calibration done but ???

Dual monitor setup and after seeing the difference I got an i1Display2 but now I'm worse off

here's what I've got between the two "calibrated" monitors

Byte size: ZERO | Content warning: NOT AN IMAGE

Byte size: ZERO | Content warning: NOT AN IMAGE

Byte size: ZERO | Content warning: NOT AN IMAGE

another related question. Looking at these on my laptop (also newly calibrated), the top looks more natural, the 2nd looks over saturated. is there an easier, less subjective "standard" image used to calibrate monitors? seems like there should be an image that you could easily put up and say man that's good or man that's off.

anything like that?

thanks

Shawn

The upper two are really quite close.
The second looks a little more saturated, but not much.
You are going to drive yourself insane.
My sympathies.

Docthomas wrote in post #7011472
same pic made to look as close to identical as possible between the monitors.

What application are you viewing the image in?

You should get the monitors to match, not adjust the image to the monitor.

IMO the first is okay, second is over saturated, but the difference is small enough to be a matter of taste.

Docthomas wrote in post #7011472
Noticed I'm having to "push" that monitor at 100% brightness to get it equal may have something to do with washed out colors?

If that old screen is at about 100% brightness, what luminance do you get?

My laptop is a bit older then your screen, yet my calibration software tells me to set luminance lower then 100%. Luminance is lower then I'd like then (about 8osomething Cd^2), yet if I pot it higher, the blacks go too light.

It's a case of the backlight being on the way out I suppose.

I'd try to set the luminance as indicated by the calibration software. If one screen is way too dark then, it might be time to buy another...

Also, be aware that if you want to match displays, the only way to do it is to bring the best display down to match the worst!

Finally: Make sure your graphics card has a dual LUT (one for each screen), otherwise, the calibration software will load the LUT with the correct data for the last calibration, so the screen you calibrated first will not be calibrated anymore...
(pretty easy to find out, by calibrating display one, evaluate the profile (I think iOne Display offers the feature), calibrate display 2, evaluate both profiles. If the first shifted (big time probably in that case) then you cannot calibrate 2 monitors on that card. A 2nd video card would be needed.

http://www.northlight-images.co.uk …_monitor_calibr​ation.html

weird I never got notified of your responses.

the images are "CLOSE" because I tried to make them that way. I'm searching for a way to show how different my images are between screens. As you said they are CLOSE but the MORE saturated image #2 came off the "worse" monitor. I had to boost everything to make it look the same as it does untouched on #1.

viewing in both lightroom and acdsee pro. I adjusted images only to show difference between the monitors. the older monitor is way undersaturated compared to the new one. I tried to get them as close to the same by editing each individually on each screen.

I actually calibrated both to a luminace of 100 becuase that was max I could get out of older monitor. I get weird readings sometimes out of the i1. sometimes it tells me lumiance is 500 despite being turned all the way down others it says it's less than 80 despite being MAX. I often abort the calibration and restart and that fixes it.

I am using a dual head nvidia card. I also am using the microsoft XP dual monitor fix that allows seperate profiles for each monitor. Pretty cool and actually found it mention on x-rites site a few days after I found it on MS site.

At this point I use new 22" for editing move all controls and palettes to the smaller less saturated screen. gives me a nice large viewing area and a smaller tool area. seems to work OK.

Not sure why they show to be calibrated but vary so much. the colors are just not there between the two. gamma same, luminance same, white point same. images NOT SAME. I even calibrated the one using the profile created off the other (as suggested on x-rite site). basically tune one monitor then switch to other monitor and use other monitor's profile as a baseline to start the second monitor. Colors are closer but just not the same. so I may be stick to my current setup. close but not exact and use the smaller monitor as a toolbox of sorts.

Is there a way to somehow show what I am actually seeing between the monitors? same image when dragged between monitors becomes more/less saturated depending on monitor. Like to be able to show someone the difference. not sure how to do that.

Also, any more thoughts on some standard image that can be used to verify color accuracy?

thanks

Shawn

In PS use the new monitor for editing and the old one for your tools and such. Calibrate the editing screen and adjust the other to be close. Close is all you will get. Two different technologies, two different results. Don't use the second monitor to evaluate color.

15" screen. How old is that? Surprised it still works.

If you need something to evaluate color accuracy, try this. http://www.bhphotovide​o.com …ni_ColorChecker​_Card.html
Set it up in a shot, view the shot onscreen, print and evaluate.

Fair warning, you may drive yourself mad with this color stuff.

Check the link in Rene's sig.

Docthomas wrote in post #7023300
I'm searching for a way to show how different my images are between screens.

Ah, so you open the same image on both screens, then adjust one image on one screen to visually match the other (untouched) image?

I'd say that the first image looks best, but also that it's a matter of taste...

The proof is in the printing

If you *need* both screens to match, get two identical screens, or prepare for an endeavour

Tom's advice about using the newest screen for color critical stuff is good.