Funny you mentioned the Samsung, Moose...that model was on the top of my list.
I have a good experience with one of the local Circuit City's here, but was
disappointed when was told that when it comes to monitors, not all are being
displayed and I have to buy on blind faith. Went to Best Buy next door just to
check things out and they had hundreds of monitors on display. Before I
bought, I checked the viewing angle of each one of them by tilting and moving
around. My monitor has the exact vertical viewing angle as the Samsung.
If I remember correctly from the ergonomics class I took couple of years
back, the monitor should be positioned in such a way, that the imaginary line
from your eyes to your monitor should hit the screen perpenticularly somewhere
in the middle of the upper third of the monitor. This explains why they are
designed like that.
BTW, now when the monitor is far at the end of my desk, things are much
better. The monitors in the store were placed on high shelfs and I had to
reach and tilt them to test the vertical angle, bringing my eyes too close to
it...
Boris
Subject: [OM] Re: [OT] Pantone huey + First Monitor Impressions
From: Moose <olymoose@xxxxxxxxx> Date: Fri, 03 Aug 2007 19:50:53 -0700
Willie Wonka wrote: > Thank you guys for the quick response and thank you
Andrew for volunteering > to check with your friend Mark. > My first
impressions from getting the new monitor were mixed. It is a > great
improvement from the 17 inch CRT I bought five years ago just because > had
excellent specs. > There are two things that bug me about the new monitor:
> I. The vertical viewing angle isnt that great (although the horisontal is
> superb). I knew that when I was at the store. It is better than most of
the > monitors that I considered and it probably would be ok if it weren't
set for > the line about half an inch below the top. Just a notch lower
would have > been perfect IMHO, but as I sez, all others were set that way.
I thought > that the rule of the thumb was somewhere in the upper third of
the screen. > So if you knew it didn't have what you wanted, why did you
buy it? I recently acquired a new LCD to replace my CRT, which
has the habit of dropping out the blue channel, and it was getting more
frequent. Although I did a bit of looking at stores, I found it singularly
uninformative. The material displayed is of questionable quality and the
height of the displays was often above eye level. I did a lot of reading on
the web of reviews, both official and user reviews, confusing at first, but
with more input, patterns started to emerge. I ended up buying a Samsung
226bw, without ever seeing one in person, and am quite pleased. If there is a
full color image in screen when I walk into the room, color/contrast aren't
good, but sitting at my desk, the image is unchanged over the range of head
motion up and down and side to side that I can make without hurting my body.
There is none of the sort of thing you talk about. I don't veen understand
what you mean by "set for the line about half an inch below the top". Mine is
clear and even all over. It also resolves find
detail better than either the Sun/Trinitron or Sylvania 19" monitors I've
been using. A note on sizes for those who have yet to go LCD. The diagonal
measurement is even more misleading with 16:9 aspect ration monitors. The new
22" wide screen monitor is only about 1/2" larger in the vertical dimension
than the 4:3, 19" CRTs. I had worked this out beforehand, but I imagine some
folks have bought the same nominal size in a wide-screen as their old CRT,
only to find the images smaller. > II. I don't know how I am going to
adjust the whites... > In a mean time I have managed to confuse myself when
it comes to monitor > calibration. When you buy a sensor, any sensor...they
measure light relative > to what? Here is where the source of confusion is:
> I know that people would see lightness and saturation differently in >
pictures. I realized that recently, when for the nth time I looked at some >
landscape I wanted to take a picture of with
each of my eyes individually. > My right eye sees little darker and the
colors are slightly more saturated. > Not by much, just enough to notice.
So, I was thinking that if there is a > noticeable difference between the
eyes I use, there must be difference > between how other people see and it
might be more pronounced... > And yet, you can't see through anyone else's
eyes, and will never have any idea what they actually visualize in their
heads. For all I know, if I were to somehow able to have a direct brain to
brain feed, I would find that you see in color negative relative to what I
see. But all that doesn't matter, as we all know what is "normal" for use for
all natural scenes. We have in effect, "calibrated" our vision systems by
viewing countless "frames". So what calibration works on is consistency.
