taschin

Thanks

From what explained here (SHARP NEC DISPLAY SOLUTIONS SpectraView II ReadMe)

I would say that I have no hope.

Dear Andrew, thank you for your feedback,

I didn't take into consideration your configuration (hub + HDMI-DVI adapter) because Nec had replaied me that: "As for Spectraview the only displays that can be calibrated with the new M1 chips are displays with a USB-B connection for communication. The P221 does not have USB-B so Spectraview will not recognize it." Maybe the problem is the different chip that has a different kind of integrated GPU. It's really frustrating not being able to use the old monitor. What I tried to do is to performe the hardware calibration with my old Air and then to do only the profile in the new Air by displaycal, but the results are disappointing. Yet, these adapters are active device with a chip inside and different brands of adapters seem to behave differently, I tested two, the Startech CDP2DVI seems to work better, but still there seem to be some problems. Even with the old Air the only one adapter (Thunderbolt 2 to DVI) that worked properly was the Apple adapter. Nevertheless, I can try with your suggestion. Could you say me what kind of adapter and hub are you using? Thank you.

Bye

Hi to everybody,

I have an old Nec P221W still perfectly functioning, which I used until now Macbook Air 2017 with the Apple Thunderbolt 2 to DVI port adapter, hardware calibration and profiling work properly. Now I bought a new MacBook Air with M1 chip. I'm using the Startech CDP2DVI USB-C to DVI adapter. Spectraview ii does't recognize the P221w and NEC support says that unfortunately this is normal: only monitor with USB data trasmission properly work. Yet, I have a huge problem also to using the monitor in native configuration and performing only a LUT+matrix profile with displaycal and the spyder 3 colorimeter: the gradients after the profiling are terrible. I'm wondering what is the better adapter or configuration in order to coninue using my old monitor. Is there the possibility to recover the hardware calibration?

Thank you

Bye

Andrea

<p>Hi Tim, my landscape format photos are 825 pixels large and if I open the md and lg downloaded images, the first is untagged and the second s-rgb. This behavior didn't occur before, I'm sure. Moreover I noted that if you apply the multiple upload instead to upload images one by one, the profile gets always stripped. For the portrait format there is no problems instead.</p>

 

<p>Dear Bob, the profile should be always embedded in a image. What you say is not properly true:<br>

"most software assume an sRGB profile as the default"<br>

<br />It depend on the software: for example in photoshop you can choose what to do when you open an untagged image (if you have set right the color management policies), if you choose "Leave as is (don't color manage)" photoshop assume that the rgb values are those of the working space and then makes the monitor compensation (that is convert to the display profile) in order to show it to you. Thus, it depend on the working space you chose.<br>

In a browser software, if it honors the color management, the profile of the image is converted to display profile to make the monitor compensation. With an untagged image the rgb values are interpreted like values of the display profile, this even occurs always in a browser software ,which doesn't honor the color management. This is the reason why in my wide gamut monitor (NEC P221W) an untagged image appears oversatured. Clearly if you have a monitor with a normal gamut similar to an s-rgb the differences are not evident.<br>

Thus saying "so whether or not the image has an embedded sRGB profile won't make any difference to the way it's displayed" is not correct.<br>

So, my opinion is that is always important embedding a profile in an image , generally it is assumed that an image in the web is in the s-rgb space because most of the monitors have a gamut close to this colorspace. <br>

Regards<br>

Andrea</p>

<p>I note that recently the embedded s-rgb profile of my photos is discarded in the normal viewing and it is only correctly embedded in the large viewing. For a user like me that has a wide gamut monitor, the differences between the two configuration is appreciable. Moreover if I use the multiple upload the profile is always descarted.<br>

Thank you very much.<br>

Andrea</p>

<p>Thank you Andrew, I'm sorry for my insistence, finally with spyder 3 what you and Roger suggest is to set the factory setting and use the colorimeter only fro the calibration and then use the factory matrix profile. Isn't it so?<br>

Bye and thank you again for your time.</p>

<p>Dear Roger thank you for your answer, it is a pleasure to talk with you. Your tutorial "A guide to improve your Scan Quality" was been very important for me and from this I learned a lot of things, and it allowed me to know Vuescan and the luminosity masks of Tony Kuyper. Thank you again. About the monitor, I'm perplex . You say that I have to choose "Factory measurements", but Spyder 3 should be a colorimeter suitable for wide gamut monitor. By choosing the "Factory measurementsthis" option, the colorimeter is exploited only for the calibration and not for profiling being the profile a matrix type. Moreover after the calibration I usually profile the monitor with Argyll in order to have a LUT profile. So, what you suggest me is to use the factory primaries and then use the factory profile?</p>

