We are about to release a new update for the VisionHDP, VisionHDQ, and VisionPro HDP that corrects a judder issue reported with 24p inputs. In addition this release will add primary-color gamut calibration to these three products.

Below is some info on the gamut software that I just posted in the projector section that I thought would be of interest here:

We are doing some final testing before releasing a Vision series update to add color gamut for the VisionHDP, VisionHDQ and VisionPro HDP (did not fit in VisionDVI). This is a matrix approach, so you have control of the primary x,y,Y points in RGB color space. Grayscale and gamut are controlled independently so you don't need to iterate between them. That is, calibrating one does not screw up the other.

This is not quite as flexible as the RadianceXD's 3D palette which has control of the primaries and secondaries in RGB space. However, it should give good results for the secondaries on displays with correct color decoding. Also, it will be possible to tweak the relative position of the primary/secondary points using color/hue/offsets in the Vision. So, with iteration you can adjust secondaries on the Vision series to some degree.

As with all our software improvements this is free of charge and will be available for download from our website in the next few days.

At $1199 the VisionHDP makes a pretty compelling calibration-only box, and as a bonus you get what we believe is one of the world's best video processor/scalers for no extra charge. :)

------

Calibration order will be:
- Program output resolution in Lumagen
- Set display's controls to neutral/off (color, hue, edge enhance, etc.)
- Set black/white levels in display
- Set 100% white's color temp in display if available
- Calibrate gamut (RGBW in Vision, RGBCMYW in Radiance)
- Calibrate grayscale
- Do other calibration steps

Thanks for your continued firmware upgrades. Looking forward to this one for my HDP/RS1. Do you think you will be adding another "tech tip" to your website regarding fixing colors such as the RS1?

Thanks again.

Darin

Lumagen HDQ is a very nice videoprocessor for my use , and now if I can correct primaries of JVC H1 , it's!!!!http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/images/smilies/smile.gifhttp://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/images/smilies/smile.gif
Thanks
Jean Louis

The new Vision series software release is posted at: http://www.lumagen.com/testindex.php?module=updates_latest

FAQ: Who should update their Vision series software?
Answer: If you have a VisionDVI there is no reason to update as the 24p in/out fix and the new Gamut control apply only to the VisionHDP, VisionHDQ, and VisionPro HDP.

If you own one of VisionHDP, VisionHDQ, or VisionPro HDP, you do not need to update unless one of the following applies to you:

1) You use 24p, 24sF, or 48p, output, with 24p input.
2) You need to calibrate Gamut
3) You need the new "nop" character for the power on/off display control.
4) You just gotta have the latest software ;)

Please let us know if you find issues by emailing us at support@lumagen.com

... Do you think you will be adding another "tech tip" to your website regarding fixing colors such as the RS1?

Thanks again.

Darin

We will work on adding a tech tip since color gamut correction is new to most everyone.

Does the VisionHDP have the capability to scale to custom resolutions, e.g. input 1920x1080 --> output 1440x810 window boxed inside 1920x1080?

Thanks,
I-Liang

Jim, I just tried out the new gamut controls on my HDQ. I think it's goint to work, but I see one major problem and a couple of minor ones.

1. The Blue control brings up the white window and its gamut settings instead of blue.

2. The color windows are very small, making it difficult to position a meter facing the screen to avoid its shadow.

3. I am not getting correlation between the internal color windows and those provided by my Sencore VP403.

With the above corrected, this is going to be a killer feature for the Vision series.

Bob

Just updated my HDP.

Previously 1080/24 In and out was unusable with my Tosh HD-XE1 and JVC HD-1. With the new update it works great :)

Lumagen really do deserve a medal for the level of support and firmware upgrades they have provided for the Vision series.

not mine (Toshiba EX1 firm 2.8 and JVC HD1)always Judder except menu but i have tried with spacecowboys only.
Jean Louis

Are you not allowed the option to use external test patterns when performing gamut adjustments?

Jim, I just tried out the new gamut controls on my HDQ. I think it's goint to work, but I see one major problem and a couple of minor ones.

1. The Blue control brings up the white window and its gamut settings instead of blue.

2. The color windows are very small, making it difficult to position a meter facing the screen to avoid its shadow.

3. I am not getting correlation between the internal color windows and those provided by my Sencore VP403.

With the above corrected, this is going to be a killer feature for the Vision series.

Bob

Are you not allowed the option to use external test patterns when performing gamut adjustments?I didn't see a direct way to do it, like pressing "3" as with the RadianceXD. I could very easily be wrong as I've been using my RadianceXD for the last several months and I'm rusty with the HDQ. You can so it quite easily though by making the adjustment with the internal pattern displayed, back out one level and the external pattern comes up. Check the external parameters, then go back in and make an appropriate adjustment, and back out again. It's a little cumbersome, but not too bad.

I was able to get my Red and Green primaries dialed in really good x,y,and Y. I couldn't do Blue due to the bug I pointed out above, so my cyan and magenta secondaries remained off.

But, knowing Lumagen, they will post a revised firmware very quickly.

Bob

not mine (Toshiba EX1 firm 2.8 and JVC HD1)always Judder except menu but i have tried with spacecowboys only.
Jean Louis

Was Space Cowboys one of Warner's 1080I bodge jobs?

But, knowing Lumagen, they will post a revised firmware very quickly.You aint kidding. They have ALREADY posted a fix that offers both small/big internal patterns and the ability to use external patterns.

Seems that a lot of people are discovering what I have known since I first spoke with Jim and Pat...LUMAGEN ROCKS!!!

This is the kind of stuff that heavily influenced my investment in a Lumagen RadianceXD. I have seen lots of cool vp products in the past. Very few reached their potential as they were released and then there was limited support and firmware updates after that. There were others where the company just simply died off (e.g. Immersive :( )

I have watched how Lumagen does their updates for their older processors for some time. It is cool to see how they keep adding new excellent functionality to the old stuff. It gives me hope for a great future for the Radiance. Not to mention that the thing is still in beta but is totally awesome!!!

Jim, I just tried out the new gamut controls on my HDQ. I think it's goint to work, but I see one major problem and a couple of minor ones.

1. The Blue control brings up the white window and its gamut settings instead of blue.

2. The color windows are very small, making it difficult to position a meter facing the screen to avoid its shadow.

3. I am not getting correlation between the internal color windows and those provided by my Sencore VP403.

1. Please recheck with the 012608 release and let us know if the problem you are seeing is still there.

2. The 012608 adds larger windows and ability to use an external source.

3. We are not planning to try to be precise on matching the internal and external pattern levels in the Vision series. We did this in the Radiance series, but it ended up requiring significant effort, and extra gates, for something that is fairly easy to work around.

