Is it possible to calibrate a display using a high quality digital camera? - Page 4 - AVS Forum
Forum Jump: 
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #91 of 208 Old 09-24-2010, 05:22 PM
 
ChrisWiggles's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Seattle
Posts: 20,730
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 14
I spent two whole pages explaining things to you in step-by-step detail and referring you to multiple further sources of information.

I led the horse to water. Beyond that I'm not going to sit around wasting my time trying to make you feel better about ignoring the information that's out there for you.

You're just here looking for somebody to come in and say: "good job, what you did is valuable, productive, and has merit."

There is not a single professional here who is going to say that and validate what you did because none of those things is true.

You asked a direct beginning question: "is it possible to calibrate a display using a digital camera?" The answer to your question is an unequivocal NO.

You didn't like that answer, so you proceeded to want to know WHY that was so. I spent an inordinate time explaining it to you. Which you didn't understand anyway, and don't seem to be making much of an effort to understand.

Now you want to get into an argument about how what you did was useful anyway to make yourself feel better about what you did in the hopes that someone will validate your enterprising, but ultimately unuseful exercise.

Sorry, you're not going to get that from me. Maybe someone else wants to babysit, but it's not going to be me.

This is where the discussion ends and we all post silly demotivators for humorous relief rather than having our teeth pulled by someone who doesn't understand what they're doing and has zero understanding of color.

If you want to understand more, re-read the thread, look at Poynton's chapter on color science in his textbook, and if you're really enterprising, try to tackle a book about color science.
ChrisWiggles is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #92 of 208 Old 09-24-2010, 07:20 PM - Thread Starter
Advanced Member
 
morphinapg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 605
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 12
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChrisWiggles View Post

I spent two whole pages explaining things to you in step-by-step detail and referring you to multiple further sources of information.

I led the horse to water. Beyond that I'm not going to sit around wasting my time trying to make you feel better about ignoring the information that's out there for you.

You're just here looking for somebody to come in and say: "good job, what you did is valuable, productive, and has merit."

There is not a single professional here who is going to say that and validate what you did because none of those things is true.

You asked a direct beginning question: "is it possible to calibrate a display using a digital camera?" The answer to your question is an unequivocal NO.

You didn't like that answer, so you proceeded to want to know WHY that was so. I spent an inordinate time explaining it to you. Which you didn't understand anyway, and don't seem to be making much of an effort to understand.

Now you want to get into an argument about how what you did was useful anyway to make yourself feel better about what you did in the hopes that someone will validate your enterprising, but ultimately unuseful exercise.

Sorry, you're not going to get that from me. Maybe someone else wants to babysit, but it's not going to be me.

This is where the discussion ends and we all post silly demotivators for humorous relief rather than having our teeth pulled by someone who doesn't understand what they're doing and has zero understanding of color.

If you want to understand more, re-read the thread, look at Poynton's chapter on color science in his textbook, and if you're really enterprising, try to tackle a book about color science.

I have understood, believed, and agreed with everything you've said. I do not disagree with you on any points. I tried changing the title of this thread, but it only changed the title of the first post. The title I tried to change it was

Is it possible to improve a display's greyscale using a high quality digital camera?

which I believe is a much more appropriate title. I agree that it is not possible to fully calibrate a display with a digital camera, but I also believe it is possible to improve the greyscale, as long as the camera in use is high quality. However, I won't be able to prove it for several months until I can get a meter to measure it.

If other people joined the experiment and posted their results, we wouldn't have to wait as long, but no one seems to want to participate (except maybe jimwhite).
morphinapg is offline  
post #93 of 208 Old 09-24-2010, 08:02 PM
Senior Member
 
Lost Dog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: North of the Columbia River
Posts: 475
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 12
Quote:
Originally Posted by morphinapg View Post


Is it possible to improve a display's greyscale using a high quality digital camera?