<p>Dear Doug, I know that the monitors and the measuring devices are different, but I don't think that this difference is due to some variability of the green primary of the LCD or the instrument reading. The variability about you talk, for my opinion, is that visible in the oscillation of the value for example from 0.201 to 0.223. Moreover, more or less the filters used in the LCD of the same model are the same. From the values above, you have to admit that the spyder 3 seems measures a x value of the green primary lower. But you should be right, so I ask to the Spyder 3 and P221W owners what are their green primary xy values, just for curiosity. Thank you. Andrea.</p>

<p>I have a LCD monitor NEC P221W which I periodically calibrate by Spectraview ii and a colorimeter DATACOLOR Spyder 3 PRO. I noticed that the xy colorimeter coordinates of green primary are different from that reported for the same monitor. I did a quick search around on the web and I found the values reported below. These have been extracted from the summary information windows of Spectraview ii found in the related website. All refer to the P221W.<br>

NEC MDSVSENSOR (Costum iOne Display v2) <strong>x=0.210, y=0.687</strong>, (http://www.shutterbug.com/content/nec-spectraview-ii-color-system-best-system-price)<br>

X-Rite iOne Display v2 <strong>x=0.223, y=0.696</strong>, (http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8028/7353205626_98c4a4a3c2_z.jpg)<br>

NEC MDSVSENSOR (Costum iOne Display v2) <strong>x=0.207, y=0.691</strong>, (http://static.photo.net/attachments/bboard/00W/00W52F-231899584.jpg)<br>

NEC MDSVSENSOR (Costum iOne Display v2) <strong>x=0.206, y= 0.695</strong>, (http://connect.dpreview.com/forums/thread/3111377?post=40080499&image=1)<br>

X-Rite ColorMunki <strong>x=0.201, y=0.686</strong>, (http://www.imagescience.com.au/kb/questions/142/How+To+Calibrate+An+NEC+Monitor+With+SpectraView+II)<br>

X-Rite i1 Display Pro <strong>x=0.208, y= 0.683</strong>, (http://printandweb.pl/kalibracja/P221w_i1%20display%20pro_01b.jpg)<br>

datacolor spyder 3 <strong>x=0.165, y= 0.714</strong> (http://www.photo.net/digital-darkroom-forum/00X6ya)<br>

datacolor spyder 3 <strong>x= 0.169, y=0.682</strong> my monitor <br>

datacolor spyder 3 <strong>x=0.167, y= 0.672</strong> (http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/829989)<br>

datacolor Spyder 2 <strong>x=0.179 , y=0.634 </strong> (http://zoomnikon.livejournal.com/pics/catalog/497/715)<br>

What it seems is that all the measurements of the green primary performed by the spider 3 are different from those done with different instruments.<br>

Considering that the CororMunki is a spectrometer, I think that the measurements performed by this one are more correct, and that the Spyder 3 get a wrong value for the green primary.<br>

Measuring the Y value of my green primary with Argyll and supposing the same Y value for example for the measurement obtained with the ColorMunki, I calculated after the Lab transform the difference DE2000 which is around 4; is this a large error?.<br>

The Spyder 3 is declared as colorimeter for wide gamut monitors. Isn't it so? Then why this behavior?<br>

What do you think about this?<br>

Thank everybody<br>

Bye Andrea</p>

<p>Thanks to all for your suggestions. Ciao.</p>

<p>Curtis, I can confirm what you experimented. If I shot in jpg or raw+ the quality of the preview is totally different, now is good also at 32x, clearly it depend also on the choosen sharpness quality. It's incredible, I think this is a bug that should be resolved in a future firmware update: I hope.</p>

<p>So, if I understood, Curtis, Jerry, you see a good preview up to x32. Is it so? </p>

<p>Hi Peter the lens is the same, Tamrom 17-50 f2.8, but the shoting settings are surely different. My question is, what is the utility to enlarge up to x32? And why can I not see a good jpg preview as for example in bridge or camera raw?</p>

<p>Ciao Maurizio, I shot in raw, the resolution is set to the maximum and the jpg quality too, but I don't think this could affect a preview of a raw shot. In my case, the worsening seems to apper before to the 16x fator, and it seems to depend on the image.</p>

<p>Hi to everybody, I just bought a new Pentax k-5. I would to know from the other k-5 owners if what I saw in my camera is a problem or not. When I watch the images in the camera LCD with a high enlargement factor, greater than x8, I see a lot of artifacts similar to the ones which can be seen in a jpg of poor quality. High enlargement factors are practically useless, x32 for example. I thought that the enlarged preview was useful to check the details of the image, the focus quality for example. I believed that as enlargement increased the processor made a new interpolation in order to correctly show the image. Is this a normal behavior? Do you see the same thing?<br>

Thank you in advance<br>

Bye<br>

Andrea</p>

<p>I have the same problem with the same hardware. The only difference is that I use windows XP. Brad did you resolve the problem?<br>

Andrea</p>

<div></div>

<p>

No , I don't want change, it was just a curiosity. Perhaps, the only weak point of spectraview II is that it make a matrix and not a LUT profile.

