Hardware monitor calibration - most accurate software?

Hello,

I've made a few most needed upgrades recently , a new monitor(Dell U2711) and a hardware calibrator(X-rite DTP-94)
I have been testing a few different calibration softwares, but as am getting different results.

In a perfect situation, I assume, when the monitor is calibrated, then no matter which software is used with the DTP-94 the result should be the same, and I shouln't see any difference while changing icc profiles - however this is not the case.

So why do I get different results with each software? is the color displayed in the monitor changing on each reading, or is the software interpreting different values of what is shown in the monitor?


The programmes I've used until now are:
The software the came with the hardware: iDisplayColor
ColorEyes from http://www.integrated-color.com/
and BasicColor Display from: http://www.basiccolor.de/english/Datenblaetter_E/display_E/display_E.htm

I haven't be able to find others.

I have not been able to find any compasion/test/benchmark of different calibration software to determine which ones are the best in terms of reading the most correct values you can trust.

So i need some advice, which of these software measure the most currect?
Thanks in advance !

Hi, Nuno,

Nuno Alexandre said:

Hello,

I've made a few most needed upgrades recently , a new monitor(Dell U2711) and a hardware calibrator(X-rite DTP-94)
I have been testing a few different calibration softwares, but as am getting different results.

Click to expand...

I will probably not be able to give any insight into the problem, but to help others who may be able to, could you tell us in what way you were able to conclude that the results were different using the different software packages.

In any case, here is one thought.

Often these packages provide for two separate, but often confused, operations:

• Calibration - here, the entries in the lookup tables in the display driver are optimized so that the (measured) response of the display system is as close as possible to following some standard color space (often sRGB).

• Profiling - Here, the response of the already calibrated display system is measured and described in a profile file. Profile-aware image applications then use this information to guide "precompensating" the colors in an image file so that, presented to the display system, it will produce the intended colors.

The calibration process rarely can produces display behavior that is "ideal" (which is of course why the profile is still needed). Different software packages may have different views as to what is the "best available, admittedly not ideal" calibration state for the display.

Of course, each package should (hopefully) adopt a reasonable calibration state for the display and then, with that calibration state in effect, determine the profile that best describes the behavior of the system with that calibration state in effect.

If we have generated two different icc profiles through this process, and then put first one and then the other into effect, while leaving the calibration state of the display fixed, the resulting overall behavior of the system may not be consistent. ("Nominating" different profiles for use by profile-aware image applications does not make a change in the calibration settings in the display driver.)

Is is possible that the inconsistencies you observe come from this situation.

Best regards,

Doug

Doug Kerr said:

Hi, Nuno,
...could you tell us in what way you were able to conclude that the results were different using the different software packages.

Click to expand...

What I did was, made a icc profile with each software package, and added them to the colormanagement on windows 7, then just swap between them, by setting one at a time as the default one.
One is more blue, the other more yellow, even though the settings are the 'same' on all the software (started with AdobeRGB on the monitor and then adjusted the individual R, G, B values, Brightness lowered to around 20% , Gamma, 2.2, D65 etc.. )

Hi, Nuno,

Nuno Alexandre said:

What I did was, made a icc profile with each software package, and added them to the colormanagement on windows 7, then just swap between them, by setting one at a time as the default one.

Click to expand...

Thanks.

I am not familiar with the color management on any versions of Windows beyond XP.

There, if one "sets" a different profile, it doesn't directly do anything. The OS does not itself actually do anything with profiles. That is left up to profile-aware applications. However, a profile-aware application may, unless the user tells it otherwise, use the profile we have "set" into Windows as the default (which it will find out from the OS).

I need to find out more about the Windows 7 color management system.

It is possible that the problem is what I mentioned: that the different calibration-profiling packages ended up with different "calibrations" of the display, one of which remains in force even though it may not be the proper "predicate" for the other profiles.

I'm, not sure what would be the handiest way to probe that possibility (but see below).

In any case, if you somehow choose the package you will rely on, I would suggest that you:

• Perform a calibration and then a profiling of the display with that package.

Make sure that only the "lookup table loader" installed by the package is working. See my recent post here for more details on this concept:

http://www.openphotographyforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=12824

It may be that your various packages give the option of doing profiling but not calibration (basing their work on whatever condition of "calibration" the display system is already in).