I don't even think that is an accurate title. From what I've been reading here the chance of improving the greyscale is about the same as making stock market picks using a dartboard. Yes, you may improve it. You may get it dead on... but if you do it's totally luck and nothing more. No scientific method is involved because of the simple nature of your "measuring" device.
Lost Dog is offline  
post #94 of 208 Old 09-24-2010, 08:09 PM
 
ChrisWiggles's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Seattle
Posts: 20,730
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 14
Quote:


Is it possible to improve a display's greyscale using a high quality digital camera?

As stated by multiple people: no.

You can achieve basically the same thing by eye. Or by choosing whatever color temperature mode is generically closest to D65 based on the reports of others. Or by copying someone else's greyscale settings that someone posted on the forum.

None of these things is based on actual information or measurement. They are all guessing. Some of them can be reasonably effective at getting you in the ballpark. But they are all guesses.

I can guess on a TV and get reasonably close to D65 pretty reliably just by eye. It takes me a little bit of time to do it, a lot of footage, and changes in my viewing environment (walking outside, to other room lighting, etc). But it would be entirely remiss of me to suggest that it's in any way a reliable or effective way to get a display close to an accurate white by just looking at a TV and adjust it to look "good." That's entirely a guess. Whether it's someone making a pretty good guess, or a bad and uninformed guess. It's still a guess. Pointing your camera at your TV is just guessing. Maybe it's a good guess. Maybe it's a bad guess. You really have no way of knowing.

Your real question should be: "Can I make an arbitrary guess about greyscale more difficult and complicated by introducing the use of a digital camera?" Yes, absolutely you can.
ChrisWiggles is offline  
post #95 of 208 Old 09-24-2010, 09:00 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Kilgore's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Huntsville Ontario
Posts: 2,988
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 60 Post(s)
Liked: 171
Quote:
Originally Posted by morphinapg View Post

I have understood, believed, and agreed with everything you've said. I do not disagree with you on any points. I tried changing the title of this thread, but it only changed the title of the first post. The title I tried to change it was

Is it possible to improve a display's greyscale using a high quality digital camera?

which I believe is a much more appropriate title. I agree that it is not possible to fully calibrate a display with a digital camera, but I also believe it is possible to improve the greyscale, as long as the camera in use is high quality. However, I won't be able to prove it for several months until I can get a meter to measure it.

If other people joined the experiment and posted their results, we wouldn't have to wait as long, but no one seems to want to participate (except maybe jimwhite).

You do not understand or believe a single thing these experts are telling you. If you did, you would know that your "experiment" is useless.

The experts are telling you your "experiment" is totally without merit. If you understood and believed them, you wouldn't be trying to recruit others into joining you in trying to prove a hypothesis that is doomed to fail.

How many experts do you need to convince you? Are there any particular experts you'd like us to call in? You are blindly working from a false premise without any regard of what the experts tell you.

This digital camera idea of yours is nothing new. Many in the past have explored the possibilities, but they all reach the same conclusion. A digital camera is completely useless as a calibration tool.

Completely and utterly.

You simply don't understand at all. People like GeorgeAB and ChrisWiggles know what they're talking about. They know their business. I implore you take heed of their sage advice. Please.

For the love of God.

PLEASE.
Kilgore is offline  
post #96 of 208 Old 09-24-2010, 09:05 PM
AVS Special Member
 
airscapes's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Philadelphia
Posts: 4,612
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 50 Post(s)
Liked: 109
Say it with me folks.. T R O L L.. To fix this.. stop posting (feeding the troll) and he will go away.. at least this thread will .. as long as you post he will keep responding...
airscapes is offline  
post #97 of 208 Old 09-24-2010, 10:31 PM - Thread Starter
Advanced Member
 
morphinapg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 605
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 12
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lost Dog View Post

I don't even think that is an accurate title. From what I've been reading here the chance of improving the greyscale is about the same as making stock market picks using a dartboard. Yes, you may improve it. You may get it dead on... but if you do it's totally luck and nothing more. No scientific method is involved because of the simple nature of your "measuring" device.

