A few weeks ago I rented an Eye-one Pro to calibrate my 5020FD. The calibration went beautifully and all is well. I recently decided to purchase a less expensive meter (I1 Display 2) for future touchups.

When I measured the grayscale with the less expensive LT, I was surprised to see such disparity in the measurements. Delta E's went from less than 1 to 6(!) in some points as you can see below.

Eye-one Pro measurements:

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2525/3965953599_9d6b5c008e_o.jpg

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2595/3965953547_bc1577c564_o.jpg

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2637/3966732380_3a8553c14e_o.jpg


Same settings from a brand new Eye-one Display 2 two weeks later: (Repeatable)

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2439/3965953765_fe25def5a8_o.jpg

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2629/3966732186_9bbff36a49_o.jpg

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3428/3965953859_eefd4d6ba0_o.jpg


I decided to try a full calibration based on the cheaper LT meter and came up with wildly different numbers.

72hz table: (bold is LT values)
RH: 491 537(LT)
GH:502 501(LT)
BH: 567 589(LT)

Another thing is the LT meter seems much less sensitive to RGB changes than the Pro. For instance one tick of the Pro = 3 ticks of the LT. When I was done I expected a terrible picture, but the end result appeared to be the same (!).

So measurements are wildly different between meters but subjective results are about the same. I guess delta E of 6 is still hard to distinguish with the eye. Which meter do I trust? :confused:

See Here (http://www.controlcal.com/forum/showthread.php?p=1999&highlight=display#post1999), also Here (http://www.controlcal.com/forum/showthread.php?t=202)

See Here (http://www.controlcal.com/forum/showthread.php?p=1999&highlight=display#post1999)

I let the display2 warm up for about half an hour before using it.

Yeah I'm more inclined to trust the expensive meter, but just surprised there was that much disparity, making the LT pretty much worthless :(

I think that is one of the problems.. how you know you are getting one that is close to accurate to begin with...?

Think I'll bite the bullet and look to purchase an I1-Pro. Do the packages ever go on sale?

... just surprised there was that much disparity, making the LT pretty much worthless :(
I came to the same conclusion calibrating my VW50. Looking for I1 pro package now too.
Basically there are
- i1 pro basic (with free HCRF) for $795 shipped
- i1 pro + calman for $905 shipped
- i1 pro + ChromaPure for $900 (don't know about shipment)
Please, PM me if you'll find a better deal :)

I came to the same conclusion calibrating my VW50. Looking for I1 pro package now

I'm surprised spectracal even offers them at all. You could potentially end with a calibration worse than factory. :confused:

I'm surprised spectracal even offers them at all. You could potentially end with a calibration worse than factory. :confused:
Spectracal clams that they select the meters. Not sure do they write their own calibration files for them or not.

Spectracal clams that they select the meters. Not sure do they write their own calibration files for them or not.

From their web site:

The i1Display 2 kit SpectraCal ships is the retail Display2 box, the same unit that you would purchase from X-rite.

Doesn't look like they're hand picked like the Spyder 3's are.

From their web site:

The i1Display 2 kit SpectraCal ships is the retail Display2 box, the same unit that you would purchase from X-rite.

Doesn't look like they're hand picked like the Spyder 3's are.I probably was thinking about spyders

I probably was thinking about spyders

We now also have Chroma5 with LED and UHP tables added for that last little bit of accuracy. All of the Chroma5's we now ship are calibrated in-house using our Konica Minolta CS-2000.

I probably was thinking about spyders

dont even worry about going with the Spyders cause they arent any better look at the results they gave me here (http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showpost.php?p=17290148&postcount=2324) and here (http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showpost.php?p=17289521&postcount=2315) for reference settings from D-Nice. i know all panels are different but look how off it is.

What meter did dnice use to calibrate your set?

I never calibrated Kimwyn's display.

dont even worry about going with the Spyders cause they arent any better look at the results they gave me here (http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showpost.php?p=17290148&postcount=2324) and here (http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showpost.php?p=17289521&postcount=2315) for reference settings from D-Nice. i know all panels are different but look how off it is.

