Let's talk about colorimeters

Let's talk about colorimeters.

Do you calibrate your displays?

Other urls found in this thread:

aoc-europe.com/en/products/specification/q2775pqu
tftcentral.co.uk/reviews/asus_rog_swift_pg279q.htm
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

would be a better place for these questions.

I have a branded i1 for my NEC display that I use fairly rarely, only take it out if I want to make a new profile. Colors are less than 0.5dE off Adobe RGB. LED monitors don't tend to have colors change over time as used to happen with CRT, and to smaller extent CCFL.

this
my CCFL HPs need calibration quite often, though so I keep my i1 just right on the desk

Say if I calibrate a monitor to sRGB, do I need to recalibrate it often?

Seems like a bit of a chore.

No. It's not necessary on my Apple MacBook Pro with Retina Display.

depends on your monitor
just do it monthly to be sure, takes 10 minutes

>8bit colors
I agree, it wouldn't be worth it anyway

i1Display Pro and Displaycal
Funny, my 8 year old consumer CCFL HP hasn't drifted more than 1 dE2k in a whole year, it rarely gets much use nowadays though
My Apple devices all have 7000+ K, usable but still way too cold, I really hope there's a system wide color subsystem in the new iOS, the X-Rite gallery thing is trash

my monitors are from 2009 and by now I can measure quite a WB shift a week after calibration

I like to calibrate my screen to yellow
you have to wiggle the wire juust right

what would be good IPS 2k displays to buy?

UP2516D
cheapest hardware calibratable thing right now

I wanna calibrate my ASUS PG279Q 144Hz AHVA display.

Should I go with Spyder5PRO or ColorMunki Display?

Don't mind using open source software so I'm just looking at the raw performance of each unit.

damn, I already thought about picking this one. But I dont know if 25 inch is too small for a 2k display?

I wish i could afford the up2716d..

>damn, I already thought about picking this one. But I dont know if 25 inch is too small for a 2k display?
Nah, it's pretty good. I'd say it would be too small for 4k but 2k is fine

the other thing, i have u2412m and want to use it as secondary monitor.

my OCD would go over the charts if my main moniotr (25 inch 16:9) was smaller than my secondary (24 inch 16:10).

And according to my calculations it will be smaller (vertically)

>And according to my calculations it will be smaller (vertically)
Yeah but you still have more vertical pixels to work with on the 25" monitor.

You can consider using the U2412M in portrait mode as well since the 1200x1920 would make it quite nice on horizontal pixels (portrait).

well, I need to find a shop which has this monitor in display to see it for myself.

also, is the up2516d 10 bit and does it matter??

also, what about the AOC Q2775PQU (Q2770PQU)??

they seem to be very colour accurate too

Don't get the Spyder5Pro. It's literally the same device as the Express, but more expensive. If you use DisplayCal you don't need anything better than the Express version.


I used the Spyder5Express software to see how well it calibrated. Turns out it sucks something awful. Re-did it with the DisplayCal software and everything turned out great.

The dell is a 10 bit panel (1 billion+ colors).

The AOC aren't but should be cheaper.

Are you doing any professional work on them?

Mine actually came with a little calibrator thingy so I used it, yeah. Dunno how it compares to the expensive ones, but the results seem like a pretty good improvement over stock to me.

>Don't get the Spyder5Pro. It's literally the same device as the Express
Without the ambient light sensor.

yeah I do (not much printing work though)..

Anyways the AOC q2775pqu seems to have great spec (1.07 B colours as well), but I cant find any professionals reviews on it (most are for the q2770pqu version)

aoc-europe.com/en/products/specification/q2775pqu

Being poor and a budget is a fucking pain in the ass.

It has the sensor. The only difference between Spyder5 versions is what gets unlocked on the software. That's why you get the Express version and use DisplayCal instead.

>Anyways the AOC q2775pqu seems to have great spec (1.07 B colours as well)
You're right, I made a mistake earlier.

Question... I've heard that the Spyder is a bit off on white point, is that true?

Nope i just use flux to make it a little less blue and call it a day

Is there a 144hz monitor that will satisfy my gaming needs but also have 100% SRGB coverage so I can do photography?

Must I have two monitors?

Anyone with a U2415 here?
I have mine and I'm quite happy with some reservations.
The very top of the screen is much brighter, the top 1/5 is slight darker and both side edges have yellowish tints of them.
It is still better than any of my old displays in terms of uniformity, but I'm still bothered by that. I sort of expected near perfect uniformity.
Any of you with similar displays have that? It is most noticeable on 100% grey and white images.
Thankfully I have only minor backlight bleed at the lower left corner with is very hard to notice.

