Option for using full monitor profile for real time display?

Discussion in 'Photoshop Tutorials' started by Greg, Jan 22, 2004.

  1. Greg

    Greg Guest

    Is there still no option in Photoshop to allow it to use the full monitor
    profile for real time
    display, rather than the "simplified" version? With today's processing
    power, perhaps it's
    time that this option be available. (I have only briefly had a look at
    Photoshop CS so far,
    but I didn't see any options for this - please correct me if I'm wrong)

    Greg.
     
    Greg, Jan 22, 2004
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. Greg

    jjs Guest

    Never heard of real-time still, but do you mean 'view actual pixels'? It's
    been in PS forever.
     
    jjs, Jan 22, 2004
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. Greg

    Greg Guest

    What I meant by that is that when Photoshop displays images normally, it
    uses a simplified version
    of the monitor profile, and the reason it does this is so that screen
    updates can be done faster. To actually get Photoshop to show you *exactly*
    how the image should appear for your monitor profile, the image would need
    to be explicitly
    converted from the image space to the monitor space. (to the best of my
    knowledge). Perhaps a soft proof does
    use the full monitor profile though - not sure about that.
    "View actual pixels" relates to image size only, I think. I.e, it displays
    the image pixel for pixel to the display, without any interpolation
    whatsoever. I don't think it has anything to do with the monitor profile.

    Thanks,
    Greg.
     
    Greg, Jan 22, 2004
    #3
  4. Greg

    The Yowie Guest

    Are you using Windows or a Mac?

    Douglas
    -----------------------
     
    The Yowie, Jan 22, 2004
    #4
  5. Greg

    Greg Guest

    Windows (XP)
     
    Greg, Jan 22, 2004
    #5
  6. Greg

    Greg Guest

    Hang on I think I've got this all wrong. Am I thinking of the *working*
    space? Perhaps Photoshop only uses
    a simplified version of the monitor profile when the monitor profile is
    selected for
    use as a working space?

    Greg.
     
    Greg, Jan 22, 2004
    #6
  7. Greg

    Flycaster Guest

    According to the couple of Adobe engineers that frequent this and other PS
    newsgroups, the difference between the "on-the-fly" conversion and an actual
    "convert to profile" are immaterial when viewed on screen. If you increase
    view to, say, 500%, you can see slight differences, but you'll never notice
    it when viewed at normal magnifications. At Chris Cox's suggestion, I've
    tried it ~ give it a shot for yourself.

    In any event, "exactly" is a term that is irrelevant. If you want "exact",
    stick to math class because it doesn't exist in reality. No profile is
    perfect to begin with, and profiled devices go in and out of calibration
    every second they are plugged in and turned on. What everyone who uses this
    stuff a lot, including me, looks for is "close enough."

    But, I gotta ask you, why would you want to convert to your monitor profile
    in the first place? Given that there is, practically speaking, zero
    perceptual accuracy difference, why would you want to slam your file and
    clip its gamut? That's the beauty of on-the-fly rendering - you leave the
    file untouched.
    Nope, same thing, on-the-fly screen rendering. And, with good profiles,
    it's "close enough" for me and others.
     
    Flycaster, Jan 22, 2004
    #7
  8. Greg

    Greg Guest

    Simply so I can see exactly how the image is supposed to look on my monitor.
    ;^)
    Ok, thanks for all the info - much appreciated.

    Greg.
     
    Greg, Jan 22, 2004
    #8
  9. Greg

    Greg Guest

    Just to make myself totally clear about this, the conversion would merely be
    for
    previewing purposes. I certainly do not, and did not, mean for the
    conversion
    to be permanent. I agree that such a conversion would in most cases be the
    wrong thing to do. (I archive my transparency scans in Ekta Space -
    archiving
    them in my monitor space would be laughable)

    Greg.
     
    Greg, Jan 22, 2004
    #9
  10. Greg

    Flycaster Guest

    Yeah, I understood that. Well, if you want, you can always duplicate the
    file and convert it ~ but it will look the same since the on-the-fly
    rendering is very accurate. Once again, give it a shot and see for yourself
    instead of wondering. It'll only take a few seconds and will demystify this
    for you.
     
    Flycaster, Jan 22, 2004
    #10
  11. Greg

    Greg Guest

    I haven't done the test yet, but I have no trouble believing that the
    on-the-fly conversion
    will be very good. I won't be at all surprised if I can't notice the
    slightest difference.
    However, I won't have complete confidence there won't be at least a slight
    difference
    in some situations, which I can't easily predict, and test for. My point is
    that with the copious
    amounts of processing power we now have, just maybe it's time that Photoshop
    have the
    *option* for a more accurate on the fly conversion.