And that's where I disagree. I think the camera a much larger range of error than meters of course, but I also don't think it's large enough to make my greyscale worse off than it was. Cameras are designed to represent our world, and the colors of our world in a way that looks similar to how people see it. That doesn't mean it's physically accurate, it simply means the way it sees colors is similar to how we do. As other people have noted, there are large differences in how the camera sees light, and how the meters see light, but I don't think those differences create a range of error great enough to make my colors worse. It might only get me 5% there, or it might get me 75% there, or even more. That's what I can't know right now, until I get a meter and measure it.
morphinapg is offline  
post #98 of 208 Old 09-24-2010, 10:37 PM - Thread Starter
Advanced Member
 
morphinapg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 605
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 12
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kilgore View Post

The experts are telling you your "experiment" is totally without merit. If you understood and believed them, you wouldn't be trying to recruit others into joining you in trying to prove a hypothesis that is doomed to fail.

Okay if the experiment is doomed to fail, then prove it will fail by performing the experiment. If scientists simply said "ah we shouldn't do this it'll likely fail" then we'd be nowhere today. If you think it will fail, prove it. Unless I get concrete proof that this experiment does not work, based on the result of meters, then I will continue to believe you can use a digital camera to improve greyscale. I will eventually test this myself, but in the mean time, unless I get results from other users, there's nothing I can do but see my results with my own eyes, and they look great.
morphinapg is offline  
post #99 of 208 Old 09-24-2010, 10:37 PM
AVS Special Member
 
dlarsen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Beaverton, OR, USA
Posts: 1,908
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 11
“If at first, the idea is not absurd, then there is no hope for it”
“The true sign of intelligence is not knowledge but imagination.”

-Albert Einstein

After you get a reference meter to compare against and get a baseline, you can possibly develop an offset to apply to the RGBY (post debayer) data from your camera for improved absolute Y accuracy and tracking to the reference meter. Many tristimulus filter detectors use similar. You may also consider a diffuser and or lens removal for better area integration and averaging on the CCD.

Dave
dlarsen is offline  
post #100 of 208 Old 09-25-2010, 02:19 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Kilgore's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Huntsville Ontario
Posts: 2,988
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 60 Post(s)
Liked: 171
Quote:
Originally Posted by morphinapg View Post

Okay if the experiment is doomed to fail, then prove it will fail by performing the experiment. If scientists simply said "ah we shouldn't do this it'll likely fail" then we'd be nowhere today. If you think it will fail, prove it. Unless I get concrete proof that this experiment does not work, based on the result of meters, then I will continue to believe you can use a digital camera to improve greyscale. I will eventually test this myself, but in the mean time, unless I get results from other users, there's nothing I can do but see my results with my own eyes, and they look great.

Why should I perform an experiment when others have performed the same experiment....and failed? It would be a complete waste of time.

You seem to think you came up with this idea and are the first to explore it.

You are not.

Your theory has already been disproved by many others who came before you. This fact, combined with the testimony of the experts you refuse to listen to, should be enough to convince you that you're wasting your time.

We're not talking about some new theory of relativity, and trust me on this....you're not Einstein. FAR from it. Your theory is not based on some kind epiphany. The heavens have not opened up and bestowed some special insight upon you that the experts in the field are unable to comprehend. Don't delude yourself. You do not have access to some secret knowledge that overthrows the basic principles of color scence. In fact, you don't even understand them.

The truth is that you lack the technical knowledge to understand why your theory is completely wrong. The problem is that you just refuse to admit it.

By the way, I don't trust my eyes, so I certainly don't trust yours.
Kilgore is offline  
post #101 of 208 Old 09-25-2010, 02:50 AM - Thread Starter
Advanced Member
 
morphinapg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 605
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 12
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kilgore View Post

Why should I perform an experiment when others have performed the same experiment....and failed? It would be a complete waste of time.

You seem to think you came up with this idea and are the first to explore it.

You are not.

Your theory has already been disproved by many others who came before you. This fact, combined with the testimony of the experts you refuse to listen to, should be enough to convince you that you're wasting your time.