Then you could run both calibration and profiling with package A, then run only profiling with package B and package C (both will be predicated on the display behavior as dictated by the calibration put into play by package A), giving of course different names for the resulting profiles.

Then successively put those profiles into effect and see if the discrepancy in color rendition you mention is still present.

Best regards,

Doug

Hi, Nuno,

I learn that Windows 7 has its own "LUT loader". But Microsoft suggests that if an LUT loader is installed by the user's calibration package, it is perhaps best to leave it in place rather than relying on the Windows one.

Here's the Microsoft discussion of this:

http://windows.microsoft.com/en-US/windows7/Change-color-management-settings

It seem to be pretty clear and thorough.

Best regards,

Doug

I don't pretend to be an expert.

I have ColorEyes but not the other two. However I use NEC Spectraview II because I have NEC monitors and that allows me direct hardware calibration. I haven't heard of iDisplayColor but both ColorEyes and BasICColor should be good. Actually, they were both the same company at one stage.

I can think of three possibilities:
(1) The manual calibration process is imprecise and you are getting variations there
(2) There are some settings that you are not noticing that vary between the two
(3) The different software packages give different results with the same settings and are optimised for different settings. (eg, ColorEyes recommends L* while NEC does not)

Perhaps if you print out a printer test image with no correction and then again after adjusting white balance for each profile, that will give you a sense of which is more accurate and then you can try other adjustments.

Regards,
Murray

OK, I'm not paying attention to what Doug is saying. I know Coloreyes has its own LUT loader, I presume BasICColor does as well. I don't know how they work in competition. Maybe have only one installed at a time and reboot to be sure that LUT loader is operating and test by printing test images...

Regards,
Murray

Man to psychiatrist: Doctor! Doctor! Nobody ever pays any attention to what I say:

Psychiatrist: Next?

Best regards,

Doug

Fellow OPF member and color management priest, Andrew Rodney, is your friend.. He literally wrote the book on this subject.

Personally, several years ago I became tired of such issues so I threw money at the problem and bought the Gretag-MacBeth (now X-Rite?) EyeOne system for monitor and print calibration. It only hurts for a moment (when you pay the bill). Afterwords I've lived in a color environment of peace and harmony.

Thanks so far for all the input and for your time writing.

To keep things simple, I've given up on trying to find out what software is best, and just stick with the one that came with the hardware(DTP-94) which is the iColorDisplay (http://www.quato.de)

The calibration results seem to be quite good to my untrained eye, and it even made a PDF
file with the results in a easy to understand way.

I've uploaded it, in case someone wants to take a look at the readings:
Calibration log results

The next step was to download some test images/print samples to test how the prints look, compared to what I was seeing on the monitor.

The image I downloaded to test was downloaded from here:
http://www.northlight-images.co.uk/downloadable_1/DL_page.html

Direct link:
http://www.northlight-images.co.uk/downloadable_2/Test_Image_2.zip

Printer settings were, at first, to let "PS manage colors" the resulting print was dull,lacking contrast, lifeless color, skin color is greenish/gray and the blacks not deep and dark, but dark gray.

Second try was to let the printer(Pixma 9500Mrk II) manage color, the resulting print was similar in the dark areas, same issue with the blacks, skin color is way too reddish/pink still lacking contrast.

Neither print result, come near to what am seeing on the monitor when the image is opened in PS. The skin tones are fine, the dark areas are dark as they should, and the image has overall good color and details.

So am getting lost to what is so wrong in this setup.
Am thinking about taking this test image, and have it printed in a lab, and then change whatever needed in my setup, to get as close as possible print, to the result from the lab.
Having done that once, then its just run the 'macro' on all images prior to print.

Any advice ?

Thanks in advance.

I think i fixed the problem, i changed paper type(BarytaFB from Hahnemühle) and now it looks amazing.

What to learn from this:
Don't use cheap paper to make test prints.

Nuno Alexandre said:

I have not been able to find any compasion/test/benchmark of different calibration software to determine which ones are the best in terms of reading the most correct values you can trust.

Click to expand...

With the same display and instrument, they will all very likely produce different results. The math is different, the colors they measure and how they build the profiles are different. The bottom line is, do the prints next to the display visually match? The numbers you ask for (luminance, White Point) are moot until you get a match and if different products produce different results with the same numbers, the key is getting numbers that result in a match.
See: http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/why_are_my_prints_too_dark.shtml