This was a "hand picked" spyder 3?

I never calibrated Kimwyn's display.

I never said you calibrated my set. Anyone reading my post, please note i said i USED D-Nice's reference settings, not that he calibrated my set.

This was a "hand picked" spyder 3?

it should have been.

I never said you calibrated my set. Anyone reading my post, please note i said i USED D-Nice's reference settings, not that he calibrated my set.

So what are the reference settings good for in determining whether your measurements are off or not?

D-Nice usually calibrates a set and posts "recommended" settings for persons who either cannot calibrate their panels themselves OR cannot have them calibrated by a pro (or doesnt want to do neither). those settings are "usually" pretty acceptable and should give a "fair" representation of a good image.mine does give a "fair" representation but when i measured those were the graphs i obtained. now when i actually checked the RGB levels for each IRE the green was at around 80% for all 11 points but yet the color on the screen was fine. when i adjusted until the levels were all close to 100% (all were between 99%-102%) you could definitely tell by looking at the screen that there was way too much green in the panel because the grey patterns turned to a swamp green color. my conclusion is that my meter was not correctly picking up the greens so trying to correct it so that it does, placed way too much green in the image.

The point is, your visual assessment is likely more useful than the "reference" of someone's settings from another set. Even if dnice has identified a pattern in a few sets that is useful, one cannot expect precise results from transferring settings. They can get you in the right direction or the ballpark in some cases, many cases if there are enough samples of a particular model to base the conclusions upon. You just never know what variances will pop up in production of any model. I have seen very consistent settings on some of the same model and then one that is far from the same.

The point is, your visual assessment is likely more useful than the "reference" of someone's settings from another set. Even if dnice has identified a pattern in a few sets that is useful, one cannot expect precise results from transferring settings. They can get you in the right direction or the ballpark in some cases, many cases if there are enough samples of a particular model to base the conclusions upon. You just never know what variances will pop up in production of any model. I have seen very consistent settings on some of the same model and then one that is far from the same.I've worked on every single batch of 9G Kuros (non-Elite, Elite, Signature Elite, KRP series) from May 2008 - April 2009 and know the exact variance per batch (minus the duds) :) However, my "Reference" settings are not, nor have they ever been, a replacment for a real calibration.

Kimwyn's issues are either bad panel (least likely), the setup of his Spyder3 (less likely) or faulty Spyder3 (very likely).

Kimwyn, please contact the people where you purchased your Chroma5 to see about getting a replacement.

[QUOTE=D-Nice;17300329]I've worked on every single batch of 9G Kuros (non-Elite, Elite, Signature Elite, KRP series) from May 2008 - April 2009 and know the exact variance per batch (minus the duds) :) However, my "Reference" settings are not, nor have they ever been, a replacment for a real calibration.
QUOTE]

Thank you for clarifying that. Like you, I have observed that many settings can be useful to share, but one has to be careful to emphasize that there are limits to what you can get from doing so.

Kimwyn's issues are either bad panel (least likely), the setup of his Chroma5 (less likely) or faulty Chroma5 (very likely).

Kimwyn, please contact the people where you purchased your Chroma5 to see about getting a replacement.

Kimwyn has one of the new Enhanced performance Spyder 3 (calibration table external of the meter) and CalMAN...

Kimwyn has one of the new Enhanced performance Spyder 3 (calibration table external of the meter) and CalMAN...Thanks for the info. I've updated my post.

I do know that there is no way green should be measuring as low as he is reporting.

A man with one meter,
knows his calibration is perfect.

A man with two meters,
is never sure!!

A man with one meter,
knows his calibration is perfect.

A man with two meters,
is never sure!!

LOL, I'm not sure I've ever seen anything more true.

A man with two meters,
is never sure!!Depends on the meters ;)

Depends on the meters ;)

I second this! :)

I've worked on every single batch of 9G Kuros (non-Elite, Elite, Signature Elite, KRP series) from May 2008 - April 2009 and know the exact variance per batch (minus the duds) :) However, my "Reference" settings are not, nor have they ever been, a replacment for a real calibration.

