Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Log in
  • Hey all, just changed over the backend after 15 years I figured time to give it a bit of an update, its probably gonna be a bit weird for most of you and i am sure there is a few bugs to work out but it should kinda work the same as before... hopefully :)

Colorgrading - Monitor Recommendation

Looking at the Color Navigator software I found a setting that lets you change the gamma tone curve from ICC profile to LUT. I called Eizo and the person I spoke to didn't understand what I was asking about it being LUT or ICC profile and told me to email someone, which I've done and am waiting to get a proper answer. Do you think that setting would make it LUT-based calibration?

Also in the ColorNavigator software you can load 3D LUTs into the software for emulating other displays, print media, and film.
 
Not sure about the 'change' option - it's never worked for me...

But, the other LUTs you refer too are for emulation of other 'looks' not calibration.
When you load the LUT it is concatenated with the existing calibration profile, so is useless for real calibration.

Steve
 
Yes, that's what I thought about those emulation LUTs. Through my additional research I've found the answer. The Eizo uses an internal 3D LUT. The ColorNavigator software interfaces with that 3D LUT and adjusts/writes to it during the calibration. So it is in fact LUT-based and not ICC-based. Should be great for color grading.
 
Steve, your thoughts on an NEC PA271 + XRite calibrator?

This is for web-based work only. I know proper monitoring should be over SDI to a calibrated monitor, but it doesn't make sense to invest when display tech is changing fast and our work will never be shown in a broadcast environment. What do you think?
 
Being an IPS panel is good - but Spectraview as a calibration system is not...

There are very few internal calibration system that actually work. That is why manufactures such as Penta nd FSI, which are higher-end, have adopted LightSpace CMS.

It really is a question of pay more to get more.

Displays such as the NEC and Eizo are great for GUI and vfx work applications, but I would never recommend them for critical colour work.

Steve
 
Steve, I'm still not sure why you're saying the Eizo is not recommended for color critical work? I've found out and confirmed that its calibration is in fact based on a 3D LUT, which is opposite of the reason you gave for it not being good for color grading. And using an external probe/sensor such as the i1Display Pro spectralphotometer (instead of the built-in colorimeter) can be done with either the CG246 or CX240 and are fully supported by Eizo's software to write directly to the monitor's 3D LUT.

What other issues are there that make it not suitable? I'm pushing the issue only because I'm very close to pulling the trigger on one of those Eizo monitors and everything else I'm reading about it online says opposite of what you're saying and that they are actually great.

Thanks for your continued input.
 
I'm only reporting our own experience.

We never use or recommend Eizo displays for anything other than good GUI displays.
That is based on direct experience of comparison with many other displays.

There are other things that are covered by the NDA, but actually they are of little importance by comparison.

Bottom line, we do not recommend them based on our own experience.

Also, not all LUT based calibration is equal (if they really have dropped ICC based calibration, which I am unsure of).

See: http://www.lightillusion.com/delta-e.html

Steve
 
Steve Shaw said:
I'm only reporting our own experience.

We never use or recommend Eizo displays for anything other than good GUI displays.
That is based on direct experience of comparison with many other displays.

There are other things that are covered by the NDA, but actually they are of little importance by comparison.

Bottom line, we do not recommend them based on our own experience.

Also, not all LUT based calibration is equal (if they really have dropped ICC based calibration, which I am unsure of).

See: http://www.lightillusion.com/delta-e.html

Steve
Click to expand...


Steve's completely on point here. Proper calibration is not really a "feature" of a display like contrast ratio, refresh rate, or screen size. It's a terribly intricate collision of art & science. Sometimes it works but most of the time it tries very, very hard to get close. Recognizing proper calibration is a whole other issue. Those that really get it have usually been at it for quite some time (10+ years). Just because a new piece of display tech promises the ability to self-calibrate to rec709, DCI, XYZ, whatever doesn't mean it can actually deliver. Proper input / output / display / and transform LUTs in the chain are difficult to pull off successfully. Not only do you need to be doing it right, you need to know that you're doing it right. Remember: you don't want the best display, you want the most accurate one.

