Quote:
Originally Posted by Arm3nian
Now I understand. So "as measured" simply uses what you set the white point and white level to be via monitor controls. And targeting a value means adjustments are made in software to get you where you couldn't with the monitor controls.
I thought that "as measured" meant it used the initial reading without adjustments and targeting meant it just brought up a value and told you if you were close or not... fail 
I can get very close to 6500k and 120cd/m^2 with a delta E of 0.2-0.3 using the sliders.
I'm guessing as measured is recommended for system wide calibration as well? What should I use for the tone curve for a windows profile, gamma 2.2 or as measured (I set the settings to default (gamma 2.2) in the top)? I am not doing pro image work or printing, just want nice colors. I also don't use the advanced options as they seem to make things worse if you don't need it. Is auto-optimized 2681 patches good for windows? |
Correct, what I do is start a calibration with a target white point, setup the monitor, and then cancel and restart using native/as measured.
Also definitely do the same for the normal system calibration, I would argue it is even more important to not limit saturation globally. For gamma I think 2.4 actual (-G2.4) or 2.2 effective (-g2.2) are both reasonable targets for a Windows calibration. I prefer actual but effective is better for matching displays with different black levels.
2681 patches is probably overkill to be honest, but the only reason to use fewer is if you get banding with too many (speed too, of course).