My suggestion is to use external patterns as your reference when using the Vision series calibrations, since they will match how real video sources are processed. If you do not have a test pattern generator, the internal patterns can still be used and will give you excellent results.

I would assume that the new update fixes the horizontal green line when outputting 1080p24

VisionHDP, VisionHDQ, and VisionPro HDP
Whats the differences between the three besides number of inputs(and price)????

Not working at all for 1080p@23.98 in and out. Sad
I skipped the 012508 firmware update and installed the 012608 only.

Here is what i have.
Pioneer Pioneer Elite 150FD
Lumagen Vision HDP/DVI (latest firmware)
Pioneer Elite BDP-95FD (latest firmware)
Toshiba HD-A35 (latest firmware)
Denon AVR-3806 (latest firmware)
Denon 3930ci SD DVD (latest firmware)
BJC Series- Belden Bonded-Pair HDMI/DVI Cables , BJC Series- Belden Bonded-Pair HDMI/HDMI (3 feet long each)
Harmony 890 remote
Ideal-Lume Standard (back light)
Onkyo 6.1 speakers
Ultrasone HFI-700 headphone

VisionHDP, VisionHDQ, and VisionPro HDP
Whats the differences between the three besides number of inputs(and price)????

For digital in to digital out they all have exactly the same features and image quality. For CRT progectors the VisionHDQ or VisionPro HDP have ever so slightly better analog power supplies.

So, the only significant difference is the number and types of inputs.

Not working at all for 1080p@23.98 in and out. Sad
I skipped the 012508 firmware update and installed the 012608 only.

Here is what i have.
Pioneer Pioneer Elite 150FD
Lumagen Vision HDP/DVI (latest firmware)
Pioneer Elite BDP-95FD (latest firmware)
Toshiba HD-A35 (latest firmware)
Denon AVR-3806 (latest firmware)
Denon 3930ci SD DVD (latest firmware)
BJC Series- Belden Bonded-Pair HDMI/DVI Cables , BJC Series- Belden Bonded-Pair HDMI/HDMI (3 feet long each)
Harmony 890 remote
Ideal-Lume Standard (back light)
Onkyo 6.1 speakers
Ultrasone HFI-700 headphone

To make sure, is this a VisionHDP or a VisionDVI. I ask since The VisionDVI does not support 24p out.

Best to email support@lumagencom. We will also need more info as to what is exactly is not working, what you observe, and any specific settings in the Lumagen and sources.

You might try a factory reset and then try out 24p in and out. If you do not do a save you can get your old configuration back with by going to standby.

Looks great! Thanks to Jim/Lumagen for the new firmware!

Two questions:

(1) Do the 1080p24 fixes also fix 1080p25? Or was there never a problem with 1080p25? I'm asking because I plan to use the HDP I just bought for PAL HDTV recordings (1080p25), too.

(2) Gordon has posted in another thread that the Radiance had better downscaling compared to the HDP. Why is that? Doesn't the Radiance use the same scaling method as the HDP? My plasma is 768p, so I planned to let the HDP downscale...

Thanks!

1. Please recheck with the 012608 release and let us know if the problem you are seeing is still there.

2. The 012608 adds larger windows and ability to use an external source.

3. We are not planning to try to be precise on matching the internal and external pattern levels in the Vision series. We did this in the Radiance series, but it ended up requiring significant effort, and extra gates, for something that is fairly easy to work around.

My suggestion is to use external patterns as your reference when using the Vision series calibrations, since they will match how real video sources are processed. If you do not have a test pattern generator, the internal patterns can still be used and will give you excellent results.I am having a super bowl party tomorrow and I've re-installed the RadianceXD for that. If I can get a little free time, I'll put the HDQ back in and try it, but it's more likely to be Monday before I can do it.

I'd bet a lot, however, that it's fixed.

Congratulation once again, for adding this functionality to the Vision series. It'll turn a lot of people towards Lumagen, as it should.

Bob

For digital in to digital out they all have exactly the same features and image quality. For CRT progectors the VisionHDQ or VisionPro HDP have ever so slightly better analog power supplies.

So, the only significant difference is the number and types of inputs.

Thanks Jimbo!

1. Please recheck with the 012608 release and let us know if the problem you are seeing is still there.

2. The 012608 adds larger windows and ability to use an external source.

3. We are not planning to try to be precise on matching the internal and external pattern levels in the Vision series. We did this in the Radiance series, but it ended up requiring significant effort, and extra gates, for something that is fairly easy to work around.

My suggestion is to use external patterns as your reference when using the Vision series calibrations, since they will match how real video sources are processed. If you do not have a test pattern generator, the internal patterns can still be used and will give you excellent results.I was able to give it a quick go through today. It looks like everything works ok. I love the choice between internal small windows, large windows, and external patterns. I didn't have time to get out my instrumentation, but it looks great.

Bob

To make sure, is this a VisionHDP or a VisionDVI. I ask since The VisionDVI does not support 24p out.

Best to email support@lumagencom. We will also need more info as to what is exactly is not working, what you observe, and any specific settings in the Lumagen and sources.

You might try a factory reset and then try out 24p in and out. If you do not do a save you can get your old configuration back with by going to standby.

I have a HDP. I did what you said but no luck. Now the picture is fuzzy and has horizontal green line when inputting and outputting 1080p24.

Looks great! Thanks to Jim/Lumagen for the new firmware!

Two questions:

(1) Do the 1080p24 fixes also fix 1080p25? Or was there never a problem with 1080p25? I'm asking because I plan to use the HDP I just bought for PAL HDTV recordings (1080p25), too.

(2) Gordon has posted in another thread that the Radiance had better downscaling compared to the HDP. Why is that? Doesn't the Radiance use the same scaling method as the HDP? My plasma is 768p, so I planned to let the HDP downscale...

Thanks!

1) 25p in/out would have had the same issue. I'm not sure if 25p was tested with teh new update yet. However, I believe it should behave the same as 24p in/out. Has anyone tryed this, and how did it go?

2) The upscaling is the same algorithm in the VisionHDP/HDQ/Pro as in the Radiance, except the precision has been improved in the Radiance.

The down-scaling algorithm is totally new in the Radiance and is significantly better than in the Vision series as we had more gates available to improve downscaling in the Radiance. Of course down-scaling in the HDP is still pretty good.

I have a HDP. I did what you said but no luck. Now the picture is fuzzy and has horizontal green line when inputting and outputting 1080p24.

Please try an older release to make sure this is specific to the new release.

Probably time to email us at support@lumagen.com. Please include as much detail about your sytem as possible including the source components in the email.

