Hello all you wonderful people. I have looked around at this site and I am unable to find the answer that I am looking for.
When doing a calibration what do you consider to be the most important part of the calibration chain?
1. setting gray scale to track D65
2. Delta E under 2 to 4
3. getting your primaries/secondaries to hit their cie targets
4. gamma tracks at 2.22
Now I know that ideally all of theses @ the same time equal the perfect calibration but, which one has a higher precedent over the other ?I can get close with the gray scale and Delta E and primaries/secondaries however my gamma is not @ 2.22 and if thats more important then a tight gray scale I will set about changing what I can to get it there. Thanks you for all of your technical and logical advice in advance.:confused:

2 is how you determine 1, 3 is dependent on 2 which is dependent on 1, 4 is dependent on 2 which is dependent on 1....

But seriously - humans are white adapative - so you really do greyscale so that the secondaries are corrected. Primaries you cannot usually do anything about - and gamma is subjective dependent on display and environment.

Making sure your overal color temperature is right is the most important.
Your Iris will adapt if the image is a bit to bright or a bit to dark, but humans don't do color correction particularly well.

That said... Sometimes you want to set your color wrong, to accomodate the people in your house that don't see color correctly. I have a friend with Red Green color blindeness. making the color a bit cool helps him to distinguish colors that are particularly red or green.

If you are mastering content you certainly want your display calibrated to spec. Because you'd hate to be too green and find out you color corrected for your monitor and that made everyone else think you shot your rain forest scene after the jungle had been hit with agent orange.

In your home however you want to adjust for things like your overly theatre chairs reflecting red light on to the screen during bright scenes. Or the color mismatch of the Compact Eco Bulbs your wife made you install that cast a glaring blue light.

or the Fact that you wear Rose Colored glasses (true story).

The most important factor in a well tuned display is that you like the way things look when they are done. The tools will get you close, but there is an art to the science of calibration. Especially since no consumer display has perfect color response curves.

Not sure I even understand the question. They are ALL important, with the possible exception of gamma which is somewhat subjective. However, #2 is a performance standard, not a calibration step. It applies to both #1 and #3.

A better question would be in which order do I perform these tasks. I'd get gamma, black/white levels first, grayscale second, then worry about primary chromaticity.

ok I pretty sure that I understand this. I guess my real question then is if you have grayscale , D65 and Delta E under 4 and your color temp is 6500k with your primaries/secondaries line up well if you have a bad gamma do you just leave it alone or do you go back and start over and get gamma as close to 2.22 target as possible?:confused:

Obtaining a different gamma would have very little effect on the grayscale and primary/secondary chromaticities.

if you have a bad gamma do you just leave it alone or do you go back and start over and get gamma as close to 2.22 target as possible?:confused:

Looking at http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=11152294#post11152294 your gamma isn't necessarily horrible. I personally don't like going over 2.3 because of the loss of dark detail, but you're not doing that. I'm going to guess that moving closer to 2.2 the most noticable thing might be showing more dark detail.

The way my SXRD seems to work is that raising brightness will lower the overall gamma. Lowering contrast seems to raise the top-end gamma, which I might guess could flatten your gamma from 70% up. If my TV's gamma measured that way, raising brightness a little bit and lowering contrast a little would be about as close as my TV would probably get to 2.2 gamma. Of course the tradeoff is that you lose some contrast between black and white.

Looking at http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=11152294#post11152294 your gamma isn't necessarily horrible. I personally don't like going over 2.3 because of the loss of dark detail, but you're not doing that. I'm going to guess that moving closer to 2.2 the most noticable thing might be showing more dark detail.

One thing to note: with gamma, a lot of digital displays have a huge (>3.0) gamma at the low-end of the tone scale. Getting this right is what you want; the overall number is of secondary concern. In fact, if I had my preferences, I'd like to try -- just once -- to have a gamma curve that was a little lower at the low-end (say 2.1), but was higher at the top-end (~2.5 - 2.6). One of these days, I may have enough free time to play with my Radiance to do it. :)

Bill

Ok thanks for for the input from the looks of things I might be chasing a mythical beast for no reason. Better to leave it for now until I either get a different probe,software or a new tv. thank you all again:)