PG279Q

lol no

tftcentral.co.uk/reviews/asus_rog_swift_pg279q.htm

Also Acer has an equivalent to this monitor.

I bought the U2515H so I wouldn't have to.

>Let's talk about colorimeters.
I sincerely hope you mean spectrometers.

If you're buying a display that isn't factory calibrated you're not getting much mileage out of it anyhow.

factory calibration lasts... a few weeks?

I have the 27 incher, very happy with it, they come pre calibrated

dickstab777

No uniformity issues? Guess that is what I get for buying an open box... Well, still worth it for $200

>I need 10 bit color for my hentai watching and Sup Forums shitposting

Those are only necessary if you also want to profile reflective media, which not everyone does. If you buy a decent printer with original inks and paper of the same company (say Epson), you should already have everything profiled for you. And even if you did want better print quality, I'd instead suggest getting a custom RIP altogether, like ImagePrint 10, which also comes with pre-made profiles for every printer and paper that actually matter.

>they come pre calibrated

Not really, it's really too bright by default

Mine also came with the contrast too high. Lowering it from 75 to 70 made the grays MUCH less yellow, improved white saturation and in general made the display so much better.
It almost looks like the default contrast and brightness are set it that way so it appears more vibrant at a glance. I found that brightness at 40 and contrast at 70 is the best combination.
Also setting the color to 6500k instead of the default profile makes it look like I removed a gray filter off the screen. Colors are more vibrant without being oversaturated and blacks are much darker. I guess the default is intended to make colors more accurate, but it still looks much better on 6500k.

PG279Q is literally the one you need. After calibration it is very accurate.

>Those are only necessary if you also want to profile reflective media, which not everyone does.
Colorimeters need a profile for every backlight technology, and their accuracy (while still better than the backlight itself) will drift if the backlight does not match the exact initial and aging behavior of the backlight profile.
Spectrometers don't have that problem. They can accurately quantify anything.

On a panel with shitty CCFL backlights maybe. For better quality monitors no and especially not for LED backlit monitors.

If you're not a content creator, calibrating your monitor according to standards is just an autistic e-peen thing for faggots.

As a consumer, the purpose of your monitor is to display content as attractively as possible. I.E. Fiddle around with settings until you find what you think looks best on average

I calibrate my U2412M with a X-Rite i1Display Pro. IMHO is absolutely worth to buy it, the monitor had a disgusting purplish tint before.

i just put everything on max brightness so that the green contrasts well with the black on my terminal color scheme

Making content look attractive is the job for the content creators. The point of your screen is to display that content accurately, preserving the art. A random tweak to color temperature, saturation, gamma, contrast or whatever might look pleasing on some content which lacks it and look like ass on most.

>Making content look attractive is the job for the content creators.
So? That obviously does NOT mean you should calibrate your consumer monitor for accuracy rather than what you think looks best
>The point of your screen is to display that content accurately
Wrong. That's the point of a content creation screen. For a consumer screen the point is just to look as good as possible to that specific consumer.
It's the same as with the most "revealing" and accurate studio (sound) monitors, they're not very pleasant to listen to and won't be what the producer has at home for actually listening to music.

>might look pleasing on some content which lacks it and look like ass on most.
Then that's obviously not "what you think looks best on average" retard.

Thanks!

>That obviously does NOT mean you should calibrate your consumer monitor
Making a difference between "consumer" and "professional" monitor is pointless. They might emphasize different things but it doesn't mean one is standardized by IQ and the other is whatever the fuck users likes. No, you don't NEED to calibrate your personal monitor if you don't care for the IQ. Where do you draw the line of what is acceptable color accuracy or settings? Would it be the best if manufacturers didn't even try to tune or design their monitors to display accurate color and just leave that to consumers?
>than what you think looks best
What looks the best is entirely dependent on the content being displayed at any given time. For one content your subjective tuning might do well. For something else it might ruin the image entirely. You throw consistency, standards and art out of the window.
>It's the same as with the most "revealing" and accurate studio (sound) monitors, they're not very pleasant to listen to
What a load of horseshit, an audio myth which refuses to die. Not only is an accurate and extended frequency response preferred by listeners over a colored one, this is exactly what the audio industry is trying to get rid of. Make the home and studio systems be accurate on the same target and to minimize room response problems by proper loudspeaker design. F. Toole refers to this whole vicious circle as a "circle of confusion". E.g. play a well mastered track through a shitty system, it's going to sound like shit. Play a poorly mastered track through a great system and it's going to sound like shit. Part can be blamed on the skills of the mastering engineers(content creators) but the real issue on this is the lack of consistency, largely blamed on substandard monitoring and listening systems.
>Then that's obviously not "what you think looks best on average" retard.
How do you figure you assess "looking best on average"? Your adjustments are sweeping tweaks anyway.

