Datacolor User to User Support Group.

CD - 
You asked "Did it have a step where it asked you to adjust your white luminance (brightness)?"  No, for the first time since I started using the Spyder product, there was no such step available when I tried to calibrate. That was the main thing I was trying to ask about when I started this thread.  Regardless of the need for a new monitor, I need to know what I'm doing wrong, or what I've forgotten, which won't allow me to see those screens. I've checked the user's manual and the FAQs, and if this situation is in one of those, I'm missing it there too.

Second - need for a new monitor. I can see that you're right. For the time being, I'm afraid I'll have to make do with my present monitor, an 18 month old HP 2065, which was bought directly from HP's online shopping center. My power settings put the monitor to sleep after 5 minutes except when I'm going to calibrate the monitor, so it shouldn't have worn out nearly this quickly. My "luck" with HP has sure been terrible, with two computers and now with this monitor. I guess I'm a pretty slow learner, to have chosen an HP monitor this time around.



--- In datacolor_group@yahoogroups.com, C D Tobie <CDTobie@...> wrote:
>
> 
> On Sep 13, 2010, at 3:42 PM, bill_hansen20012001 wrote:
> 
> > CD - Thanks for this reply. I hate to admit that I don't understand everything in it, but here's my best try:
> > 
> > In my copy of Spyder3 Elite, there is no "Calibration Settings" choice to make. However, in "Current Settings" there's a drop-down dialog from which I can choose. The choice I made was  "2.2-6500-120-LCD default".
> 
> Thats fine, but the default you make in an earlier version would have had no brightness value, so not set off alarms if the screen grew dimmer over time... that was one of my main points.
> > 
> > I dimmed down the ambient light a bit, but it was still listed as "Moderate"
> 
> Which means you work with quite a bit of light, and so will need a reasonably bright display to compete; something well above 100, at any rate.
> 
> > when I did these next maneuvers:
> > 
> > Now, when I re-check the *target* luminance values, I get confirmation that they are 0.38 for black luminance and 120 for white.
> 
> thats fine...
> > 
> > When I re-check the "ReCal" screen I get the following values:
> > current WP 0.314  0.330 luminance 102.8
> > previousWP 0.312  0.328 luminance 102.8
> > target  WP 0.313  0.329 luminance 120
> 
> 
> Did it have a step where it asked you to adjust your white luminance (brightness)? And when you did this, were you unable to adjust it to hit the middle of the target? And did it then warn you later that you had failed to meet your brightness target (or some geeky version of this?)
> > 
> > black luminance is listed as 0.38, which looks like the target value.
> > 
> > The current and previous luminances, of course, are listed as "unacceptable" - but I'm reluctant to change the current luminance because I must have been using this same luminance when I edited my last several hundred images. I don't want to have to re-edit them all and re-print those which were printed.
> 
> Thats a downhill slide to failure. If your display is getting dimmer and dimmer, then you'll lose your ability to see shadow detail and judge contrast, and start messing things up more and more over time. Thats why we want to have a brightness value as part of the target, so we can warn you as this happens. You have an older configuration, $400 display .Its only able to reach a third of its specified brightness, and can't reach a brightness appropriate for your viewing conditions (which are a bit of a problem themselves). I'd say its time for a new display, before you put thousands of dollars worth of time making bad adjustments to images.
> > 
> > I'm hoping that the answer lies in your phrase  "you MSG have been configured for native luminance, not a targeted luminance" . I don't know what MSG is.
> 
> Monosodium Glutimate... seriously, thats an iPad spell correction that missed. You MAY have been configured for native lumiance, as thats what older builds offered as the default. So no alarms would have gone off as your display dimmed over time. 
> 
> > I'm guessing that even though the Colorimeter tool measured 120 candelas just after my calibration in March, it's somehow okay that it measures 102.8 now (and, on the ReCal screen, it looks like it measured 102.8 in March, even though the Colorimeter tool read 120 then.
> 
> With a native luminance taget value, it won't ask and won't tell... which works about as well in color management as it does in the military.
> 
> > The Tools/Colorimeter tool now reads 98 to 100 candelas (several readings). Thus, the colorimeter reading has dropped way down, but the apparent brightness of the monitor hasn't changed noticeably. Could I have just misread the Colorimeter tool in March, or could I have recorded it incorrectly? What I actually recorded is "120.147" so it looks like I was seeing something specific.
> Any way you cut it, your display is headed south, and unless you are willing to work in a dark room, is already too far gone to use...
> > 
> > Does any of the that make sense? I went ahead and re-read the color patches with the Spyder and saved the results as a new monitor profile. I haven't printed anything from that new profile yet, but as best I can tell, the brightness and color balances are the same now (in September) as they were with the monitor profile in March.
> 
> 
> It's human nature to want to blame the Spyder, or its software. IT"S THE DISPLAY. Get a new one.
> 
> C. David Tobie
> Global Product Technology Manager
> Digital Imaging & Home Theater
> CDTobie@...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Datacolor
> www.datacolor.com/Spyder3
>