If this is true, I am wondering why you haven't posted any reference settings for the KRP-600M. Just curious. Thanks.

Thanks for the info. I've updated my post.

I do know that there is no way green should be measuring as low as he is reporting.

if that is the case, why then is it doing that? what do you think can be the problem because your Pure reference settings (tweaked a bit with sharpness at -5 instead of -15) looked absolutely amazing. and when i measured the pre cal Pure the green was as low as you see in the graph. i will call SpectraCal tomorrow and see what can happen.

If this is true, I am wondering why you haven't posted any reference settings for the KRP-600M. Just curious. Thanks.Since when do I post my client's settings? Also, I have already stated the I will not be posting any additional 9G Kuro settings on AVS.

if that is the case, why then is it doing that? what do you think can be the problem because your Pure reference settings (tweaked a bit with sharpness at -5 instead of -15) looked absolutely amazing. and when i measured the pre cal Pure the green was as low as you see in the graph. i will call SpectraCal tomorrow and see what can happen.Here is an easy way to test your Spyder3. Hit the reset button for Pure mode and take measurements of the default Pure mode settings. Please post your graphs after you have those readings.

Since when do I post my client's settings? Also, I have already stated the I will not be posting any additional 9G Kuro settings on AVS.

I never claimed you did or didn't post your clients' settings. I simply asked why you never posted reference setting for the KRP-600M. You have posted reference settings on AVS and at least one other forum for several Kuro models, including the KRP-500M. I am just curious as to why the KRP-600M was not included. That is all. Thanks.

Here is an easy way to test your Spyder3. Hit the reset button for Pure mode and take measurements of the default Pure mode settings. Please post your graphs after you have those readings.

Sent ya a PM D-Nice. Did ya get it?

Here is an easy way to test your Spyder3. Hit the reset button for Pure mode and take measurements of the default Pure mode settings. Please post your graphs after you have those readings.

will do tonight definitely.

Sorry, I didn't mean for my post to be taken in a negative way. Simply put, you will never, ever see any addtional 9G Kuro settings from me posted on AVS. The reasoning behind it has already been discussed a few times and I do not wish to rehash the discussion. ThanksI never claimed you did or didn't post your clients' settings. I simply asked why you never posted reference setting for the KRP-600M. You have posted reference settings on AVS and at least one other forum for several Kuro models, including the KRP-500M. I am just curious as to why the KRP-600M was not included. That is all. Thanks.

Sent ya a PM D-Nice. Did ya get it?Nope

Does anyone know if Color HCFR allows you to enter custom offsets for meters? I figure I can use the i1 Pro as reference numbers and teak the LT to match. Even though the LT isnt accurate, at least its consistently inaccurate. :p

Nope

OK, I just sent it again.

Does anyone know if Color HCFR allows you to enter custom offsets for meters? I figure I can use the i1 Pro as reference numbers and teak the LT to match. Even though the LT isnt accurate, at least its consistently inaccurate. :p

I believe there is a method for doing just this, unfortunately there is nothing consistent about the LT apart from the fact that I can't rely on mine to help perform a calibration. :(

will do tonight definitely. I thought you already posted your Pure Color Temp Low data in the KRP thread http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=17290148#post17290148 and it had the same issue.

Does anyone know if Color HCFR allows you to enter custom offsets for meters? I figure I can use the i1 Pro as reference numbers and teak the LT to match. Even though the LT isnt accurate, at least its consistently inaccurate. :pIt will calculate it for you. Measure 75% RGBW (or if it's easier, Primaries/Secondaries/White) in 2 separate measurement windows - 1 for the LT and 1 for the i1Pro. Check the reference box in the i1Pro window. Activate the LT window and select Advanced->XYZ Coordinates Adjustment Matrix->Compute Conversion Matrix from Reference. You can either export the matrix for other measures or re-use the saved LT measurement window.

wrinklefree,

I let the display2 warm up for about half an hour before using it.

