Ugra Udact For Mac
Does anyone know what the temperature is for the native white point of the LP2475w? I don't find this information listed in any of the HP literature and the so-called tech experts at HP seem to have difficulty even understanding the question. And, please, try to refrain from telling me this is the wrong forum. I find I get far better information about such things from this forum than from others that, on the face of it, would appear to be more relevant. I've posted this question on several others and haven't even gotten any attempts at a response.
Thanks, - gollywop. Yes, thanks, I've seen that site. While 6500 is the default setting, that is a standard preset and is not the native white point. At those default settings, basICColor (before any adjustments) reports a white point of roughly 7770K, which is likely quite close. And, indeed, when I calibrate the LP4475w with a white point of 7750K, the screen 'white' is really quite good - it doesn't appear to have the slightly red cast that occurs at 65K or the blue that occurs at 9300. And the resulting calibration is excellent with a max deltaE94 of 0.54 and an average of 0.20. I get a similar temperature when I apply basiICColor using 'native' as a target, but the white has a definite greenish cast.
I get the best results when I apply a custom target of 7750K and set the RGB to achieve that target. Also, to achieve a reasonable luminance level of approximately 120, the brightness must be reduced significantly - to 17 or 18, with contrast at 80.
I was just wondering if anyone knew what the actual native (not default) temperature was supposed to be. Rickard Hansson wrote: Well, the white point is whatever you wish it to be, why use any 'native' whitepoint if it differs compared to your workflow? For example, all of our customers are using whitepoint 5000k as they are in the printing industries and I use it as well. Some use 5500, 6500 (mostly photographers) and in your case, you use even higher (to blue for me). I use 5000k for my HP. For one thing, it was the only temp I could use to get the brightness down to a reasonable level.
The LP2475w is the brightest monitor I've ever owned, by far. In the room lighting that I normally use and for the printers that are used by the labs that I use, the monitor brightness is way out there, even at the lowest settings. To spite your face, malch, in this case. The LP2475w is a thoroughly excellent monitor. That is surely my opinion, but not mine alone. I was led in that direction by a couple of chaps who are in the monitor calibration business and who were very impressed with this unit - and not just because of the price, which makes it a real bargain.
It's hard to find any unit with an H-IPS panel below $1,000. At $600, this is really something. I have been extremely happy with mine, as have been many others, judging by the comments in various threads. I not only have no complaints, I am thrilled with the image quality and color. As I noted in a previous post, I have been able to calibrate this (using basICColor) at virtually all temperatures with maximum deltaE94's below 0.6.
Ugra Udact For Mac
Yes, I said maximum. Gollywop wrote: to spite your face, malch, in this case. The LP2475w is a thoroughly excellent monitor. That is surely my opinion, but not mine alone. You may be right. I've read quite a few reviews and although mainly positive there are some issues with the out-of-the-box settings. It seems there may be some sample variation problems too.
But most of all I've lost confidence in HP's commitment to standing behind the product with quality support and service. I'm happy the LP2475w is working out well for you. I think I'll have to go a different route but that's okay. Hey, some of my best friends are Canon users.
Malch wrote: gollywop wrote: to spite your face, malch, in this case. The LP2475w is a thoroughly excellent monitor.
That is surely my opinion, but not mine alone. You may be right. I've read quite a few reviews and although mainly positive there are some issues with the out-of-the-box settings. I'm not sure it's wise or fair to judge anything on its out-of-the-box settings.
After all, they have no idea what exactly you want to use the unit for, and different uses will require different adjustments. The question to my mind is whether it is capable of being readily adjusted to excellent behavior for photographic images - and it certainly can. It seems there may be some sample variation problems too. But most of all I've lost confidence in HP's commitment to standing behind the product with quality support and service. On this issue, I cannot argue with you. Certainly my attempts to deal with them have produced laughable results.
As I say, even their tech chaps seem relatively clueless. I'm happy the LP2475w is working out well for you. I think I'll have to go a different route but that's okay. Hey, some of my best friends are Canon users Good luck. There are a number of good monitors out there, and I'm sure you'll end up with something fine. Malch wrote: I've read quite a few reviews and although mainly positive there are some issues with the out-of-the-box settings. It seems there may be some sample variation problems too.
But most of all I've lost confidence in HP's commitment to standing behind the product with quality support and service. Well, to be fair, name me any monitor at any price that doesn't have to be calibrated out-of-the-box. Just changing a monitor's position in a room requires recalibration.