Then where are the results? I tried searching for this and all I found were the same kind of responses I have gotten here (many from ChrisWiggles as well lol), and no actual results. I didn't even see anybody even perform or fail this experiment either. I only saw people detracted by these responses. At least I have been thinking for myself, and decided to perform the experiment myself rather than trust you people. If I'm wrong, I'm wrong, and as long as the results back that up I'll accept it, but until then, I MUCH prefer the image I've achieved. It's really night and day how much better this image is.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kilgore View Post

We're not talking about some new theory of relativity, and trust me on this....you're not Einstein. FAR from it. Your theory is not based on some kind epiphany. The heavens have not opened up and bestowed some special insight upon you that the experts in the field are unable to comprehend. Don't delude yourself. You do not have access to some secret knowledge that overthrows the basic principles of color scence. In fact, you don't even understand them.

wtf

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kilgore View Post

The truth is that you lack the technical knowledge to understand why your theory is completely wrong. The problem is that you just refuse to admit it.

By the way, I don't trust my eyes, so I certainly don't trust yours.

There have been plenty of experiments in the past which have gotten results that were completely unexpected, or even declared impossible. There is no specific reason why this theory could be wrong. The only way this procedure would be ineffective is if the camera had a huge range of error compared to the meter. My hypothesis is that the camera's range of error is small enough to improve the image of many displays that have bad stock settings. However, if the stock settings are pretty good, it's certainly possible this method could make things worse.
morphinapg is offline  
post #102 of 208 Old 09-25-2010, 03:23 AM
Member
 
Killerbeenl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 160
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 13
To prove that you cannot improve the grayscale post a 30 IRE and 80 IRE screen and red-green-blue screen ( just to be sure RGB colors are also a problem for your camera ) taken with you camera and post the files here.

I measure them on my calibrated laptopscreen with my i1pro and post the results here.

Then we all can stop this discussion here once and for all

Remember ( i have read this awsome eyeopener here ) There is preference and there is reference


Quote:
Originally Posted by morphinapg View Post

Then where are the results? I tried searching for this and all I found were the same kind of responses I have gotten here (many from ChrisWiggles as well lol), and no actual results. I didn't even see anybody even perform or fail this experiment either. I only saw people detracted by these responses. At least I have been thinking for myself, and decided to perform the experiment myself rather than trust you people. If I'm wrong, I'm wrong, and as long as the results back that up I'll accept it, but until then, I MUCH prefer the image I've achieved. It's really night and day how much better this image is.


wtf



There have been plenty of experiments in the past which have gotten results that were completely unexpected, or even declared impossible. There is no specific reason why this theory could be wrong. The only way this procedure would be ineffective is if the camera had a huge range of error compared to the meter. My hypothesis is that the camera's range of error is small enough to improve the image of many displays that have bad stock settings. However, if the stock settings are pretty good, it's certainly possible this method could make things worse.


Sometimes you are 1 click away from pulling your hair out and bang your head against the wall
Killerbeenl is offline  
post #103 of 208 Old 09-25-2010, 12:26 PM
AVS Special Member
 
dlarsen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Beaverton, OR, USA
Posts: 1,908
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 11
http://www.opticsinfobase.org/abstra...=ao-43-36-6523
Quote:
Abstract

A method to assess the discrimination capability of a camera to measure small color differences is proposed. The method helps to fix the working conditions of the camera and analyzes the reliability of the measurements through comparison with a reference instrument. Attention is paid to the camera’s performance in the nearly neutral region of color space. The color differences are calculated using the Commission Internationale de l’Eclairage L*a*b* (CIELAB) ΔEab* and CIE 2000 color-difference formula metrics. The Sony DX-9100P 3CCD camera results are very close to those obtained by the Photo Research PR-715 spectroradiometer. Their absolute discrepancy is lower than the suprathreshold of visual discrimination (0.887 CIELAB unit).

© 2004 Optical Society of America

dlarsen is offline  
post #104 of 208 Old 09-25-2010, 12:45 PM
Member
 
Killerbeenl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 160
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 13
Let me quote myself and let him post the files so i can prove him wrong.


i have seen no sign of him doing that effort so please let the man speak for himself.......