1) 25p in/out would have had the same issue. I'm not sure if 25p was tested with teh new update yet. However, I believe it should behave the same as 24p in/out. Has anyone tryed this, and how did it go?
Maybe a stupid question, but have you ever considered simply lowering the minimal output vertical rate from 48Hz to 24Hz? Wouldn't that allow you to drop any 24Hz/25Hz specific code (except for EDID related code)? Doing that would also allow features which are not possible today, e.g. 768p24 output. But I guess there are some technical reasons why that wasn't possible and why you had to add 24Hz specific code instead? Thanks!

2) The upscaling is the same algorithm in the VisionHDP/HDQ/Pro as in the Radiance, except the precision has been improved in the Radiance.

The down-scaling algorithm is totally new in the Radiance and is significantly better than in the Vision series as we had more gates available to improve downscaling in the Radiance. Of course down-scaling in the HDP is still pretty good.
Thanks!

Jim, couple questions if you don't mind...

Im using an RS1 with a 25 foot HDMI run, Panasonic Blu ray player and a Denon 3806 that simply passes through video.

-The HDP would be ideal for the Panamorph UH380?
-It would be a fixed lense so it has to do a vertical stretch and Panamorph Mode II horizontal squeeze(this according to the Panamorph site)??? right?
-Can I customize the viewing area... for example, I like to cheat on 16X9 stuff by making it a little bigger and on 2.40 stuff to overscan it to a 2.35 image.
-Any negative effects of a DVI to HDMI adapter?
-When the Blu ray player is upgraded I will get 1080p24 correct?
Thanks!

Please try an older release to make sure this is specific to the new release.

Probably time to email us at support@lumagen.com. Please include as much detail about your sytem as possible including the source components in the email.

Got it!

I did what Pharkin (Lumagen Support Forum) told me to do and at least with my Toshiba HD-35 your new firmware works great! The problem was from my source not from your new firmware.;)

Thank You very much for your support.

I haven't tried the new firmware but, going a bit fanboy, I can just say WOW!

This continued level of support is something people do not realize to buy in until it either happens or it doesn't.

With Lumagen it's crystal clear that it does. And they deserve all my respect for it.

Thank you.

... there, I said it. :)

As long time owner of a VisionHDP "Did Lumagen teach this beastly some new tricks'???

My picture quality (color and scaling quality) seems to have improved. Is this my imagination or did they apply some of what they learned with RadianceXD?

And I have not even looked at the calibration stuff yet.

Thanks Lumagen!!

Rew

Maybe a stupid question, but have you ever considered simply lowering the minimal output vertical rate from 48Hz to 24Hz? Wouldn't that allow you to drop any 24Hz/25Hz specific code (except for EDID related code)? Doing that would also allow features which are not possible today, e.g. 768p24 output. But I guess there are some technical reasons why that wasn't possible and why you had to add 24Hz specific code instead?

Possible, but there are certainly issues with 24p. We choose 1080p24 since it is by far the most common. There is no real reason to allow between 24/25p and 48p. We might add other 24p/25p resolutions to the Radiance, but I don't see it happening in the Vision series at this point.

Jim, couple questions if you don't mind...

Im using an RS1 with a 25 foot HDMI run, Panasonic Blu ray player and a Denon 3806 that simply passes through video.

-The HDP would be ideal for the Panamorph UH380?
-It would be a fixed lense so it has to do a vertical stretch and Panamorph Mode II horizontal squeeze(this according to the Panamorph site)??? right?
-Can I customize the viewing area... for example, I like to cheat on 16X9 stuff by making it a little bigger and on 2.40 stuff to overscan it to a 2.35 image.
-Any negative effects of a DVI to HDMI adapter?
-When the Blu ray player is upgraded I will get 1080p24 correct?
Thanks!

1) The HDP will work well with the Panamorph lense.
2) Not sure what mode Panamorph refers to for this.
3) Yes, you can set input cropping on a per-input-aspect-ratio basis.
4) Yes. I always recommend avoiding these adaptors. Instead I recommend a cable with the appropriate terminations on each end.
5) Yes, you can use 1080p24 from bluray.

Jim,
I am purchasing the HDP and was told it would be drop shipped. Will the new orders include the new firmware/updates installed? Also, will the HDP allow for significant vertical image shifting with 1080P via HDMI? (for shifting a 2.35:1 image from the RS1/RS2)

Possible, but there are certainly issues with 24p. We choose 1080p24 since it is by far the most common. There is no real reason to allow between 24/25p and 48p. We might add other 24p/25p resolutions to the Radiance, but I don't see it happening in the Vision series at this point.
I'm sorry if I'm going on your nerves but I'm still wondering. There seem to be 2 different code paths in the Vision and Radiance firmware:

(1) For 48Hz-120Hz input we consumers can use virtually any input/output framerate and resolution combination we can think of. The Lumagen VPs are very flexible here.

(2) For 24Hz there seems to be a totally separated solution where there's only a list of supported input/output modes which might even have some new problems (like stuttering etc). We consumers have to ask for any specific extra mode to be added into the firmware. This feels like a big step backwards to me.

Now my real question is: Why do you have a whole new code path for 24Hz? Why not simply using the already existing code path with all it's great flexibility? Wouldn't it be possible to simply expand the allowed framerate range from 48-120Hz to 24-120Hz? Doing that would mean that we gained all the flexibility we are used to for 24Hz and probably all stuttering issues would be gone, too?

But maybe I'm just talking nonsense... :o

1)
4) Yes. I always recommend avoiding these adaptors. Instead I recommend a cable with the appropriate terminations on each end.


I already have a good HDMI runing to the projector (too much of a pain to install a new one). Will using a DVI to HDMI adapter at the HDP DVI output be a problem?

Also, would I run it in the following order: PS3, HD-DVD, and DVR ---->Onkyo 805 ----->Lumagen HDP----->RS1

Will this commonly cause any handshake issues?

I already have a good HDMI runing to the projector (too much of a pain to install a new one). Will using a DVI to HDMI adapter at the HDP DVI output be a problem?

Also, would I run it in the following order: PS3, HD-DVD, and DVR ---->Onkyo 805 ----->Lumagen HDP----->RS1

Will this commonly cause any handshake issues?

I've been using DVI-HDMI adapters on the Luma for a while of without any issue with similar kit (apart from the Onkyo).

D

I've been using DVI-HDMI adapters on the Luma for a while of without any issue with similar kit (apart from the Onkyo).

D

Good to know. Thanks.