I have a front projector. Do I need to let the i1 TL warm up in my case? If so, how exactly? Does leaving the probe on the tripod for an hour in front of the screen is the correct procedure?

Thanks.

Pitou!

+1 to Pitou's question. Also, am I wasting my time trying to adjust gamma using an LT? My recent greyscale check resulted in a gamma of 2.4 at the low IRE end quickly dropping to 2.0 above. I can make adjustments in my Lumagen HDQ as my BluRay player seems to exagerate the High gamma at low IREs compared to my DVD player, so I wanted to try to match then up at the HDQ and then I can switch between 2.2/2.3/2.4 gamma curves in my HD350 as the mood (or movie) takes me.

I thought you already posted your Pure Color Temp Low data in the KRP thread http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=17290148#post17290148 and it had the same issue.

no, that was with D-Nice's "recommended" settings. he then said to me, to reset the settings to the default settings and then measure again and then he would be able to tell if the meter is faulty or not.

ok, just spoke to the guys at spectracal (they are very professional and very helpful) and they ensured me my problem is the fact that my meter didnt have the correct calibration tables downloaded.so i will download the correct ones and then report back to you guys and let you guys know whats up.

It will calculate it for you. Measure 75% RGBW (or if it's easier, Primaries/Secondaries/White) in 2 separate measurement windows - 1 for the LT and 1 for the i1Pro. Check the reference box in the i1Pro window. Activate the LT window and select Advanced->XYZ Coordinates Adjustment Matrix->Compute Conversion Matrix from Reference. You can either export the matrix for other measures or re-use the saved LT measurement window.

Thanks jdbimmer. After using the i1 pro as a reference the LT readings are MUCH more inline with delta E's less than 1.1 again. Once warmed up the LT's results are pretty repeatable. Kudos to HCFR for putting out a great free product.

Corrected results: (compare with results from 1st page)

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2449/3987853109_4af555b8d8_o.jpg

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3511/3987853123_eee8f67e4d_o.jpg

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3457/3988609294_35bd949be3_o.jpg

wrinklefree,

Can you do me a huge favor and tell me what your conversion matrix looks like? Go to Advanced->XYZ Coordinates Adjustment Matrix->Manually Edit XYZ conversion matrix

There should be nine numbers in the matrix and then some comments in the space below like Red : 13.306 instead of 16.095 ( -17.3% )

My Eye one LT seems to push me towards more red than I think is accurate. Your graphs indicate this same thing. I'd like to punch in your conversion matrix to see if it helps my calibration. THANKS IN ADVANCE.

Oh, and can you tell me how you went about renting an i1pro? I might consider this as well to calibrate my LT meter.

Dan

wrinklefree,

Can you do me a huge favor and tell me what your conversion matrix looks like? Go to Advanced->XYZ Coordinates Adjustment Matrix->Manually Edit XYZ conversion matrix

There should be nine numbers in the matrix and then some comments in the space below like Red : 13.306 instead of 16.095 ( -17.3% )

My Eye one LT seems to push me towards more red than I think is accurate. Your graphs indicate this same thing. I'd like to punch in your conversion matrix to see if it helps my calibration. THANKS IN ADVANCE.

Oh, and can you tell me how you went about renting an i1pro? I might consider this as well to calibrate my LT meter.

Dan

No problem, here you go:

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2648/3988594736_0af5b8e49d_o.jpg

PM sent about the i1 pro

Wow, that was fast! Thank you wrinklefree.

Dan

no, that was with D-Nice's "recommended" settings. he then said to me, to reset the settings to the default settings and then measure again and then he would be able to tell if the meter is faulty or not. Okay, well that was what I meant for you to do back in that thread. Glad you worked it out with Spectracal.:)

wrinklefree,

Can you do me a huge favor and tell me what your conversion matrix looks like
Dan Unless you both have the same make/model display and the variances in both the D2 and display are minimal (unlikely) I wouldn't expect much improvement by copying the matrix.