Quote:
Originally Posted by Killerbeenl View Post

To prove that you cannot improve the grayscale post a 30 IRE and 80 IRE screen and red-green-blue screen ( just to be sure RGB colors are also a problem for your camera ) taken with you camera and post the files here.

I measure them on my calibrated laptopscreen with my i1pro and post the results here.

Then we all can stop this discussion here once and for all

Remember ( i have read this awsome eyeopener here ) There is preference and there is reference


Sometimes you are 1 click away from pulling your hair out and bang your head against the wall
Killerbeenl is offline  
post #105 of 208 Old 09-25-2010, 03:31 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Kilgore's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Huntsville Ontario
Posts: 2,988
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 60 Post(s)
Liked: 171
Quote:

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the Sony DX-9100P a $10,000 video camera?
Kilgore is offline  
post #106 of 208 Old 09-25-2010, 03:36 PM
AVS Special Member
 
dlarsen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Beaverton, OR, USA
Posts: 1,908
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 11
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kilgore View Post

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the Sony DX-9100P a $10,000 video camera?

It's a 'high quality digital camera'. That is the title of the thread. How much is a Photo Research PR-715?

The expressed desires to mute him and the expressed desire to let him speak seem mutually exclusive?

-Dave
dlarsen is offline  
post #107 of 208 Old 09-25-2010, 03:59 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Kilgore's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Huntsville Ontario
Posts: 2,988
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 60 Post(s)
Liked: 171
Quote:
Originally Posted by dlarsen View Post

It's a 'high quality digital camera'. That is the title of the thread. How much is a Photo Research PR-715?

The expressed desires to mute him and the expressed desire to let him speak seem mutually exclusive?

-Dave

To be honest, now that morphinapg has edited his initial thread starting post, I have no idea what he's trying to prove.
Kilgore is offline  
post #108 of 208 Old 09-25-2010, 04:10 PM - Thread Starter
Advanced Member
 
morphinapg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 605
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 12
Quote:
Originally Posted by Killerbeenl View Post

To prove that you cannot improve the grayscale post a 30 IRE and 80 IRE screen and red-green-blue screen ( just to be sure RGB colors are also a problem for your camera ) taken with you camera and post the files here.

I measure them on my calibrated laptopscreen with my i1pro and post the results here.

Then we all can stop this discussion here once and for all

Remember ( i have read this awsome eyeopener here ) There is preference and there is reference

I'm not really sure what the IRE numbers mean, but I'm going to assume they mean % of luminosity, or in my case, % of RGB.

30% RGB (77'77'77)
http://imgur.com/BqnLA.jpg

80% RGB (204'204'204)
http://imgur.com/2R7AV.jpg

50% R (128'0'0)
http://imgur.com/EM2Aa.jpg

50% G (0'128'0)
http://imgur.com/bQS3Z.jpg

50% B (0'0'128)
http://imgur.com/jTi6S.jpg

I realize the individual colors don't show as pure R, G, or B, and I realized that before I started. I also tried coming up with different algorithms to compensate for the irregularities, but those just seemed to make things worse. Also, when Pure R, G, and B are taken with the same exposure, and added together in Photoshop, the result looks nothing like grey at the same RGB values, so I figured maybe there was light leaking into the neighboring sub pixels, which erroneously made the appearance of inaccurate colors. If you can make a better algorithm that adjusts for the changes, let me know. If you need the individual R G and B images, or even the 30 and 80 at the same exposure let me know, I adjusted the exposure for each of those images.

Also, I'm not too sure what you can prove with these images other than the camera is inaccurate, which we already knew. Accuracy was never my goal, similarity was. As long as the camera's range of error is within a range that allows for improvement on my set, that's all that mattered to me.

btw, all images were taken with the lens nearly touching the screen.
morphinapg is offline  
post #109 of 208 Old 09-25-2010, 04:26 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Kilgore's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Huntsville Ontario
Posts: 2,988
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 60 Post(s)
Liked: 171
Oh......my......GOD....
Kilgore is offline  
post #110 of 208 Old 09-25-2010, 04:35 PM - Thread Starter
Advanced Member
 
morphinapg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 605
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 12
Oh hm... seems like the red and blue pictures are overexposed, give me a second to get better pictures