Getting jumping/jerking and randomly occuring white lines appearing when attempting to feed the VisionHDP, with the latest code, a 480i signal (from Oppo 970HD) into a Sony Ruby. I'm just looking at the static Oppo screen.

The memory on the input side of the the Lumagen is configured to send everything it sees out of the Lumagen as 1080p. Also, this appears to be independent of whether I'm connected to the HDMI or DVI inputs on the Ruby. Bypassing the Lumagen I do not see any problem feeding 480i to the Ruby. And using another memory that sends 1080i or any other chosen output works without a problem.

I gather the symptoms would have to do with some sort of timing issue, but I'm just guessing. And I don't recall having this problem with the prior version of the code that was installed at the factory (032507).

By the way, I see not problems feeding 480i through the Lumagen to another projector I have: Sanyo Z5 (though this one is a native 720p device). I can even push output at 1080p to the Sanyo and it accepts it without any problem.

Any ideas?

I'm sorry if I'm going on your nerves but I'm still wondering. There seem to be 2 different code paths in the Vision and Radiance firmware:

(1) For 48Hz-120Hz input we consumers can use virtually any input/output framerate and resolution combination we can think of. The Lumagen VPs are very flexible here.

(2) For 24Hz there seems to be a totally separated solution where there's only a list of supported input/output modes which might even have some new problems (like stuttering etc). We consumers have to ask for any specific extra mode to be added into the firmware. This feels like a big step backwards to me.

Now my real question is: Why do you have a whole new code path for 24Hz? Why not simply using the already existing code path with all it's great flexibility? Wouldn't it be possible to simply expand the allowed framerate range from 48-120Hz to 24-120Hz? Doing that would mean that we gained all the flexibility we are used to for 24Hz and probably all stuttering issues would be gone, too?

But maybe I'm just talking nonsense... :o

We simplified the output timing initially on the Radiance to save time. We will be adding mode options for per-pixel timing and output rate soon.

Also, the Radiance frame buffer timing and design is significantly different than the Vision series, so it was NOT a drop in.

Getting jumping/jerking and randomly occuring white lines appearing when attempting to feed the VisionHDP, with the latest code, a 480i signal (from Oppo 970HD) into a Sony Ruby. I'm just looking at the static Oppo screen.

Try 720p to Ruby. If that works, you may have a cable/adaptor issue at 1080p60.

Make sure to use MODE B timing for 1080p60 to Ruby.


You can also try a factory reset, and then set 1080p to Ruby. This would check to see if you have an issue in your setup. If you don't do a save you can get back to your settings by going to STBY and back on.

Try 720p to Ruby. If that works, you may have a cable/adaptor issue at 1080p60.

Make sure to use MODE B timing for 1080p60 to Ruby.


You can also try a factory reset, and then set 1080p to Ruby. This would check to see if you have an issue in your setup. If you don't do a save you can get back to your settings by going to STBY and back on.

I did a factory reset. Attempting to use the Oppo at 480i output has the same result. Only setting for 720p or 1080i allows for a stable image, no matter what cable is used to connect to or from the Lumagen. Mode B is needed to ensure that the image on the Ruby is the full width of the 16x9 screen.

So, I don't think it's a cable problem (I've tested with numerous cables).

Further testing reveals that the problem also shows up with 480p output setting of the HDMI output on the Oppo (in addition to the 480i output).
Tested both DVI out of HDP -> DVI in of Ruby as well as DVI out -> HDMI input cabling to the Ruby. Same results for 480i/p. Image is not stable and the random lines appear.

Is it possible to revert to the older code to prove that it's a code problem?

Jim,

"4) Yes. I always recommend avoiding these adaptors. Instead I recommend a cable with the appropriate terminations on each end."

Not practical for many of us with long HDMI cables already installed in conduit.

Is there any chance of Lumagen switching to HDMI connectors? Isn't that what most are are using these days?

If not feasible for Lumagen, can it be done DIY?

I'm concerned that I may have a problem with 1080P with my 35' HDMI cable, an older one from Monoprice not spec'd for HDMI 1.3.

It works fine now running directly from HD DVD player to JVC RS1, but I just got an Onkyo 705 HDMI receiver, adding another set of connectors, and adding the Vision HDP adds two more.

Does the HDMI have any active circuitry or a buffer to lower DVI output impedance to help it drive long cables?

Thanks

Jim

Although I really appreciate the update, it still didn't fix the green horizontal line issue I have when outputting 1080p24. When using that output, i get an occasional green horizontal line that will go away if you hit the menu button. With the update, the major change is that the line sometimes goes away by itself, but in most cases, I still need to hit the menu button. I am using it with the JVC RS1. As before, this issue doesnt happen with outputting 1080i

Try 720p to Ruby. If that works, you may have a cable/adaptor issue at 1080p60.

Make sure to use MODE B timing for 1080p60 to Ruby.


You can also try a factory reset, and then set 1080p to Ruby. This would check to see if you have an issue in your setup. If you don't do a save you can get back to your settings by going to STBY and back on.

Just to see if this was projector specific I tried went to the Sanyo Z5 and also found the following when sending a 480i signal from the Oppo 970HD to the Lumagen HDP (hdmi to DVI):

a) no problems outputting 480p / 600p / 720p / 768p
b) slight jumping and lines appearing with 840p
c) big time jumpting and lines with 540p / 1080i / 1080p

Not clear what's happening here. I have no other 480i sources but I don't recall this problem prior to the software update from 032507 to 012608.

I've placed a call into support to see if there are things to try to narrow down the likely cause.

Just to see if this was projector specific I tried went to the Sanyo Z5 and also found the following when sending a 480i signal from the Oppo 970HD to the Lumagen HDP (hdmi to DVI):

a) no problems outputting 480p / 600p / 720p / 768p
b) slight jumping and lines appearing with 840p
c) big time jumpting and lines with 540p / 1080i / 1080p

Not clear what's happening here. I have no other 480i sources but I don't recall this problem prior to the software update from 032507 to 012608.

I've placed a call into support to see if there are things to try to narrow down the likely cause.

Thanks for the suggestions over the phone. I tried connecting the output of the Lumagen to the DVI input of the Sony and changing the rate to 47.95 but the problem persists.

One interesting test to confirm that this is not a source issue: I setup the Tivo HD's output to fixed 480i and it also has the same issue as the Oppo, at least as far as the white random streaking lines. Since I've not sought to freeze the image, I don't see the jumping that comes with the fixed Oppo logo screen.

Next I'll try reverting back to last years software.

Thanks for the suggestions over the phone. I tried connecting the output of the Lumagen to the DVI input of the Sony and changing the rate to 47.95 but the problem persists.