BAD NEWS (http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showpost.php?p=17310087&postcount=2358)

BAD NEWS (http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showpost.php?p=17310087&postcount=2358)

This is AFTER the new offsets from Spectracal?

^^yup....seems like the meter is faulty.

Unless you both have the same make/model display and the variances in both the D2 and display are minimal (unlikely) I wouldn't expect much improvement by copying the matrix.

It can't hurt to calibrate my plasma with the new matrix and see how it looks compared to my old calibration with my current D2. I've noticed that my meter wants me to add more red to my grey screen patterns than looks correct. His comparison to the i1pro show this with his meter as well. It may not turn out to help, but actually hurt my calibration. It's worth a shot though.

Dan

I said screw it and ordered an i1 pro. Its coming on Friday :)

I've been pretty happy with using HCFR and wondering if using Calman is worth $200. Looking over the specs the biggest selling point seems to be its user friendliness and customization which is something I don't really care for. What I do care about is accuracy. Will Calman give me more accurate results than HCFR?

Received my new i1pro yesterday and confirmed the LT is way off. Its pretty much useless without the Pro as a reference.

Anyway I dove into the ISF controls in my Onkyo 876. My Kuro 5020FD doesn't have gamma controls but the Onkyo does, along with a super fine brightness control (+/- 50) which helped me boost the gamma to 2.2 and dial in the grayscale. Unfortunately only < 1080p sources get the Reon love so its currently limited to 480i DVD, PS3 (720p games) and Comcast cable box (1080i) sources at the moment but I'm super happy with the results below. I just finished watching the MLB playoffs and the PQ was exceptional.

Settiings
Kuro offsets:
RH: -24
GH: -1
BH: +65
RL: -2
GL: 0
BL: 0

Movie mode settings:
Contrast: 37 (36 ft/L)
Brightness: 0
Color: -2
Tint: 1R
Sharpness: -15
PC: Advanced

876 Settings:
Brightness +4
Gamma +1
BH: +1
BL: +1


http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3531/3999957690_f0e9553bbd_o.jpg

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3479/3999957602_e68900ae83_o.jpg

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2524/3999194339_2ab144dc15_o.jpg

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2665/3999194371_bd283b92bf_o.jpg

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2552/3999194511_d33c675202_o.jpg

seems like i gotta buy a i1pro.....SMH. thanks for the confirmation.

I also posted this in the Epson 6500 calibration guide.

I just got a PRO1 meter and wanted to see how my LT compared to it. Here's what I did:
1) Selected High lamp, Natural setting on my 6500UB
2) Calibrated using the LT and Dan's 75% sat method
3) Checked the calibration with the PRO1 (files attached "Nat High 230 hrs PRO1 reading of LT cal.zip").
4) Recalibrated using PRO1 (Files attached "Nat High 230 hrs. PRO1 cal.zip").
5) Offset LT against PRO1 (Files attached "PRO1 to LT offset.zip")
6) Checked PRO1 cal with the LT offset (Files attached "Nat High 230 hrs LT offset of PRO1 cal.zip").

All went well and the LT offset of the PRO1 cal seems to match quite well.

The problem is that I did a calibration of dynamic low lamp with the PRO1 and then checked it with the LT offset, and they were not close at all.

I may not understand how an offset works. It looks like I need to create a new offset matrix for the different lamp and preset modes of the projector. Does this make sense? I was under the impression that an offset would be valid regardless of the number of lumens or preset, but maybe because the 6500 moves a lense out of the light path for dynamic that this messes up the offset.

Thoughts/comments on the calibrations and the offset problem would be greatly appreciated.

I plan on doing a dynamic calibration with the PRO1 and then creating a new offset matrix for the LT and checking that against the PRO1 to see if it works.

One final question: When I set up the various meters, I put up a 100% window to get the max Y reading. I then took the RGBW 75% stim windows. Since the meters mounted differently on my tripod I thought it was best to center them before the readings. Is this correct?

