on 11/30/00 5:13 AM, Mark Ligtenberg at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> From: photoscientia <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Wednesday, November 29, 2000 11:47 PM
>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> Can I steer this back to monitor calibration please?
>>
>> I've been experimenting further with dithered tones, and I'd like your
> collective
>> opinion on these little
>> 'greyscales' that I've come up with.
>> They're very small little GIFs, so I've taken the liberty of attaching
> them.
>>
>> There's a greyscale GIF for each of 8 target gammas, in 0.2 steps from 1.0
> to 2.4.
>> The idea is to get the closest match between the inner and outer squares.
>> The best method is to view them from a distance of 3 or 4 ft (1 to 1.5
> metres), and
>> half close your eyes to blur the dithered centre square; then you can see
> if the
>> tones match more easily.
>> The square with the number in it is a 'key' tone, and is the one most
> critical to
>> assessing the gamma, but the other 3 squares should be a good match as
> well.
>> Oh, yes. They must be viewed at 1:1 scale as well, otherwise they won't
> work.
>>
>> I know the idea isn't original, but I've only ever seen single tone
> examples before.
>> These cover a wider brightness range, and I think they should give a
> pretty good
>> gamma match, or indication of system gamma, within the limits of simple
> visual
>> comparison.
>>
>> I don't have a huge range of systems and monitors to test them on, so I
> hope some of
>> you will act as guinea pigs, sorry, beta testers, for me.
>> I'm not asking you to change the settings of your monitor or video card,
> but I hope
>> that a lot of you reading this list will know the gamma of your system
> fairly
>> accurately.
>> If you could check the relevant GIF and some of the others against your
> known system,
>> and give me some feedback, I'd be most grateful.
>>
>> Thanks for taking the time to read this.
>>
>> Regards, Pete.
>>
>
> Maybe a better Monitor Gamma Calibrator:
>
> http://www.spurgeonstudio.com/NoFrame/moncal.htm
> Mark L.
>
>
>
I get the same result with this spurgeonstudio.com link as I did with Pete's
Photoscientia test. It provides more precision, however. It comes out 1.9,
which is right in the middle of the 1.8 - 2.0 range I got using Pete's test.
My monitor, as I said before, is an NEC XV15, and I might add that it is
about 5 years old. It has not been in use professionally, but probably used
an average of about 1 or 2 hours per day, so for you pros it is about a year
old I suppose.
--Berry