One interesting test to confirm that this is not a source issue: I setup the Tivo HD's output to fixed 480i and it also has the same issue as the Oppo, at least as far as the white random streaking lines. Since I've not sought to freeze the image, I don't see the jumping that comes with the fixed Oppo logo screen.

Next I'll try reverting back to last years software.

OK. Reverted back to the 032507 code level. Verified that it was successfully loaded. Tried to use the Oppo at 480i into the Sanyo Z5 setting output at 1080i and it behaved as it had with the new code. Random white lines streaking. Same with 540p and 1080p.

But oddly enough, setting the Tivo to output 480i does not now show any obvious white streaking. I confirmed that the Lumigen is "seeing" a different signal. It indicates NTSC as the source, rather than 720p or 1080i when I allow the Tivo to adapt to the channel's broadcast.

So, now I'm a bit baffled. Please see if you can replicate what I have seen with the Oppo970 / LumagenHDP / Sony (or other) display. Something's amiss.

OK. Reverted back to the 032507 code level. Verified that it was successfully loaded. Tried to use the Oppo at 480i into the Sanyo Z5 setting output at 1080i and it behaved as it had with the new code. Random white lines streaking. Same with 540p and 1080p.

But oddly enough, setting the Tivo to output 480i does not now show any obvious white streaking. I confirmed that the Lumigen is "seeing" a different signal. It indicates NTSC as the source, rather than 720p or 1080i when I allow the Tivo to adapt to the channel's broadcast.

So, now I'm a bit baffled. Please see if you can replicate what I have seen with the Oppo970 / LumagenHDP / Sony (or other) display. Something's amiss.

And just to be sure the Oppo wasn't causing me grief I connected it directly to the Sanyo and fed this projector a 480i signal. No problem shows up.

Just as a last test I tried feeding the Lumagen a 480p signal from the Oppo and sending it out to the Sanyo 1080i. It still had some residual random white lines cropping up, but interestingly enough, not nearly as many as using 480i out of the Oppo. Baffling....

We issued a RMA for the return of this LumagenHDP. We received the unit this morning and found that a component needed to be changed. We repaired the unit and will ship it back to the customer this afternoon.

Best regards,
Randy Freeman

Very nice!

No question, my HDP Pro was definitely a worthwhile investment!

Gamut adjustments are mostly relevant for projector owners, right? I'm a bit worried about what other artifacts (banding and the like) might be introduced after reducing one's gamut range.

I think they are relevant for most owners of lcd/plasma displays as well. Sony and Pioneer, Panasonic and Fujitsu all have incorrect primaries....Pioneer (pre7g) and Sony's are wildely oversaturated on green.

Gamut adjustments are mostly relevant for projector owners, right? I'm a bit worried about what other artifacts (banding and the like) might be introduced after reducing one's gamut range.
The undesirable consequences are fairly profound, not in terms of banding, but with regard to overall color performance. Simply adjusting the xy coordinates of the primaries is not helpful if it undermines other aspects of color performance.

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=993724

Thanks for the update works great just had a question.

1080 24p from Toshiba A35 and Denon 2500BR to a Sony Pearl. When I switch form 1080 60p to 1080 24p it shifts the image over to the right about 6-8"? I can correct it with POS setting but is that the right way? Input size BT TP do not help.

Nate

I wish we had some more user reports.

We issued a RMA for the return of this LumagenHDP. We received the unit this morning and found that a component needed to be changed. We repaired the unit and will ship it back to the customer this afternoon.

Best regards,
Randy Freeman

All is well once again. As always, great customer support from Randy and his team. Got my 480i from the Oppo nicely upscaled to the Ruby at 1080p and correctly sized to boot!

I had a laptop hard drive fail just as I attempted to do this upgrade, so I haven't had a chance to fire up the upgrade and the C5 to look at the new gammut tool until tonight. Wow, those secondaries do get way whacked out. It is very impressive how the primaries line up. I also tried some minor primary correction, but the secondaries still strayed considerably. Jim, you guys still get an A for effort. If you can figure out how to fit control of the secondaries, you're gonna sell a lot more HDPs.

Very nice bug fix for 24p. But to Lumagen's credit, 1080p24 from the source looks no better than 1080i60 reconstructed to 24p by the HDP.

I had a laptop hard drive fail just as I attempted to do this upgrade, so I haven't had a chance to fire up the upgrade and the C5 to look at the new gammut tool until tonight. Wow, those secondaries do get way whacked out. It is very impressive how the primaries line up. I also tried some minor primary correction, but the secondaries still strayed considerably. Jim, you guys still get an A for effort. If you can figure out how to fit control of the secondaries, you're gonna sell a lot more HDPs.

Very nice bug fix for 24p. But to Lumagen's credit, 1080p24 from the source looks no better than 1080i60 reconstructed to 24p by the HDP.

I found the same. :( As you say A for effort but the secondaries really need fixing otherwise it's of no real benefit if you looking for "accurate" colours.

D

We issued a RMA for the return of this LumagenHDP. We received the unit this morning and found that a component needed to be changed. We repaired the unit and will ship it back to the customer this afternoon.

Best regards,
Randy Freeman

Hi Randy
I've been on about this streaking white line problem for quite some time over on the Lumagen user forum,I'm stuck on 112206 and even then some HD DVD's exhibit this problem.Do I have a failing component in my processor and if so,can I please get it fixed.
Cheer's Steve

We issued a RMA for the return of this LumagenHDP. We received the unit this morning and found that a component needed to be changed. We repaired the unit and will ship it back to the customer this afternoon.

Best regards,
Randy Freeman
Randy--

It sounds as if I also have this random white streaking issue. I had not done an update since October of 2006, and this just recently started happening out of the blue. I then DID do the most recent firmware upgrade, swapped cables, did troubleshooting of every possible solution.

At this point, my best guess is that I have the same "bad" component needing repair. How do I go about getting this to happen?

Thanks for your time and attention to this matter!

Please send an email to support@lumagen.com and request a RMA number to return your unit for repair.

Best regards,
Randy Freeman

I am using 1080p/24 input, but my projector only accepts 1080p/60. Do I need to update to this new software version?

Thanks.

Mark

We expect that many (or even most) customers will continue to use software rev 032507 for their Lumagen DVI, HDP, or HDQ. The mode 1080p24 input to 1080p48 or 1080p60 output works very well. The newer software fixes a studder that some people saw using 1080p24 input to 1080p24 output. We also added a basic CMS system that allows you to change the position of the primary colors.