>Do you calibrate your displays?
Yes. Do you have any questions?

>Making a difference between "consumer" and "professional" monitor is pointless.
I'm not. I'm making a difference between content creator and consumer _roles_. Regardless of what monitor you have.
>Would it be the best if manufacturers didn't even try to tune
Read my posts again. Color calibration is very important for content creators. For consumers it's just >For something else it might ruin the image entirely.
Then that's obviously not "what you think looks best on average" retard.
>Not only is an accurate and extended frequency response preferred by listeners over a colored one
Wrong. Like I said. Even rich professional producers have different gear in studio and at home. Because one is for producing, one is for sounding good.
>accurate and extended frequency response
that's not all monitors do dummy. For example speakers are designed to smooth over clipping and spikes. Monitors are the opposite. Most monitors you buy today are compromised away from full transparency, so that they work fine as speakers too.
>How do you figure you assess "looking best on average"?
Obviously by using the monitor over several weeks with different content and gradually adjusting it to your personal preference.

howdy.

psychoacoustically-accurate speakers are always (always!) preferred over colored speakers. as soon as people can't see what they're listening to, their preferences are amazingly consistent. and that tracks across all ages and parts of the world.

all that stuff about "smoothing over clipping and spikes" is complete BS; those things are literally opposites. what helps one hurts the other. the real difference is monitors are designed for near-field use, speakers for far-field. accuracy is the goal in both cases.

your entire argument rests on this idea that the reproduction device can be colored to be make things "better". for audio, at least, this is absurd. for every song you make better, hundreds more are ruined. mastering and mixing are not consistent in a genre, or even between songs on a single album.

accuracy is the only way around that conundrum.

Do you know where to rent a colorimeter for cheap?
I'm an amateur photograph and I want coherence between my computers (5 displays in total)

That's not true and you know it.

A typical uncalibrated screen (e.g. dell ultrasharp IPS displays) will be off by like 10 dE or more. This is a significant deviation, significantly more than 2^-8.

Put two typical monitors side by side and you will immediately and obviously see the difference between the two. Put a calibrated 8-bit next to a calibrate 10-bit and you won't. (Except for e.g. grayscale banding)

>2K
Why on earth would you want a 2K screen? They're deprecated even in cinema

>psychoacoustically-accurate speakers are always (always!) preferred over colored speakers.
Wrong. For example most people don't like the "sharp/dry" sound of HS80M, even though they're extremely popular as studio monitors.
>those things are literally opposites.
Wrong, They both result in very sharp transitions of the waveform. Speakers are designed to interpolate this (or they do by nature because of lacking hardware). Some monitor's don't, which makes it sound worse, which is useful when you want to eliminate it.

Also, speakers/monitors was just an example. No use for you to get all caught up in it. The thread is about screen calibration

I've heard that the spyder devices suffer from a bit of hardware lottery. They don't QC them as rigorously, or at least they didn't for the older spyder models. (I read this before the spyder 5 line got introduced)

Personally I ended up getting an i1 Display Pro instead, and I have been extremely happy with it. It's stupidly fast compared to my old Spyder3 which took like 10x the amount of time per reading, which is a big upgrade - even a placebo-tier calibration will finish in 1 hour instead of 10 hours.

The i1 Display Pro also exposes its own internal spectral curves which allows you to adapt the sensor for use with multiple types of displays (especially important to me since I had a wide gamut GB-r LED display and a wide gamut CCFL-W display that I needed to calibrate, rather than just your typical W-LED sRGB curves), but I think the newer spyder models do that as well. (The spyder 3 definitely did not!)

Anyway, I can highly recommend the i1 Display Pro, but the newer spyders might be better than the older ones as well.

My dell ultrasharp was factory calibrated, the monitor came with a printed report.

10-bit matters only if your software stack can handle it, which generally means “no”.

Some exceptions apply, for example mpv or krita on Linux with nvidia GPUs can take advantage of 10-bit rendering. I wouldn't try your luck with AMD or Windows though.

That said, panels which are advertised as 10-bit at least tell you that the underlying panel is natively 8 bit (since all “10 bit” panels use 8 bit + AFRC dithering), so that's a plus even if you're using it in 8 bit mode. (Compred to cheaper displays which might be 7 or 6 bit instead)

All factory calibrations I've seen are rubbish. Either they calibrate to the wrong curve, or they calibrate to the wrong white point, or they simply don't calibrate it very accurately (i.e. using very fast and rough calibrations instead of slower ones, to save on costs).