Personally I've found my Cine-tals to be fairly consistent throughout the years. I use a NEC as my GUI display and have the ability to route the same video signal through both. The NEC maintains a pretty good calibration for the price point even after I've banged it up over the past year on-set. That being said, remember that I'm using a $25K Grade 1 Display (Cine-tal) running advanced internal color calibration software (CineSpace) as a reference point. The gamma on my NEC is pretty good but not as smooth as my Cine-tal. My NEC has also shifted a bit green and desaturated overall. Even with the ability to run an external probe with the NEC's internal calibration (SpectraView) I'm just calibrating what the display thinks is wrong. It can't seem to calibrate out the green because it's running a closed system. I would need an external LUT box to get it right and at that point it ain't worth it. Now if you owned and used the NEC it might be great. It might stay in calibration over time. Or it might go a bit green. Or a bit magenta like the last NEC I had before I ended up trashing it. But how would you know if it was right? For the price it's pretty good but you do get what you pay for.

I'd also like to second Steve's thoughts on the Flander's announcement of LightSpace CMS integration. This is the real deal. I'm very excited. I may quickly brush aside my Cine-tals for an FSI running a LightSpace calibration. You couldn't even get close to this level of display calibration for under $10K just a few months ago. At $5000 for their top-of-the-line 24" display this a HUGE bargin for color-critical work.
 
Steve Shaw said:
Yep, they are doing it wrong, and many are looking for alternatives as they have now realised the serious problems ABL generates...

We get a lot of calls from customers trying to use plasmas for grading, asking how they can calibrate to overcome the problems - you can't... just not possible.

To see the problems in action is very easy.

Put an average image on screen - something with a decent dynamic range. Then drag a full white rectangle slowly across the screen. The underlying image will change as the white rectangle increases in size!

This make plasmas totally unsuitable for grading.

Plasmas were originally used as they did promise a good image for not a lot, but the manufacturers were not overly truthful about the effects of ABL.

Now the real problems are well understood few would chose them.
Click to expand...


Experienced colorists are most likely aware of plasma's ABL, since their job relies on ability to notice things like these, and still use them regardless of this limitation. Not because of the price, because of grading on emissive technology with different effect, more natural roll-off to extreme values, and stripped from pixel response time limitation and fake motion which LCD technology and its 8-16 ms create. There's the minimum 5000:1 native contrast thing as well, without the local dimming/halos introducing trickery. All of these factors combined subliminally affect the overall impression of the display, some being more sensitive to it, some less. Which may very well be why many post houses use them, regardless of a highly strict technical perspective regarding ABL.

LCD technology is flawed by principles of dual mediums creating one image, being a transmissive technology, and by its motion rendition. Plasma has the fluctuations and ABL in rare scenarios but its picture representation tends to feel more natural and less "plasticky". Factors which may be less of importance when one is professionally nitpicking about the display's utmost color accuracy in all possible scenarios (necessary, understandable and respectable in the context of professional display calibration and profiling), but might be more of an importance when one is staring at the screen all day and professionally nitpicking about aesthetics and the overall feel of the image.
The "feel" which cannot be quantified or measured by CS-200. One can understand and appreciate the technical perspective. Hopefully this perspective can be understandable as well.


Some colorists also do their tests with technology they rely on.










24zg5zm.jpg
 
Hey Hrvoje:

Agreed. At a certain point technical precision produces diminishing results. Of course, it usually takes years of experience to recognize how pragmatic or perfect you need to be to get the job done right.


BTW: Is that your own test chart? And how do you usually use it?
 
That's a frame grab from our animation, designed and made for testing plasma's ABL and its effect on the overall image.
White circle changes size from very small until it completely covers the background.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top