)

    -the chosen Black Luminance was “Min Native” which means the blackest the monitor can deliver, and that turns out to be 0.15cd/M2 (pretty darn Black!)

    (BTW, the above 4 parameters are the key settings the user needs to make for successful monitor profiling, and the reliability of the display for the intended function depends on those parameters being achieve in practice, which is what this information read-out shows.)

    -the accuracy of colour rendition measured in L*a*b*, also critical performance information. The assessment is made by the software generating 17 patches of known colour value (the “Reference Values”) which it throws up onto the display, the displayed values are measured, the results returned to the software which computes them and compares them to the reference values, then generating a dE(2000) result between the reference values and the achieved values. You will observe in this particular report the Average dE is only 0.39, which is excellent (the smaller it is the closer to accurate it is), the maximum grayscale deviance is 0.6 (again excellent and good news for assessing what neutrality looks like on your display), the maximum deviation is dE 1.34, which is very low for a maximum. (Let us recall values up to 1.0 are theoretically undisturbing to human visual perception). The low standard deviation (0.35) means there isn’t much dispersion around the Average – i.e. no serious outliers to worry about.

    So in sum, this reporting tells us in a very compact snapshot that not only has the profile well-performed within the stated tolerances, but it is performing pretty accurately, which speaks well for both the display and the software.

    The third illustration provides the background technical information which may be good for the user to have as future reference if needed.

    So to sum up, these illustrations show that the software is straightforward to use, provides a lot of user-flexibility to select all parameters of most practical value to the end-user, and generates really fine, accurate results if the monitor is amenable to such, which this one is.

    None of this surprises me as I had written it all up in a published detailed review, having tested this software extensively, but for the convenience of readers in this thread, I thought it may be useful to elaborate on the meaning of the Attachments Franz provided here.

    Mark D Segal Author: "Scanning Workflows with SilverFast 8, SilverFast HDR, Adobe Photoshop Lightroom and Adobe Photoshop". Please check the PhotoPXL Store for availability.

    Andrew Rodney
    Andrew Rodney
    Participant
    Posts: 303
    Re: Basic Color vs. Other Profiling Software
    Reply #9 on: August 10, 2021 at 9:29 am

    Simple Mark: the statement made:

     

    “basICColor display 6 gets the very best out ofevery kind of monitor, using DDC/CI controls for monitors from Dell, BenQ and many more. It may not be what you need if you only have an NEC, but  and it will make managing monitors so much easier, especially if you are a graphic professional who has to do work for print and video.”

    Colorimetric proof of THAT concept would also be useful here!

    What we have is akin to one hand clapping for one display.

     

    Author “Color Management for Photographers" & "Photoshop CC Color Management" (pluralsight.com)

    Elliot Puritz
    Elliot Puritz
    Silver Member
    Posts: 74
    Re: Basic Color vs. Other Profiling Software
    Reply #10 on: August 10, 2021 at 9:46 am

    With tongue firmly in cheek, relegating the discussion of software used for profiling to the same category as a dispute that should be solved by Solomon is surely hyperbole…

    Perhaps one can safely say that both Spectraview and Basic are capable of providing excellent monitor profiles that can be used with confidence as to their validity.  For the majority of us who need to use such profiles to create prints that reasonably match their monitor(s) both will suffice…as well Calibrite software of course.  Both programs have features that are admirable and are easy to use, and now apparently the price for both are comparable.  Users will find features in both programs that will be desirable to have available as needed. Absent sophisticated measuring devices it will likely be difficult to parse differences in the end result(s).  Both programs have supporters who are knowledgeable and who are leaders in the field of Color Management.

    Time to sign a Truce.

    Stay healthy…thanks to everyone who has added to my understanding of monitor calibration.

    Elliot

    Andrew Rodney
    Andrew Rodney
    Participant
    Posts: 303
    Re: Basic Color vs. Other Profiling Software
    Reply #11 on: August 10, 2021 at 11:07 am

    Mark wrote: –the accuracy of colour rendition measured in L*a*b*, also critical performance information. The assessment is made by the software generating 17 patches of known colour value (the “Reference Values”) which it throws up onto the display, the displayed values are measured, the results returned to the software which computes them and compares them to the reference values, then generating a dE(2000) result between the reference values and the achieved values.