Best regards,
Randy Freeman

My HD-XA2 will not switch to 1080/24p while connected to my HDQ. Is there something in the input settings that I need to change in order to get 1080/24p? I can select 1080/24p while watching SAT or a DVD but I can't get the XA2 to switch to 24p output. Remove the HDQ and go directly to my JVC RS1 and 1080/24p works great. What am I doing wrong?

Ron

Select the DVI input on the Lumagen that is connected to your HD-XA2. Choose the User EDID in the Lumagen and turn off all the resolutions except for 1080p24. Press "Menu, IN, CONFIG, DVI, EDID, USER, OK". Finally cycle the power on the HD-XA2 so that it will read the EDID in the Lumagen. Save the the new settings on the Lumagen by pressing "Menu, Save, Ok, Ok, Ok".

Best regards,
Randy Freeman

Thanks Randy!

That works OK! I find that once I am watching a movie in 1080/24p that if I switch to a different input and then go back to the XA2 in 1080/24p the video is running way faster and the audio is lagging way behind. Sometimes the video looks like it is in fast forward yet the audio is not. I also sometimes lose the picture completely when i change inputs while the XA2 is in playback upon my return to the XA2. So this works but I must not change inputs while I am using the XA2 set in 1080/24p bypass. Also if I select the menu the image judders while the menu is up but goes away when I exit the menu. I can also get the audio and video back in sync by jumping to another chapter on the disc.

Ron

One more question! Does the HDQ bypass if I set input to 1080i and output 1080i or does full bypass only work with progressive video? Example: 1080p in and 1080p out with scale in bypass or 720p in and 720p out with scale in bypass.

Big THANK YOU to Lumagen for providing this feature. My Lumagen VisionPro HDP is now giving extremely good gamut correction results on my RS1, as shown in this post (http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showpost.php?p=13838027&postcount=6510).

--Dan

Big THANK YOU to Lumagen for providing this feature. My Lumagen VisionPro HDP is now giving extremely good gamut correction results on my RS1, as shown in this post (http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showpost.php?p=13838027&postcount=6510).To quantify the improvement, what are the xyY data on the RS1 with the -10 color setting with the HDP out of the loop?

Odd that the RS1 color control has little effect on Y for green:
DTP94 probe
Gamut Correction OFF, RS1 color=-10
Rec709 SMPTE-C
x y Y dE dE dLuma
R 0.6600 0.3370 0.2116 4.3 11.5 -10.98%
G 0.2900 0.7030 0.6937 29.4 33.7 -2.40%
B 0.1450 0.0390 0.0435 6.8 13.5 -15.66%
Y 0.4420 0.5510 0.9376 1.3 1.3 -1.14%
C 0.2080 0.3270 0.7455 1.2 1.2 -2.21%
M 0.3240 0.1420 0.2638 5.7 5.7 -8.79%

Gamut Correction ON, RS1 color=-10
Rec709 SMPTE-C
x y Y dE dE dLuma
R 0.6340 0.3310 0.2085 5.0 7.7 -1.01%
G 0.3060 0.5980 0.7380 3.1 3.7 2.52%
B 0.1490 0.0580 0.0700 2.1 10.6 0.56%
Y 0.4030 0.4830 0.9749 10.1 10.1 4.78%
C 0.2290 0.3310 0.7963 1.8 1.8 0.88%
M 0.3160 0.1660 0.3198 9.1 9.1 14.1%It's not as perfect as the Radiance, but I'd say it's an overall improvement over the stock RS1. The increased error in Y,M is much smaller than the improvement in G. And the secondary errors are much less obvious, since yellow isn't shifted toward green or red. Flesh tones look perfect to me. I can see the yellow test pattern is undersaturated, but in real video it would be hard to notice unless you did a side-by-side.

--Dan

I can't share your enthusiasm.

The improvement in average dE was only 2.9 and much of that was due to reduced lightness errors in red and blue, which you could have achieved without the gamut adjustment. Green was greatly improved, but red, yellow, and magenta were made worse.

I can't share your enthusiasm.

The improvement in average dE was only 2.9 and much of that was due to reduced lightness errors in red and blue, which you could have achieved without the gamut adjustment. Green was greatly improved, but red, yellow, and magenta were made worse.

Tom,

Dan's numbers show lighter red and blue without gamut correction turned on. With it turned on the levels are restored.

I think the comparison should be with color set to zero and no gamut adjustment and then -10 color with gamut turned on.

These settings don't work for my RS1 though. It might be because Dan's RS1 has a new bulb. It screws up my Yellow and Cyan more than Magenta and lower IRE's track all over the place due to the unbalanced settings in the gamut control.

Dan's numbers show lighter red and blue without gamut correction turned on. With it turned on the levels are restored.

I think the comparison should be with color set to zero and no gamut adjustment and then -10 color with gamut turned on.

These settings don't work for my RS1 though. It might be because Dan's RS1 has a new bulb. It screws up my Yellow and Cyan more than Magenta and lower IRE's track all over the place due to the unbalanced settings in the gamut control.
Gamut Off
Red: 0.2116
Blue: 0.0435

Gamut On
Red: 0.2085
Blue: 0.700

No, red's lightness is barely changed at all (about 1.5%) and blue's lightness is significantly darker (61%) without the gamut correction.

If you made a comparison between
1) the Gamut on and the Color control at -10
and,
2) the Gamut off and the Color control at 0

then you would not be testing the Gamut control. It would be a test of the Gamut control plus other variables. Just turning the Color control down by itself reduces the color error to some degree. The question is what additional benefit does the gamut control offer.

Very, very little, as every measurement of this has shown.

Gamut Off
Red: 0.2116
Blue: 0.0435

Gamut On
Red: 0.2085
Blue: 0.700

No, red's lightness is barely changed at all (about 1.5%) and blue's lightness is significantly darker (61%) without the gamut correction.

If you made a comparison between
1) the Gamut on and the Color control at -10
and,
2) the Gamut off and the Color control at 0

then you would not be testing the Gamut control. It would be a test of the Gamut control plus other variables. Just turning the Color control down by itself reduces the color error to some degree. The question is what additional benefit does the gamut control offer.

Very, very little, as every measurement of this has shown.

Tom you really are unreasonable! It is very visible that the colors are better. Just no talking to you it doesn't do any good.

Tom has been wrong about this every step of the way. No reason to think that he would change his opinion now.

First he said you can't balance the primaries without screwing up the secondaries.

When it was demonstrated that that could be done he said well you guys are just screwing up the Luma.

Now that the Luma is mostly fixed and all the colors are balanced he says that all we had to do was turn the color control on the RS1 down!

This guy is a piece of work.

It would be fun to see the two big ego's (my way or the highway) argue on this one:
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=13034484#post13034484

Tom has been wrong about this every step of the way. No reason to think that he would change his opinion now.