Using hardware measuring systems, they measure reproduction of standardized
color sources and record the differences from a virtual
ideal reproducer. These differences may then be used to adjust the signal to
the reproducer so its output comes close to the correct colors. Standards
have been implemented for all aspects of color capture and reproduction.
In a fully color managed system, the image captured by film/scanner/sensor is
adjusted using the icc profile for that/those devices in the process of
saving the master file. When that image is viewed on a calibrated monitor,
the image is again, temporarily, adjusted in the process of display. so
although the editor/whatever is working with the "pure" file, the display
system is adjusting the colors going to the display to correct for
inaccuracies of the monitor. Printing used the same idea as viewing on a
monitor, adjusting color on the way to the print mechanism to correct for its
measured inaccuracies. So images of a particular thing created with different
tools of capture be the same objective colors on different screens
and in prints from different printers. And it doesn't matter what any
particular person "really" sees, as the image will hold the same relationship
to the original for them as for anyone else, even though what they"see", were
it possible to know outside their mind, may or may not be quite different
from what you "see". Remember, research shows clearly that the virtual images
we "see" are not very closely related to the "RAW" capture of the sensors in
our eyes > Based on that observation, I came to the conclusion, that no
matter what > tool I use, at the end my pictures will look too dull to some
or > oversaturated to others. Am I missing sompin'? > I hope I've
explained above. Calibration means only that we who are calibrated are all
looking at the same measured colors, but that's quite a lot, compared to the
chaos elsewhere. Most people aren't aware of such differences between their
eyes as you notice. In fact, I find it odd, as I
would assume the visual cortex would correct for that. I have a slightly
different situation. My left eye has 20/20 vision when corrected, while the
right is 20/10. when the right eye is closed or obstructed, I occasionally
wonder if the slightly fuzzy (to me) world I then see is what most of the
population is seeing all the time. But it is normal to them. > Boris >
P.S. I went and used the Adobe calibration tool...figured out that at >
least I should make my eyes happy...:) > I went through that with the
Adobe and other tools for color calibration using the screen and my eyes. I
thought it was pretty good - until I got a real calibration system - oops!
So all that's very well, but then it comes up against a couple of things
beyond its control. One is the relative nature of human senses. In the case
of vision, that means that the relative brightness of surroundings affects
the apparent brightness of the image, be it on screen or print.
So, to calibrate a screen, one must input something about the intensity of
the light in which it will be viewed. And that's one place where the Huey is
supposed to come in, adjusting screen brightness as room brightness changes.
That's of no interest to me, as the moderate brightness of my intentional
computer cave never varies except when the light burns out. At least with
a screen, it provides its own light. Prints are dependent on the nature and
intensity of the light under which they are viewed, both because of our
vesion system and because hey don't always reflect light the same. A lot of
professionals who depend on color accuracy only view prints, and sometimes
screens, in special lighting. My recommendation, based on a fair amount of
research, is to skip the Huey and get a real color calibration system. I use
a Monaco Optix sensor with their software in a package called Monaco Optix XR
Pro. There are other systems, some of which use
the same sensor with different software, and I thingk they are probably all
pretty good. The trick is having a sensor that reads a series of colors and
brightnesses directly on the screen. One of he problems with the Adobe and
other systems that rely on your eyes is that they only calibrate color, even
if you et them right, at one brightness, but screens aren't necessarily
linear in color balance with brightness. When I got the Samsung, I
calibrated it next to the Sylvania. while there s a slightly different
quality to the images, the colors sure look the same to me, at least when the
CRT is behaving. Moose
---------------------------------
Boardwalk for $500? In 2007? Ha!
Play Monopoly Here and Now (it's updated for today's economy) at Yahoo! Games.
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|