I said screw it and ordered an i1 pro. Its coming on Friday :)

I've been pretty happy with using HCFR and wondering if using Calman is worth $200. Looking over the specs the biggest selling point seems to be its user friendliness and customization which is something I don't really care for. What I do care about is accuracy. Will Calman give me more accurate results than HCFR?

Can anyone answer this question? :confused:

Federico

Can anyone answer this question? :confused:

Federico

Spectracal has signed SDKs with some of the meter manufacturers, that allows them to be able to optimize the performance of the meters with their Calman software.

CALMAN supports a very wide range of meters, far more than HCFR. So, as your calibration equipment evolves, so does CALMAN.

There have been various discussions about this in this forum, where the results differ between the two packages, with the same meter.

Sencore now has a CALMAN ColorPro product, which uses a very straightforward approach to guiding the user through a calibration session.

You're also trying to compare something that is free, with something that is not. You get what you pay for.

Spectracal has signed SDKs with some of the meter manufacturers, that allows them to be able to optimize the performance of the meters with their Calman software.

CALMAN supports a very wide range of meters, far more than HCFR. So, as your calibration equipment evolves, so does CALMAN.

There have been various discussions about this in this forum, where the results differ between the two packages, with the same meter.

Sencore now has a CALMAN ColorPro product, which uses a very straightforward approach to guiding the user through a calibration session.

You're also trying to compare something that is free, with something that is not. You get what you pay for.

I think it's important to note the Home edition of Calman is tied to only 1 meter.

I think it's important to note the Home edition of Calman is tied to only 1 meter.

Yes it is indeed. You would have to upgrade your license to support more meters. The next jump would be the Enthusiast version, software only.

I think it's important to note the Home edition of Calman is tied to only 1 meter.

Not true you can use a many meters as you like for your license class. In other words the home edition will support all basic colorimeters spyder2, spyder3, display2, displayLT, dtp-94. We don't lock your license to a meter or serial number just the class of meter. The higher up meters, chroma5, enhanced spyder3, i1Pro are in another class.

See our meter support table http://www.spectracal.com/metersupport.html

Not true you can use a many meters as you like for your license class. In other words the home edition will support all basic colorimeters spyder2, spyder3, display2, displayLT, dtp-94. We don't lock your license to a meter or serial number just the class of meter. The higher up meters, chroma5, enhanced spyder3, i1Pro are in another class.

See our meter support table http://www.spectracal.com/metersupport.html

OK so for basic meters you don't lock down meter types, but when you get into the i1 pro, chroma level, you do?

I already have an i1 pro meter. So If I purchase a chroma 5 + calman bundle, can I use the calman software with my i1 pro?

Hi,

The CalMAN Home I1 Pro License will work with any/all I1 Pros.
The CalMAN Home Chroma 5 License will work with any/all Chroma 5s

If you want CalMAN to work with both your I1 Pro and a new Chroma 5, purchase the CalMAN Enthusiast / Chroma 5 Bundle... CalMAN Enthusiast will work with your I1 Pro (or any I1 Pro) and Chroma 5.

Hi,

If you want CalMAN to work with both your I1 Pro and a new Chroma 5, purchase the CalMAN Enthusiast / Chroma 5 Bundle... CalMAN Enthusiast will work with your I1 Pro (or any I1 Pro) and Chroma 5.

Thanks for clarifying. The weird thing is I can buy the home i1-pro version of Calman separately , then buy the home C5 bundle and still come out less than above. :confused: I understand the enthusiast licence also supports a $700 digital pattern generator which I personally have no use for.

I'm trying to understand the logic for limiting meter types in the home version.

That is true ($50-100 less), but I'd still take Enthusiast for the price difference.

As it is in my case, the License mechanisms is a Business decision and theirs has worked well for them. Most home users do not even have a Chroma 5 or I1 Pro, let alone both.. ;)

You are about to go Pro.. :D

Also, you need to understand the history in this market segment.. many Companies License the software to the Meter Serial Number.. :D