First he said you can't balance the primaries without screwing up the secondaries.

When it was demonstrated that that could be done he said well you guys are just screwing up the Luma.

Now that the Luma is mostly fixed and all the colors are balanced he says that all we had to do was turn the color control on the RS1 down!

This guy is a piece of work.You know it would be so much better if you actually took the time to know what you were talking about before posting on it.

Read this this really slowly.

1) Using the controls as they were intended to be used to desaturate the primaries to the proper amount also desaturates and overly brightens the secondaries.

2) Seeing this, you guys starting experimenting using the color decoding adjustments to mitigate this effect. This worked to the extent that it desaturated the secondaries less, but now it created another problem. It screwed up the luma. This is not surprising because you are using the controls in a way they were not intended to be used.

3) I never said "all we had to do was turn the color control on the RS1 down!" You just made this up. Reading is a really useful skill. You really ought to try it. I wrote "Just turning the Color control down by itself reduces the color error to some degree." This statement, by the way, is true (not that this matters to you of course) and perfectly consistent with everything I have written on this subject.

Resorting to personal attacks is really the lowest form communication. I have been perfectly respectful in my discussions of this subject but because what I have written conflicts with your deep desire to celebrate your purchase, it obviously enrages you to read a contrary point of view.

And BTW, not only have I NOT been "wrong about this every step of the way" I haven't been wrong about anything that I have written on this subject that I'm aware of and there's certainly nothing in this infantile rant of yours that shows otherwise.

I've been out all day, so won't get to post new results until tomorrow night.
Gamut Off
Red: 0.2116

Gamut On
Red: 0.2085

No, red's lightness is barely changed at all (about 1.5%) and blue's lightness is significantly darker (61%) without the gamut correction.
Tom, I do appreciate your insight and expertise, and your spreadsheet. I hope you continue to comment here.

While red's absolute Y barely changed, the luma target generated by your spreadsheet depends on the primaries xy location, which is why the luma error is reduced. Without gamut changing xy, the luma error would remain.

I'm not sure just what exactly the RS1 color control affects. But I have to disagree when you say the lightness errors can be eliminated without the gamut controls. RS1 color=0 has blue down -20%. RS1 color=-10 brings red down as well. There is no way to get correct luma for R,G,B at 100IRE on a stock RS1, and maintain D65 grayscale.

The numbers in my post were not targeting REC709 exactly. I was experiementing with a compromise between REC709 and SMPTE-C. When I target exact REC709, I can easily get R,G,B,C < 2.0dE, but M,Y are still around 10. Stock RS1 (color=0) has M dE=8, so only the Y error is visible.

Ron, etc., I think the difference in our secondaries (cyan is always perfect for me) is not caused by the new bulb, but by different test patterns. I only use external patterns (AVS HD709) and you guys use the Lumagen internal patterns. I don't trust the internal patterns, as there has been a bug before where the color controls caused the patterns to change. Even Lumagen recommends using external patterns. I've recently noticed a change between measuring real-time while still in the gamut menu after changing a value, vs. measuring after clicking on OK and exiting. It's almost like some update happens in a spreadsheet.

--Dan

Tom you really are unreasonable! It is very visible that the colors are better. Just no talking to you it doesn't do any good.Ron, you and I are talking past one another. You appear to be operating exclusively on the level of subjective impressions, which OK as far as it goes. But since I can't see what you see, all I have to go on is the data. And the data has been remarkably consistent. Your subjective impressions simply aren't consistent with the data.

You obviously really don't like it that I keep pointing this out, but why doing so is "unreasonable" is beyond me. Why I object to a methodology that includes independent variables unrelated to the equipment you are testing is "unreasonable" is also mysterious. This is junior high school science for god sakes. If you want to test X's effect on Y, then keep all other variables the same and just change X to see its effect on Y. Do I really have to explain this?

I don't keep writing this stuff just because I like it. I keep writing it because that's what the data keeps saying. You show me some data that shows otherwise, and I'll happily change my mind.

I've been out all day, so won't get to post new results until tomorrow night.
Tom, I do appreciate your insight and expertise, and your spreadsheet. I hope you continue to comment here.Dan: Thanks. It's nice that someone does.

While red's absolute Y barely changed, the luma target generated by your spreadsheet depends on the primaries xy location, which is why the luma error is reduced. Without gamut changing xy, the luma error would remain.Gotcha. That makes sense. I was responding to Ron's claim that "Dan's numbers show lighter red and blue without gamut correction turned on" and not to a claim about the reduction in luma error, which as you correctly point out is something else entirely.

I'm not sure just what exactly the S1 color control affects. But I have to disagree when you say the lightness errors can be eliminated without the gamut controls. RS1 color=0 has blue down -20%. RS1 color=-10 brings red down as well. There is no way to get correct luma for R,G,B at 100IRE on a stock RS1, and maintain D65 grayscale.What I meant was that the OTHER controls in the HDP can be used to correct the luma errors. The HDP has had a Red Color and Green Color adjustment for some time. Using these in concert with the PJ's color control should allow you adjust out the luma errors. For this, you don't need the new Gamut controls.

It would be fun to see the two big ego's (my way or the highway) argue on this one:
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=13034484#post13034484I don't usually respond to your posts because I make it a policy to ignore dedicated Internet trolls, but this requires an exception.

The post you refer to is more than 3 months old and clearly was a reaction to the announcement of the feature in advance of actually testing it.

If you had searched a little harder (I mean, this is what you do, right?), you would have found that I posted something very similar.

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=13003459#post13003459

"Tom, I do appreciate your insight and expertise, and your spreadsheet. I hope you continue to comment here.
Dan: Thanks. It's nice that someone does."

I think that goes for a lot of us. Please keep up your informative posts.

Kevin

You know it would be so much better if you actually took the time to know what you were talking about before posting on it.

Read this this really slowly.

1) Using the controls as they were intended to be used to desaturate the primaries to the proper amount also desaturates and overly brightens the secondaries.

2) Seeing this, you guys starting experimenting using the color decoding adjustments to mitigate this effect. This worked to the extent that it desaturated the secondaries less, but now it created another problem. It screwed up the luma. This is not surprising because you are using the controls in a way they were not intended to be used.

3) I never said "all we had to do was turn the color control on the RS1 down!" You just made this up. Reading is a really useful skill. You really ought to try it. I wrote "Just turning the Color control down by itself reduces the color error to some degree." This statement, by the way, is true (not that this matters to you of course) and perfectly consistent with everything I have written on this subject.