The LP2475W is not perfect, but it does provide excellent value - just be sure to figure in the cost of a colour calibrator. Gollywop wrote: I'm not sure it's wise or fair to judge anything on its out-of-the-box settings. After all, they have no idea what exactly you want to use the unit for, and different uses will require different adjustments. True but it seems the HP is often out of whack by a very considerable margin and that raises some doubts in my mind with regard to the final testing prior to packaging and shipping. It seems that quite a few folks have problems getting the device calibrated too although that might involve user error, some poor documentation or whatever. There are a number of good monitors out there, and I'm sure you'll end up with something fine. Yeah, my current monitor, a 5 year old 18 inch Sony, is still working infuriatingly well without a single dead/hot pixel.
The colors are not too shabby either after calibration. That is UGRA:s 'Display Analysis and Certification Tool'. It will ananlyse your display and verify it against AdobeRGB, sRGB, ECIRGB, ISOCoated, ISOUncoated, ISOnewspaper and the FOGRA CMYK strip that is printer as verification strip on proofs. It will also do an homogeneity test to check that the screen/display is giving the same colors and brightness over the whole display and not just in the middle where the callibration was done. This is an professional tool and costs a few hundred dollars, but worth it if you are hardcore when it comes to colors on dispalys.
Re: Are gamma discrepancies relevant? Re: Are gamma discrepancies relevant?. Subject: Re: Are gamma discrepancies relevant?. From: Koch Karl.
Date: Fri, 03 Apr 2009 09:51:51 +0200. Delivered-to: email@hidden.
Delivered-to: email@hidden Hi all, I´m glad that (nearly) everybody oagrees on what I wrote earlier, yet there obviously are still some doubts. Am um 07:49 schrieb Marco Ugolini: In a message dated 4/2/09 10:35 PM, Klaus Karcher wrote: Marco Ugolini wrote: I don't think any of this proves anything much about inherent advantages accruing from the concordance of TRCs between the file and the monitor profile: it only proves that a file will be subjected to the least possible amount of potentially damaging transformations when.it effectively does not undergo any transformations at all! That much I agree with.:-) So we agree upon the statement that every conversion in 8 bpc leaves its marks in the form of banding, missing steps and color shifts. It creates the possibility of that sort of results, yes. That´s all I ever meant to say;-) But 'possibility' is very vague – if you want to be on the safe side, you want to avoid 'possibilities' altogether. The.actual.
results will vary based on many variables, and banding is not a.necessary. consequence in each and every instance. Still, it does happen often enough to be a sizable concern. (As the color spaces are not perceptually uniform, some of them are more annoying than others. Meaning just monitor profile spaces, or all color spaces, working spaces included?
Even more so, when they interact – and they always do. If you display a file on your monitor, there are always working space and monitor space involved.
Along the gray axis we are particularly sensible for those quantization artifacts. The larger the differences between the encodings, the more artifacts will be visible.) The logical conclusion for me is to avoid 8 bit transformations as much as possible, e.g. By performing display calibrations or even colorspace conversions with higher bit depths inside the monitor, by co-ordinating working- and display TRCs - or by widening the bottleneck of current display interfaces.
Again, I don't think that 'co-ordinating working- and display TRCs' does much to solve the problem, because it's a solution only in the absence of vcgt curves, which always exist in monitor profiles. But they are linear und thus innoxious if you have a hardware- calibrated monitor. I agree much more strongly on the desirability and usefulness of on- board high-bit monitor LUTs, or even. Heaven forfend. High-bit display cards in the CPU itself! We´re on the way, if you look at the new Mac Pros. But there is still a long way to go.
As a software manufacturer, I dread the consequences. As long as there is no established standard, and as long as we have a mixture of 'old' 8bit and new high-bit graphic cards plus high-bit LUTs in Monitors, a general solution that suits all scenarios will be complicated to write – and thus so expensive that no one will be prepared to paythe price;-) You may say I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one.;-) no, you´re not! Marco Karl Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored. Colorsync-users mailing list (email@hidden) Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription: This email sent to email@hidden References: (From: Marco Ugolini ). Prev by Date:.
Next by Date:. Previous by thread:. Next by thread:.
Index(es):. Apple Footer This site contains user submitted content, comments and opinions and is for informational purposes only.
Apple may provide or recommend responses as a possible solution based on the information provided; every potential issue may involve several factors not detailed in the conversations captured in an electronic forum and Apple can therefore provide no guarantee as to the efficacy of any proposed solutions on the community forums. Apple disclaims any and all liability for the acts, omissions and conduct of any third parties in connection with or related to your use of the site.
All postings and use of the content on this site are subject to the.