    17 predetermined (?) color patches is not all that useful to tell us color accuracy of a device (display). Much like how CRI is tested and reported more for marketing than a useful colorimetric analysis. With CRI, tiles are used to compare under a reference light source but only about eight. That’s too small a set of tiles. That make it easy to create a spectrum that will render the 8 tiles just like a small set of colors selected and in display color space. This is very much what we see here as well. As an aside, a better metric is called CQS (15 very colorful patches). And there are far better ways to validate a display when trying to review or prove it has been calibrated “the very best” as we have been told here. There are ways to check a display with more patches and in more challenging areas of color space (think dark, saturated orange, and as you can see in Franz report, a similar darker and saturated color has the highest delta!). How high would the delta be at say 41/43/38??? We don’t know. It isn’t difficult to design a validation that is easy(ier) to pass! 

     

    A much better approach is using an INDEPENDENT product san’s of marketing in evaluating a display for accuracy in respect to picking color patches and number of color patches. A much better tool is PatchTool from BableColor using their Display-Check which allows one to measure your own list of colors.

    The author makes the aim of the tool clear:

    “The Display-Check tool was developed because of the limited info provided by most display profiling programs relative to the profile quality. Some profiling applications offer a display check routine that measures the color accuracy for a small number of preset colors, with not many details on the data path used in sending the colors to the screen and on the assumptions made when measuring them. Display-Check provides dedicated tests for measuring the accuracy of the neutrals and primaries, as well as the possibility to measure user-defined color lists of any size. “

    Any size, anywhere in color space (of the display)! That isn’t what we are seeing here.

    Perhaps you have PatchTool or the powers at this site will foot a copy for further, ideal, colorimetric testing of display (and other) color accuracy without restrictions. Or processes based on producing a better, not ideal verification.

     

    The ‘verification’ Franz is showing may do this, but it isn’t what he provided or you’ve mentioned. Further, his report doesn’t backup his claims which I’ve now outlined twice here. The ‘verification’ is largely a ‘feel’ good (or more so, a marketing feature) than anything else. Yes, if you get a high dE report, you can probably assume something went wrong and recalibrate. If this continues to occur, you’ve got some problem. But information about calibration color (colorimetric) accuracy, using the SAME instrument which could be a mile off (even a broken clock is right, twice a day), no. Like gauging anything for accuracy; speed, distance, height, weight, we need to measure something and compare it to a reference to know if it’s accurate. Using the same device, which can repeatedly be off on a patch dE 6, doesn’t tell you it is off that much (so much for color accuracy) so such testing should be done with a reference Spectroradiometer that is itself calibrated and certified every year (expensive!) or used to compare the measurements used for the initial calibration. This isn’t what you or Franz have reported AFAIK. Why this is also important: Let’s say I measure my foot with a ruler and find it’s 10.7 inches. Clearly my foot isn’t an adequate measuring device compared to a 1 foot wooden ruler. But how accurate is the ruler? It too should be of sufficient accuracy for the task. There are devices like a 50 cent wooden ruler that may be accurate to +/- 1/10 of an inch. For measuring a 40 foot wall, that may be all that’s needed. For measuring a component that will be used on a space ship, 1/10000 of an inch may just be adequate. But my foot clearly isn’t. So when we talk accuracy, we need to take into account the instrument or method of measuring the accuracy.

    Franz has shown us a report with a mere 17 patches and hasn’t compared the same 17 patches using another product to calibrate that ONE display. Yet we are told here: “basICColor display 6 gets the very best out of every kind of monitor.”

    The best. Of every kind of monitor. Trust but verify. As yet, no verification of the above claim, even for ONE display. Again, one hand clapping and that hand is rather small and I hope the above will express why I believe that. 

    Author “Color Management for Photographers" & "Photoshop CC Color Management" (pluralsight.com)

Viewing 12 posts - 25 through 36 (of 88 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.