Obxd synthesizer

[BlackWinny]

I also like the grey one, but the knobs are just a tad too large which makes it look a bit cluttered IMHO

I have the same impression about the knobs. Just a bit smaller, they would probably make the global impression more light, more readable, more easy on the eye.

[fluffy_little_something]

next...

Looks like the Oberheim the Italians did

[layzer]

I also like the grey one, but the knobs are just a tad too large which makes it look a bit cluttered IMHO

I have the same impression about the knobs. Just a bit smaller, they would probably make the global impression more light, more readable, more easy on the eye.

agree, updated...smaller knobs, less LED glare

[BlackWinny]

I think that the grey background contains too much green and not enough blue if I compare to the OB-X picture you showed here:


Currently your grey background is something around #8E959D. The green is really too much dosed in your grey and the blue part seems a bit weak.

Could you try with #808090 (and perhaps #8080A0) just to see if it would be closer to your OB-X photo?

[layzer]

I think that the grey background contains too much green and not enough blue if I compare to the OB-X picture you showed here:


Currently your grey background is something around #8E959D. The green is really too much dosed in your grey and the blue part seems a bit weak.

Could you try with #808090 (and perhaps #8080A0) just to see if it would be closer to your OB-X photo?

you're right its a bitmore purple-ish.... how bout this?yay? nay?

[fmr]

Now that we're being really picky, let me add something. I really don't like the effect of the on buttons. If I remember well, these buttons act like switches, e.g. we pressed them, they lit on but return to the exact same position. We pressed them again, they lit off and again return immediately to the original position. Picturing them down when on doesn't feel right to me. I think the light on is enough as an indicator.

BTW: The grey is too blue now, IMO (but don't trust me on that, since I am very sensitive to blues, and almost blind to reds)

[BlackWinny]

I think that the grey background contains too much green and not enough blue if I compare to the OB-X picture you showed here:


Currently your grey background is something around #8E959D. The green is really too much dosed in your grey and the blue part seems a bit weak.

Could you try with #808090 (and perhaps #8080A0) just to see if it would be closer to your OB-X photo?

you're right its a bitmore purple-ish.... how bout this?yay? nay?

Way, way, way better!

In my opinion it is now exactly the background colour of the original!

[Spitfire31]

This colour finessing is an exercise in futility.

Black Winny's photo – how do you know those colours are accurate? In fact, the photo seems to be taken under mixed lighting and the white keys, that should be pure white, have a decided magenta cast, typically R 251, G 238, B 249, averaged over 5x5 pixels. So your 'reference' photo lacks green, in the highlights at least, and there goes your argument, Black Winny…

Without calibrated colours, this is just subjective views.

/Joachim

[murnau]

[OutCider]

lol

Well, if as is hinted by colour matching talk that gui accuracy is the goal, the real OBX has labels above the switches and knobs.
A basic error in putting them underneath for the plugin. It just looks wrong.
For example, the modulation section is an abomination to a former owner/user.

[BlackWinny]

This colour finessing is an exercise in futility.

Black Winny's photo – how do you know those colours are accurate? In fact, the photo seems to be taken under mixed lighting and the white keys, that should be pure white, have a decided magenta cast, typically R 251, G 238, B 249, averaged over 5x5 pixels. So your 'reference' photo lacks green, in the highlights at least, and there goes your argument, Black Winny…

Without calibrated colours, this is just subjective views.

/Joachim

I'm amateur astronomer since 1972 (and when I worked it was in a scientific discipline, biogeography, now I'm retired). The technology progresses continually since the 70's, and in amateur astronomy (astrophotography) it is quite common to have a colormeter to calibrate very accurately the monitors, because once the photos are taken at the telescope we have to work on them on special graphics tools to mix several takes (taken at different wavelengths, at least three, with different filters, if it is in the optical range) in order to get the most accurate result regarding the wavelength of the filters used during the takes. Even the digital cameras we use can be calibrated with these measure instruments. A colormeter is not very expensive, but of course it is a little investment which must be useful. It is used in many applications, not only professional but also amateur (photography, astrophotography, mineralogy, gemmology, digital painting...) and to calibrate also many devices in the universities, the schools, etc.