EDIT: here are some better pictures:

Red:
http://imgur.com/FDSag.jpg

Blue:
http://imgur.com/lvUiI.jpg
morphinapg is offline  
post #111 of 208 Old 09-25-2010, 04:47 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Kilgore's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Huntsville Ontario
Posts: 2,988
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 60 Post(s)
Liked: 171
The 30 IRE and 80 IRE shots should look like these:





The Red, Green and Blue shots should look like these shots....but SOLID Red Green and Blue colored!! What is up with these colored vertical lines??
LL
LL
Kilgore is offline  
post #112 of 208 Old 09-25-2010, 04:53 PM - Thread Starter
Advanced Member
 
morphinapg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 605
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 12
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kilgore View Post

The 30 IRE and 80 IRE shots should look like these:





The Red, Green and Blue shots should look like these shots....but SOLID Red Green and Blue colored!! What is up with these colored vertical lines??

Okay so you want the same exposure on each photo, I can do that. The colored lines are the R G and B sub pixels (I said I took these pictures up close to avoid any light leaking from external sources). I use Photoshop to crop and blur each picture before I get my RGB value I would use. Do you want a 30% and 80% for R,G, and B as well?
morphinapg is offline  
post #113 of 208 Old 09-25-2010, 05:21 PM
Member
 
Killerbeenl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 160
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 13
When there is garbage in these pictures i can't measure.
Your first red look like orange and the second one seems more like it (what do you change that orange now becomes red???) but still there is garbage in al the pictures so if i move my i1pro i get different results so this is not usefull at all.

if you are taking pictures shoot them RAW.

this does not look promising

Quote:
Originally Posted by morphinapg View Post

Okay so you want the same exposure on each photo, I can do that. The colored lines are the R G and B sub pixels (I said I took these pictures up close to avoid any light leaking from external sources). I use Photoshop to crop and blur each picture before I get my RGB value I would use. Do you want a 30% and 80% for R,G, and B as well?


Sometimes you are 1 click away from pulling your hair out and bang your head against the wall
Killerbeenl is offline  
post #114 of 208 Old 09-25-2010, 05:25 PM - Thread Starter
Advanced Member
 
morphinapg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 605
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 12
OK, here's the problem. In order to capture all the images using the same exposure, I had to use a pretty low exposure (to make sure the brighter shots weren't overexposed) and so now the darker areas look way too dark, and it would be hard to tell anything from then because of that.

Here they are, but I don't know how useful they are:
80% grey:
http://imgur.com/nLzgG.jpg

30% grey:
http://imgur.com/GtxAD.jpg

80% red:
http://imgur.com/FtYfP.jpg

80% green:
http://imgur.com/GPyXF.jpg

80% blue:
http://imgur.com/JFVLJ.jpg

30% red:
http://imgur.com/IP3hk.jpg

30% green:
http://imgur.com/xEwBZ.jpg

30% blue:
http://imgur.com/GMXBC.jpg

Like I said, the 30% shots are probably too dark to be usable.
morphinapg is offline  
post #115 of 208 Old 09-25-2010, 05:28 PM - Thread Starter
Advanced Member
 
morphinapg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 605
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 12
Quote:
Originally Posted by Killerbeenl View Post

When there is garbage in these pictures i can't measure.
Your first red look like orange and the second one seems more like it (what do you change that orange now becomes red???) but still there is garbage in al the pictures so if i move my i1pro i get different results so this is not usefull at all.

if you are taking pictures shoot them RAW.

this does not look promising

Unfortunately this camera does not shoot raw, and I have no idea why not. The orange became red because the "orange" shot was way overexposed. I turned down the exposure and it looked much better. To make the images usable, simply crop 50% (to remove changes in luminosity towards the edges) and select filters/blur/average is photoshop to average out the rest. Then use your meter on those. The "garbage" is partly the separate r/g/b subpixels as well as dust/dirt on the screen.
morphinapg is offline  
post #116 of 208 Old 09-25-2010, 05:28 PM
Member
 
Killerbeenl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 160
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 13
i'am sorry but this is not usefull at all

Quote:
Originally Posted by morphinapg View Post

OK, here's the problem. In order to capture all the images using the same exposure, I had to use a pretty low exposure (to make sure the brighter shots weren't overexposed) and so now the darker areas look way too dark, and it would be hard to tell anything from then because of that.

