The human eye is very bad at judging colour or tonal differences
unless the colours are adjacent to each other and it’s easily swayed in
its judgment by what’s around it. You may not believe it but you’re
not actually able to make that kind of judgment unless the difference is
extreme. It’s more likely that whatever light or background colours are
in the environment surrounding the monitors is swaying your perception. In my
own study the colour I perceive on my monitor varies according to the weather –
warm when it’s overcast, cooler when the sun’s out – and also
according to whether I’ve been using the laptop monitor, which is a tad
on the warm side. The LCD is correctly calibrated but tends to look cool after
a stint on the crappy laptop screen.
From:
owner-xsi(at)Softimage.COM [mailto:owner-xsi(at)Softimage.COM] On Behalf Of Alexander
Hemery
Sent: 02 August 2007 13:49
To: XSI(at)Softimage.COM
Subject: Re: monitors?
but
seriously, I think you will agree that they are superior as far as image
quality and color reproduction is concerned. And that they would be 'correct'
if properly calibrated for a medium .. TV/print etc.
I've
even used that spider calibration thingy on two LG's I have at home and white
still looks greenish-white....
Two
Dell's I have at work show the middle gray, brownish... and
ofcourse ..both monitors in both occasions can't show the exact same colours
even with the exact same settings.
...either
that or i'm going color blind.
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Thursday, August 02,
2007 2:40 PM
So you’re telling me that it’s automagically correct
for web, TV, DVD, CMYK, every printer ever made, all at the same time?
Excellent. Is it right for film too?
-----
Original Message -----
Sent: Thursday, August 02,
2007 12:05 PM
That makes no sense. True for what?
If
it's an eizo ...it's as true as it gets
|