To calibrate a device (monitor, camera, etc.) the old (but already good) instruments used a laminated color chart, provided with the instrument. For different colors measured by the colormeter on the laminated color chart you must tweak your monitor to get exactly the same value. Generally 8 measures (white, black, red, green, blue, yellow, cyan, magenta) are needed at the minimum to have the exact calibration.

Now there is no need any more of a physical color chart. The new instrument embed themselves leds or other electronic sources which are used as ultra-precise references of the 8 colors.

Here are some examples of these instruments, at all prices:
http://www.ebay.com/sch/i.html?_sacat=0 ... ter&_frs=1

Mine is the Spyder5Pro, a very common model very widely used by photographers and astrophotographers. It is not expensive and it is extremely accurate.



Now, once your monitor is calibrated, there is no problem anymore with the pictures you took yourself. But what about the things which are taken by other people? If it is a thing widely taken in photos you get on the web about 10-12 pictures (carefully chosen in conditions close to the natural daylight) of that thing and with a pipe color picker (Colorzilla for example), you record in a spreadsheet (in Excel for instance) the RGB colors picked at the same place in the different pictures (just above the label "MANUAL" on the OB-X GUI for instance) and you simply calculate the average to flatten the differences between the 10-12 cameras which were used, and you're almost sure to be as close as possible to the original.

[.jon]

The colours in your monitor have literally nothing to do with the colour accuracy of a given photograph, only how accurately it reproduces the RGB values in the file. Calibration also only improves the accuracy to near maximum potential of the display panel, it wont make a 150er Acer to display "true" colours.

If we want to be anal about this (which we do, since we are on kvr) get someone to shoot it in studio under pro grade lights next to a colour checker card with both a CMOS and a Foveon camera (in raw), correct the white balance and average that colour before the value is truncated to 8-bit in a jpg file.

Or just give me a few and I'll get you a best guess/average from 10 highest quality web photos I can find after color correcting them.

[Mutant]

LOL we had the same discussion in that PG8X thread.

I declare the color from this post close enough.
Back to relevant things (the sound).

[.jon]

It's Saturday, 5AM and I'm not even drunk. Thank the dog for this valuable research into crappy jpgs of Oberheim synths, poor guy dug something from the yard, ate it and has vomited from both ends all night long.

The web photo average value for OB-X front panel gray is rgb (152,154,155) or #989A9B.

The highly scientific method to achieve value was to:

1) find photos with minimal visible color cast
2) find photos which weren't taken with a potato

Unfortunately 2) failed miserably and even the 8 best photos were actually taken with a used potato. The low quality (noise, uneven, random lighting, shit for sensors gear) of the photos hurts the result. Anyway, two outliers were removed. Exposure levels were visually matched, white balance adjusted to remove color cast, and then a middle shade was picked from each of them*, and these were averaged. Three different points were picked, and the result is the average of those three rounds.

Besides the source material being crap, I don't think average interwebs shitpeg color as a method works- the result is pretty close to three source photos, but not exactly any of them. It's less likely that this is the "real colour" than a colour in one of the photos is.



In any case, the hue is a very neutral gray, and the dog seems to be feeling better.


* right, here's room for human error but just trust me, I know what I'm doing and got the gear to match

[layzer]

yes, here we go again with the same PG8X color war. haha

well, it just depends on lighting and the accuracy of a camera to capture color in a photo.

here we have a comparison of blackwinny's (top-left) and murnau's (bottom-left) photos and my
attempt (right photos) to match each one.

i think i personally favor the greyer one (bottom-right)
but i think i might have to do a poll to decide the final color.