[MacKayaker]

Quote:

---

Colorsync can perform most of the critical calibration of LCD monitors -- this is superior to adjusting these variables on an LCD monitor itself.

---

Explain yourself. This makes no sense.
Colorsync is the part of the OS software that's used for color management, but without a colorimeter and a display having the ability to be tweaked, there is no calibration functionality that I am aware of. It's a part of why a number of high end displays have come with their own colorimeters, because it was one way the manufacturer could assure the customer had a complete solution, since the reality is that most people just buy a monitor, not understanding the critical role of an objectively accurate measuring device and software suited to the tasks of calibrating and/or profiling in a color managed workflow. Because of our brains, our eyes don't even begin to be qualified for that purpose. So help me understand what you are saying.

[ssdguy]

Quote:

---

New display announcements must be near. I'm guessing models with iSight cameras since the external camera's demise. I know, a no brainer.
Cheers!
---RASTER

---

I wonder how effective an iSight on a 30"ACD would work. As it is, even with the 17" iMacs, you're always seen looking down since it's difficult to look at the camera and focus on the screen at the same time ... whether in iChat or even photobooth. On a big 30" ACD, this would be even worse. One would almost need some sort of swing arm for the camera to get a face-on view. Maybe there's a software or optical solution to this ... like a keystone correction on a projector?
I posted the following on a discussion about the 30"ACD but it may also apply to this topic as well:
I don't get all whining about the expense of a 30" ACD or other large displays. I paid $1500 for my first 17" NEC CRT and $1800 for my current 23"ACD. When I'm ready, I'll gladly pay the new $1800 price for a 30"ACD. I compare what I get now for my dollars to what I got years ago and it's a no-brainer. Since we don't have A TV in our home, we currently use the 23" ACD for movies. The 30"ACD will be a welcome addition for family movie nights. So ... two birds with one display I guess?
Personally, I like the height of a 30" display. I often work on tall format print projects and it's nice to see all of a spread at 100% without zooming (and still have lots of L to R real estate for pallets) or having to make printouts all the time. I'm amazed at how seldom I have to make printouts with the 23". The 30" will be even better. I also prefer the industrial design of the ACD over the creaky plastic of the Dell's. You get what you pay for I guess?

[dansterpower]

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Colorsync can perform most of the critical calibration of LCD monitors -- this is superior to adjusting these variables on an LCD monitor itself.

---

Explain yourself. This makes no sense.
Colorsync is the part of the OS software that's used for color management, but without a colorimeter and a display having the ability to be tweaked, there is no calibration functionality that I am aware of. It's a part of why a number of high end displays have come with their own colorimeters, because it was one way the manufacturer could assure the customer had a complete solution, since the reality is that most people just buy a monitor, not understanding the critical role of an objectively accurate measuring device and software suited to the tasks of calibrating and/or profiling in a color managed workflow. Because of our brains, our eyes don't even begin to be qualified for that purpose. So help me understand what you are saying.

---

Just like the original Adobe Gamma in Photoshop, Colorsync Does Indeed have basic Calibration Control over a monitor -- certainly it is basic and based on one's eye -- but so is the approach you mentioned in Tweaking an LCD monitor's front panel controls -- given a comparison of the, the Colorsync Calibration trumps the Monitor Control Calibration as Colorsync is a direct bridge between the monitor and the OS.
Now if you want to expand the discussion of Calibration to include a Colorimeter, which I personally use, then this is an entirely different animal, and a much more precise animal indeed -- but again, the best colorimeters and calibration setups use SOFTWARE to tweak a display and not display controls -- like you, I make my living doing this exact type of work for major US children's book publishers (which all publish very color-demanding children's books), so like you, I know what we are discussing.
My only point is that on-panel Monitor Controls are not very usesful.
Calibration via Colorimeter and match software is. Colorsync is a basic form of this: look at the calibrate button in Colorsync to see the basic features (ie temperature, hue/contrast/brightness/cast, etc).
Profiling is an entirely different matter.

[MacKayaker]

Respectfully, Apple has done users a great disservice calling what they offer a calibration, since there is no objective basis for the tweaks made based on objective evaluation of the display. While it can be better than nothing at all, it isn't even on the same planet as using a colorimeter. I have attempted to make it clear that I was talking about making front panel monitor tweaks ONLY with the aid of a colorimeter and software - otherwise, there is no reliable basis for the tweaks. And there is no objective basis for tweaks in Apple's "Calibrate" option, any more than there was in Gamma. If anything, it is a step back in time to a conceptually less informed time. No need to go there. I use this only for customers who are not doing color critical work to improve the contrast and range of their display, but as trained as my eyes are, it doesn't keep my brain from processing what they see, so it's clearly not objective in any way.

[dansterpower]

Yes, I totally agree with you regarding Colorsync "Calibration:" The only issue I take with you is the Front Panel Monitor Control thing -- I am not a big fan of using monitor controls, other than a little brightness or contrast, for any sort of calibration.
For this I agree with you that a Colorimeter and Software is the way to go.

[MacKayaker]

The better the software one is using with their colorimeter, the more controls one may want to access. For example - on good CRTs an on some newer LCDs you have R, G, and B controls - which is necessary to calibrate a display to a given standard and have the display neutral. Without them, you really can't calibrate the display. At that point, it really is just a matter of setting the white and black points using contrast and brightness, then profiling. What works best varies from brand and model to brand and model. There still is some art as well as science to this, but none of this should be done without the best software and colorimeter one can afford.
Personally, I'm glad to still be using CRTs for most of my color critical work. By the time they wear out, the LCDs will be that much better. I've never had a color problem with a print project from my setup and I get called to fix a lot of problematic jobs. I've worked with a boatload of LCDs and their inherent brightness is always a bit of an issue that has to be learned. TVs need to be bright because that's consistent with NTSC, PAL, etc. Monitors, especially for print and photography don't need that kind of brightness is my opinion. I'm willing to be wrong on that one - it's just an opinion based on my own experiences. And consider this - the higher the contrast, the lower the dynamic range, which means the fewer the colors the display can reproduce, leading to posterisation in subtle gradients. . . . Always more to learn as this field and the technology driving it evolves.