</p>

<p>I have a monitor Nec MultiSync P221W. I perform the hardware calibration with Spectraviw II and the results are good.<br>

Recently, I tried the other software which can access to the internal LUT of Nec P221W: The Spectraview Profiler 4, that is a nec version of the well known basICColor Profiler 4 (I tried also this).<br>

To my surprise, the results after the calibration are very bad: the banding in the gradients are terrible and the validation results are bad in the grey tones.<br>

The target calibration values were D65, gamma 2.2, 120 cd/sqrm and min. native, the same which I used in Spectraview II.<br>

The basiccolor company suggests me to increase the luminance of white up to 160 cd/sqrm: the result is a little bit better but nothing to do with the Spectraview II performance.<br>

There is somebody which calibrates a monitor P221W with this software and with good results?<br>

Is it normal this behavior?<br>

Thanks<br>

Andrea</p>

 

<p>Ok, now I understood that this behaviour seems typical for this monitor. So, do you confirm that it is normal to have light banding in 221W when we move away from the native configuration? I'm still curious to see an other P221W at work! About the primary colours, is spyder 3 able to measure them correctly or should I choose the "Factory measurements".</p>

<p>Yes, I also made the gradeint by PS, but being careful to avoid a monitor compensation (that is, I assigned the same monitor profile to the gradient image). It is rigth to do this?<br>

What I observe in native configuration is a perfect gradient. After the calibration I see ligth reddish bandings in the dark tones. These are not many, but the gradients are not perfect. Do you have any suggestions? Could the monitor not work properly?<br>

Thanks again Andrew.</p>

<p>Thank you, Edward, Andrew and Chas. <br>

<em>.."Beyond this point, the calibration uses the graphic card to make fine adjustments, which are very close to the desired targets."</em><br>

But the hardware calibration should be important just to not affect the graphic card LUT so avoiding banding. Is not it so?<br>

<em>"I’m not sure how you know this is indeed the native behavior of the display but the values are not surprising. What is key here is what you want the values to be, not what the “native” values out of the box or with some factory default says. Pick a Luminance (cd/m2) based on the print viewing conditions by the display, as well as a white point for a visual match and ask the software to provide that. 2.2 TRC gamma is fine. Adjust to taste (the right values are those that produce a match)."</em><br>

Andrew, I inferred the native behaviuor just measuring the white point and the black level in N modality of RGB tag of OSD, and for the gamma value just seeing the corrections after the calibration. Is it correct?<br>

I'm agree with you about the procedure, but what I observe after the calibration is a worsening of the gradients.<br>

And what about the 256 step of grays? Is it normal that can I see them?<br>

Some questions about preferences in spectraviewII: first, in the calibration tag, calibration priority, what is better "Maximize Contrast Ratio" or "Best Grayscale color tracking"? second, in the ICC profile tag, source of primary color... section, what do I choose, "Autom..", "calibration sensor measurement" or "Factory measurements"?<br>

Generaly I choose the option "calibration sensor measurement", but the primary colors are very different, expecially the green, from those measured for example by X-rite colormunki in the link suggested by Chas.<br>

Thank again.<br>

<br /><br>

<br /><br>

<em><br /></em></p>

<p>Hi,<br />I bought, recently, a NEC P221W LCD monitor. I chose this model for the 10 BIT LUT <br />programmable, unique for a LCD monitor at this price. I bought, then, a spyder 3 pro colorimeter and I tested the hardware calibration with the SpectraviewII software.<br />My OS is windows XP media center edition, and the graphic card is a NVIDIA GeForce 7300 LE. <br />The monitor is driven with the DVI output.<br>

I thought that in the native configuration the monitor had values of white point and gamma close to D65 and 2.2 respectively. I am very surprised to measure a white point of 8070 K in native configuration and yet a contrast ratio never above 950:1 (the black point is never below 0.17 cd/m2, is it normal?). Contrary, the gamma value seems to be around 2.2.<br>

If I observe a grey gradient in native configuration this is perfect (even if I can distingue very well the 256 step of grays: A first question: is it normal that I can see the RGB steps? are 8 bits not enough?). The gradients that I observe are those shown for examples in the eizo's test software, or those shown in the same spectraviewII software --> tools --> test pattern.<br />After the calibration D65, 120 cd/m2, black level: default, and g=2.2 the gradients are worse and if I calibrate with a TRC of L* the gradients are even worse, especially in the black tones where clear bandings are visible and some color dominant is present.<br />I expected that by the hardware calibration the monitor response were improved. Does It <br />depend on the only 10 bit internal LUT? I'm making a mistake in something? Could it <br />depend on my graphic card?<br>

I need help to know if the behaviour of my monitor is ok or not.<br />Thank you very much<br>

Andrea Taschin</p>