| |||||||||||||
Sizing up the ColorHug open source colorimeterSizing up the ColorHug open source colorimeterPosted Jun 7, 2012 20:46 UTC (Thu) by apollock (subscriber, #14629)Parent article: Sizing up the ColorHug open source colorimeter
Is it correct that this is something you'd normally use exactly once (on any given computer), and then never use again?
(Log in to post comments)
Sizing up the ColorHug open source colorimeter Posted Jun 7, 2012 21:57 UTC (Thu) by n8willis (editor, #43041) [Link]
No; display characteristics change over time (A: they don't get better, and B: even multiple units of the same model don't age the same way). If you are doing paid graphics work, you might even want to re-profile when you make changes to the lighting in your office. Although in both instances, the differences are bigger for reflected-light devices like printers than they are for displays (but projectors are worse than displays, etc...). I do *think* that LED backlights are more color stable than fluorescents, but don't quote me on that (and if that's true of backlighting, it wouldn't account for the primaries anyhow).
Nate
Sizing up the ColorHug open source colorimeter Posted Jun 8, 2012 20:12 UTC (Fri) by rgmoore (✭ supporter ✭, #75) [Link] I wouldn't think so. The biggest shift in calibrating a monitor correctly comes from setting the black point, white point, and color temperature correctly, which can be done fairly well with your eyes and a set of instructions. For the majority of people who just want reasonable consistency between computers and between computer and print, that very rough calibration is probably good enough. On the other hand, monitors are imperfect, and their calibration does drift measurably over time. The kind of people who need a full calibration rather than a rough adjustment will also care enough to recalibrate regularly to correct for the calibration drift. I don't see a lot of room between the two poles.
|
|||||||||||||