Here they are, but I don't know how useful they are:
80% grey:
http://imgur.com/nLzgG.jpg

30% grey:
http://imgur.com/GtxAD.jpg

80% red:
http://imgur.com/FtYfP.jpg

80% green:
http://imgur.com/GPyXF.jpg

80% blue:
http://imgur.com/JFVLJ.jpg

30% red:
http://imgur.com/IP3hk.jpg

30% green:
http://imgur.com/xEwBZ.jpg

30% blue:
http://imgur.com/GMXBC.jpg

Like I said, the 30% shots are probably too dark to be usable.


Sometimes you are 1 click away from pulling your hair out and bang your head against the wall
Killerbeenl is offline  
post #117 of 208 Old 09-25-2010, 05:33 PM - Thread Starter
Advanced Member
 
morphinapg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 605
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 12
Quote:
Originally Posted by Killerbeenl View Post

i'am sorry but this is not usefull at all

the 80% shots should be useful. The 30% are too dark. I couldn't get both brightness levels to work well within the same exposure without overexposing the 80% images. I can retake the 30% shots at a different exposure though if you want.
morphinapg is offline  
post #118 of 208 Old 09-25-2010, 05:34 PM
Member
 
Killerbeenl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 160
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 13
no RAW? and this is a hi-quality camera?
If you have to tweak with exposure to measure how can you be serious??
if you deliver them the way they should be (blur/crop/filter them) i do not have photoshop (if you had save money on photoshop and use a free program like Gimp you had save yourself some money and you could have buy a real meter)

Quote:
Originally Posted by morphinapg View Post

Unfortunately this camera does not shoot raw, and I have no idea why not. The orange became red because the "orange" shot was way overexposed. I turned down the exposure and it looked much better. To make the images usable, simply crop 50% (to remove changes in luminosity towards the edges) and select filters/blur/average is photoshop to average out the rest. Then use your meter on those. The "garbage" is partly the separate r/g/b subpixels as well as dust/dirt on the screen.


Sometimes you are 1 click away from pulling your hair out and bang your head against the wall
Killerbeenl is offline  
post #119 of 208 Old 09-25-2010, 05:44 PM - Thread Starter
Advanced Member
 
morphinapg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 605
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 12
Quote:
Originally Posted by Killerbeenl View Post

no RAW? and this is a hi-quality camera?
If you have to tweak with exposure to measure how can you be serious??
if you deliver them the way they should be (blur/crop/filter them) i do not have photoshop (if you had save money on photoshop and use a free program like Gimp you had save yourself some money and you could have buy a real meter)

The luminosity of the color isn't important to me, just the Chromaticity. That can be determined regardless of luminosity. btw you can do the same thing with gimp, here are the processed images:

80% grey:
http://imgur.com/t2zH9.png

80% red:
http://imgur.com/df9u8.png

80% green:
http://imgur.com/sB9SE.png

80% blue:
http://imgur.com/W2tlP.png

I'll upload the exposure tweaked 30% images in a minute.

btw, I was disappointed that this camera didn't have RAW. However, it is fully customizable in every other aspect, so yes I consider it high quality in that regard. Anyway, with RAW, you can't adjust for white balance, so my colors would look way off.
morphinapg is offline  
post #120 of 208 Old 09-25-2010, 05:57 PM - Thread Starter
Advanced Member
 
morphinapg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 605
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 12
And here are the 30% images, adjusted for a better exposure:

30% grey:
http://imgur.com/XjcqI.png

30% red:
http://imgur.com/5ZGng.png

30% green:
http://imgur.com/QhUpL.png

30% blue:
http://imgur.com/RlBbC.png
morphinapg is offline  
Reply Display Calibration

User Tag List

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off