Plus, you also need an ICC profile to take advantage of color managed applications, and I don't know of any manufacturer which provides ICC profiles for every device shipped.

>Spectrometers don't have that problem. They can accurately quantify anything.
Except near-black colors, where they suffer greatly. You can't reliable measure black points with spectrophotometers, for example.

Normally you buy a colorimeter if you want to calibrate a display, and then you might *also* buy a spectrophotometer if you need even more accuracy for whatever reason (or if you need to calibrate a printer or something for your workflow), but the latter doesn't really replace the former because of the issue mentioned.

See I've owned multiple high-end dell and LG monitors, all of which came with a printed factory calibration report. They were all wildly inconsistent. The factory calibration is essentially completely meaningless. Even the white point is completely off, for example in my U2410 they calibrated their sRGB mode to 5500K instead of 6500K which is just sad.

The gamma curves were all completely different as well. Some were sRGB, some were pure power 2.2, some were other gamma values, and basically none were BT.1886 (which is what I *actually* want for my displays)

The “factory calibration” is completely and utterly meaningless. It's just marketing bullshit.

people don't like the sound of the HS80M (and other such monitors) because they are NOT psychoacoustically-accurate. there's far more to accurate reproduction than a flat on-axis behavior.


>The thread is about screen calibration
but the discussion is about production vs reproduction, and audio's an incredibly relevant example of how badly an entire industry can get this wrong.

>there's far more to accurate reproduction than a flat on-axis behavior.
For example by not interpolating discontinuations. Which the HS80M doesn't. Which makes them sound bad for listening. Which is why "Even rich professional producers have different gear in studio and at home"

>Why on earth would you want a 2K screen? They're deprecated even in cinema

why would I want a 4k?? it would have to be at least 30 inches, and thats too big for my desk.

I would get a 4k 27 inch if they were same price/quality as the 2k ones.. but nope, you get bleeding and shittier clours

also, 4k would rape my GPU in games

Don't have to go all the way to 4K. Why not something like 2560x1440 (or 2560x1600 if you're a placebo memester)?

It will be cheaper than a 2K display while still delivering better image quality, because 1440p is actually a common resolution unlike 2K.

oh, my bad, i thought 1440p was 2k... yeah, I was thinking 1440p

Oh, that explains it. For the record, 2K is 2048x1080 (it's exactly half of 4K which is 4096x2160)

Well I'm buying a ColorMunki Display.

Yay or nay?

> interpolating discontinuations

ahh, there it is again. you're describing frequency response, boring as that may seem. the sharper the "discontinuity", the higher frequency it represents. these sharp transitions in rise/fall time are low-passed by the amp, speaker, and your hearing system.

what is audible is the sudden change in magnitude, aka dynamics aka those "spikes".

re: interpolation: how does the speaker differentiate between distortion caused by poor mastering and distortion put there by the musician? it can't. correct for the handful shit and you ruin art everywhere else.


the "sharp/dry" sound is caused by: the rising treble response yamaha employ to combat narrowing directivity in the same region. uncorrected sharp peaks of linear distortion in the 3-6KHz range (where our hearing is most sensitive), sharp baffle edges causes diffraction, and overall omni-like directivity that causes early reflections off of objects around the speakers (desks!). again, bad monitors, regardless of popularity.

rich producers listen to JBL M2s and the like. the compression drivers in those will melt your face off with dynamics, yet they're described as sounding like "silky smooth dome tweeters". they're simultaneously some of the most enjoyable speakers AND the best monitors ever made.

>JBL M2
These are the most accurate speakers ever made but it does use DSP to attain that high level of accuracy.

It's fine. Basically a rebranded i1 Display Pro that measures slower (about 5x slower). Accuracy should be similar, and the software is also not included (but that's not an issue because ArgyllCMS beats the shit out of proprietary offerings anyway)

Yay, but the cheapest Spyder5 might be a good idea if you want something cheaper

>Spyder5
Well I'm seeing mixed reports on the Spyder's performance.

All I care about is sensor performance because I'm gonna use the software suggested.

Colormunki Display is your best bet, check for deals on the i1Display Pro, it can sometimes be found for the same price as the Colormunki

Alright thanks, I may just get the more expensive option since I'm gonna be using it for years.

>If you're not a content creator, calibrating your monitor according to standards is just an autistic e-peen thing for faggots.
Why? I want accurate colors on my battlestation.