Data and Testing Definitions and Intro

[cynical2]

Mech, how do I think about these readings vs the previous measurements?

For instance DW is neutral (or very near neutral) in the previous data....but with this data it is deficient in red.

[wbassett]

Jim as you probably know, one reading is the actual screen itself and the other is reflection from the screen.

If you look at the DE of all the samples, the screens closest to neutral have the lowest Delta change, which is exactly what we want and expected.
Wilsonart Designer White 234 236 235 L*ab 93.3 -1.18 0.27 xyY 0.312 0.33 83.7 Temp 6533.9

Those are some pretty impressive numbers and even better looking than what we previously thought of it's balance when referenced to C. Still though as nice as it is and as close to neutral, it's not dead on at L*ab 93 0 0. There will be some difference in the reflected light, but as we just saw nowhere near what happens when the screen moves further away from our neutral reference point. So it is still valid to keep the screen at D65. The closer it is, the better it will be, and like I said we just proved that beyond any doubt now.

Winter Mist has a DE of 3. If we could get a TV Winter Mist with no slop error from the mechanical mixing dispencer, I'm sure we'd see a DE even lower but I doubt we'll ever see a DE of 0. I'd say if we had TV Winter Mist at the dead on 220 220 220 reading, we'd probably see a DE of 1 or 2, so 3 is very very good and 4 is also outstanding. Based on all the other tests and readings we've taken it looks like a DE of 5 or less is ideal but don't quote me on that, we're in some new territory here right now and still have to sort a few things out. But DE<=5 is looking about right.

Also remember why I went with Gray Screen over Winter Mountain. I had a theory that a slightly reduced red level would aid with ambient light viewing, and from all my testing that seems to have held up as valid... but we can't go crazy and drop the red too far. GS is still a very close near neutral but with just a slight decrease in red and as we know ambient light tends to add red to the image so it works out in the end. With lights out the red isn't down enough to have any detrimental affect on the picture.

Dice/Luminous White matches the same profile as Gray Screen with slightly lower red levels so I expect its ambient performance to be comperable to GS but still yield better colors since it's a brighter screen at a darker shade of gray.

2007 was a long year and lots of waiting but we're tying up all the lose ends now and it is satisfying to see things come together and not throw a wrench into everything causing a step back and punt situation. We have an extremely solid foundation now and the rest of the 'house' will go up in record time once all this is done.

[mechman]

<^..^>Smokey Joe wrote:

I think I just gave you 20 hours of homework

At times I think we have a "Love-Hate" relationship!

Sounds like I have marching orders for Monday!

mech

[<^..^>Smokey Joe]

wbasset, being low in Red for ambient light has some argument, however I might point out most PJ's run out of Red first which combined with a low Red balance in the screen will result in overall lower luminance. Kinda points towards the commercial screen balance to get the max lumen output.

On the other hand top performing screens, ie Screen Research for example have a near flat spectrum response.

[wbassett]

I so agree Smokey, and we're not talking a huge red deficency.

[mechman]

Ok that screen capture was pretty ugly!! We'll just keep using the web link!

Linky!

We will be updating this again soon as Bill has been in contact with the head of the Color Science Department at RIT, and we've come up with our parameters for a neutral. Also, I cleaned out some posts that were no longer necessary.

mech

[cynical2]

mechman wrote:

Ok that screen capture was pretty ugly!! We'll just keep using the web link!

Linky!

We will be updating this again soon as Bill has been in contact with the head of the Color Science Department at RIT, and we've come up with our parameters for a neutral. Also, I cleaned out some posts that were no longer necessary.

mech

I'll give the embedded image a shot. I cleaned up the format a bit more. I'm running 1920x1200 on my laptop, so someone with a more typical resolution will have to let me know if it's readable.

Latest data:

EDIT 1/21/08: see 4 posts below this one

[Harpmaker]

It looks good on my monitor, but I'm using a 1680x1050 widescreen.

Just a note; imho, I think the chart was more readable before it was put into "color blocks". Just my $0.02.

[muzz]

Looks fine to me at 1024x768 (my laptop)

I see that the color bands reflect the temperature, so it makes sense to me, and is not difficult to read.

[Harpmaker]

By "hard to read" I just meant the bright red background is a bit hard on these old eyes; no big thing, and I didn't mean to change anything.

[cynical2]

Ok, here is an update on the data spreadsheet. My hope is that it will be easier to read. The borders now indicate any color push instead of the background. Also, now that PFG has been released for public consumption, I've removed all of the assigned "under-development" names and replaced with the actual ingredient name.

[Harpmaker]

cynical2 wrote:

Ok, here is an update on the data spreadsheet. My hope is that it will be easier to read.

My retina's thank you Jim!

[cynical2]

Harpmaker wrote:

My retina's thank you Jim!

Good, thanks for the feedback! Without the comments, I woulda left it as is. I'm glad you find it easier to read now.