    I have access to a relatively old monitor, which has quite a marked red cast
    in the dark midtones,
    when uncorrected by a gamma correction lookup table. I will accurately
    profile the monitor
    *without* the LUT correction curves loaded into the graphics card, and then
    see how well
    Photoshop does with it's on the fly conversions. This may actually show a
    difference.
    The software I'll use for this is the (beta) Little CMS profiler, which is
    capable of simply
    *profiling* monitor, without forcing the user to calibrate it. The
    measuring device is the Eye One
    Display monitor puck.

    Greg.
     
    Greg, Jan 22, 2004
    #11
  12. Greg

    Flycaster Guest

    Have at it.
     
    Flycaster, Jan 23, 2004
    #12
  13. Greg

    Greg Guest

    For a greyscale, Photoshop 7.01 appears to be displaying it with 100%
    accuracy, on the fly. I.e, with a greyscale image assigned sRGB,
    it appears exactly the same as it does after I convert a duplicate of this
    image to the monitor profile, using relative intent.
    (I'm not going to bother testing non greyscale images, unless someone thinks
    it really will show a difference). The profile
    I'm using was created with a monitor which is out of calibration (non
    neutral greyscale). That is, the profile itself must be
    used to display a neutral greyscale, because I am not using a display
    adaptor LUT. Photoshop is doing this just fine, and
    if it is taking any short cuts, they're just not resulting in any difference
    in pixel values whatsoever for this particular test
    case.

    There may be more of an issue with using the monitor profile as a working
    space, but even if there is, that's something which
    I really have no interest in whatsoever, and I'm not even going to test
    this.

    Greg.
    p.s I cheated a bit in this test - I didn't have the out of calibration
    monitor with me, so I did in fact load a LUT, to *simulate*
    a monitor which is out of calibration. This hardware LUT is not used in
    Photoshop, and I so feel that the results of this
    experiment are valid.
     
    Greg, Jan 23, 2004
    #13
  14. Greg

    Greg Guest

    Note that what I *thought* might happen is that Photoshop would use an
    average
    gamma value (or TRC curve - the monitor profile I created uses 1024 point
    TRCs, rather than
    a single gamma value) from the monitor profile, instead of each individual
    curve. But this obviously isn't the case.

    I'm not going to bother zooming in by 500% etc - I'll take your word for it
    that slight differences
    can sometimes occur. This doesn't concern me - the problem I was concerned
    about would have
    had a far greater impact on image appearance.

    So I agree that there seems to be no reason to change anything in
    Photoshop - it's already good enough. ;^)

    Greg.
     
    Greg, Jan 23, 2004
    #14
  15. Greg

    Greg Guest

    Interesting. Small, but definite, differences do occur, but only in
    Photoshop 7.01.
    The test I did before was with Photoshop CS, and it doesn't show any
    differences.
    Adobe have already taken my suggestion. ;^)

    Greg.
     
    Greg, Jan 25, 2004
    #15
  16. Greg

    Greg Guest

    Wrong. I had the CMM engine set to Microsoft in the main colour preferences
    settings - I had forgotten to reset this after
    having done some other testing. Sorry.

    Greg.
     
    Greg, Jan 25, 2004
    #16
  17. Greg

    Greg Guest

    Bah - it was 7.01 that I used for the original test, too - I should have
    known that I must have changed
    something. :)
     
    Greg, Jan 25, 2004
    #17
  18. Greg

    Flycaster Guest

    PS doesn't "bypass" Windows color managment...Windows is simply not color
    managed. The difference you see demonstrates that point.
     
    Flycaster, Feb 9, 2004
    #18
  19. Greg

    Unregistered Guest

    Just recently, after I really thought I had eventually understood al
    this color management stuff, I got confused by PS. I have a profile
    monitor, everything looks fine under Windows (grey is really grey
    exposure is right etc.) - that's what a monitor profile is for.
    What I do not understand now is, why the same plain image with n
    embedded profile whatsoever, looks perfect outside Photoshop, but need
    to be soft-proofed using the monitor profile inside PS (or
    alternatively as you mentioned, needs to be converted to the monito
    color space)... Why does PS seem to bypass the operating systems colo
    management????

    Any idea?
    thanks
    -D

    Unregistered
     
    Unregistered, Feb 9, 2004
    #19
  20. Greg

    Greg Guest

    One explanation for that behaviour is that you are importing the images into
    an unusual working space.
    Check your RGB working space setting, and consider enabling "warn on missing
    profile", and "warn on
    profile mismatch", etc. I suspect if you manually *assign* sRGB to your
    images in Photoshop, they'll look
    fine.

    Greg.
     
    Greg, Feb 10, 2004
    #20
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.