Resorting to personal attacks is really the lowest form communication. I have been perfectly respectful in my discussions of this subject but because what I have written conflicts with your deep desire to celebrate your purchase, it obviously enrages you to read a contrary point of view.

And BTW, not only have I NOT been "wrong about this every step of the way" I haven't been wrong about anything that I have written on this subject that I'm aware of and there's certainly nothing in this infantile rant of yours that shows otherwise.


Tom,

You talk about reading carefully and then you state that I have personally attacked you? I disagree. What I have attacked is your interpretation of the data. If personal attacks are the lowest form of communication what does that say about your comments that I "have a deep desire to celebrate [my] purchase" and then going on to suggest that I am "enrage[d]" about reading a contrary point of view.

If anything, I am perplexed. The results are so compelling that there has been an objectively measureable improvement in PQ as compared to standards, that commentary like yours seems just flat out wrong.

Might I suggest something? You speak of us testing a piece of equipment and point to the fact that certain improvements are unrelated to the Vision. Do you think that it is possible that you missed the point? We are not testing a piece of equipment. Rather, we are using all of the controls that are available to us to try to make the RS1's colors more accurate. The Vison is one of those controls. I don't think that there has been a post that has not at least implied that we are working around the Vision's limitations. The question is, have we been successful in doing so?

I know what my before measurements look like and I know what my current measurements look like. By any measure, there has been substantial overall improvement as reflected in much lower dEs for each color, with some colors that are close to perfect.

I had hoped at one point that you would be an active participant in this and even thought that you might have some constructive suggestions about things that could be tried to improve the final result. I now see that those hopes were misplaced.

Ron, you and I are talking past one another. You appear to be operating exclusively on the level of subjective impressions, which OK as far as it goes. But since I can't see what you see, all I have to go on is the data. And the data has been remarkably consistent. Your subjective impressions simply aren't consistent with the data.

You obviously really don't like it that I keep pointing this out, but why doing so is "unreasonable" is beyond me. Why I object to a methodology that includes independent variables unrelated to the equipment you are testing is "unreasonable" is also mysterious. This is junior high school science for god sakes. If you want to test X's effect on Y, then keep all other variables the same and just change X to see its effect on Y. Do I really have to explain this?

I don't keep writing this stuff just because I like it. I keep writing it because that's what the data keeps saying. You show me some data that shows otherwise, and I'll happily change my mind.

Tom,

It's the way you post sometimes. Blunt answers that come across harsh. I don't want you to stop posting your thoughts either. You have a lot of experience with calibrations and us novices look for direction from you and other ISF guys. I guess I am looking for more open minded answers rather than you slamming all our efforts.

Ron

You talk about reading carefully and then you state that I have personally attacked you? I disagree.You do this all the time. You write something neither very helpful nor very civil and then when called on it you immediately deny it. Just how is one supposed to interpret "This guy is a piece of work" other than a completely personal attack in response to a purely technical discussion? Disagree all you want, but it is there in black and white for everyone to read. What I wrote was only in defense of that shot across my bow. I reserve the right to defend myself when confronted with this type of incivility.

What I have attacked is your interpretation of the data. If personal attacks are the lowest form of communication what does that say about your comments that I "have a deep desire to celebrate [my] purchase" and then going on to suggest that I am "enrage[d]" about reading a contrary point of view.The data are just numbers. There is no room for "interpretation." The numbers are the numbers.

If anything, I am perplexed. The results are so compelling that there has been an objectively measureable improvement in PQ as compared to standards, that commentary like yours seems just flat out wrong.

Might I suggest something? You speak of us testing a piece of equipment and point to the fact that certain improvements are unrelated to the Vision. Do you think that it is possible that you missed the point? We are not testing a piece of equipment. Rather, we are using all of the controls that are available to us to try to make the RS1's colors more accurate. The Vison is one of those controls. I don't think that there has been a post that has not at least implied that we are working around the Vision's limitations. The question is, have we been successful in doing so?Gee, I don't think I missed the point. Insofar as the title of this thread is "Lumagen Vision 24p fixup release to include gamut control", I assumed you guys were talking about Lumagen Vision's gamut control.

If that is not what you are talking about, but instead your point is that by using a broad range of strategies--including the reducing the Color control on the RS1 and using the controls on the Vision OTHER than the gamut control--you can reduce the color errors on the RS1, then I have no argument with that. I never did. But there is nothing new here. This has been known for a long time. The only thing that has changed is that you've finally gotten around to trying to measure this stuff and address it seriously, AND Lumagen released this gamut control thingy, which I thought was what all the fuss was about. What I have been keen to emphasize is that unless used very selectively and carefully, the gamut control adds very little in addition to what was already available. I want consumers to be aware of that. I think that it is important.

I think, and I have written more than once, that the Vision processors offer a nice value. Their color decoding and gamma/gray scale controls work fabulously. But if I am being honest, I also have to point out that the gamut control does not.

I had hoped at one point that you would be an active participant in this and even thought that you might have some constructive suggestions about things that could be tried to improve the final result. I now see that those hopes were misplaced.I have made several constructive suggestions. I have suggested that if you use use the gamut control, you should use it on one primary only to minimize the effects on the secondaries. I have suggested that you not use color decoding controls to address errors in saturation. I have suggested that if you are really interested in color correction that you consider springing for the Radiance, which offers a CMS that works exactly as advertised. While we are on the subject, it would be useful to provide pre-calibration numbers (all adjustments zeroed out) so we can have a baseline against which to judge your efforts.

Ooookaaayyyyy.... think I'll step back to the "other" Lumagen/RS-1 thread... a much more constructive and useful place. I see this has devolved.

It's the way you post sometimes. Blunt answers that come across harsh. I don't want you to stop posting your thoughts either. You have a lot of experience with calibrations and us novices look for direction from you and other ISF guys. I guess I am looking for more open minded answers rather than you slamming all our efforts.Ron, as I said in my previous post, I really think that this is really a case of two people talking past one another. Your primary concern has been to minimize the RS1 color errors, using any technique available. This is exactly as it should be. In this regard you have used a broad range of strategies to cut the errors in about half, though it is kind of hard to tell exactly in absence of pre-calibration numbers.

My interest has been different. I have been keen to alert consumers to some serious flaws in the Vision's gamut control. I was intent on ensuring that no one get the wrong impression about what it was and was not capable of achieving.

Yes, I am blunt, which is not the same thing as harsh. If you took anything that I wrote as personal, believe me that I did not intend it that way.

Ooookaaayyyyy.... think I'll step back to the "other" Lumagen/RS-1 thread... a much more constructive and useful place. I see this has devolved.I think it is only a temporary blip. . . .not permanent devolution.

I think it is only a temporary blip. . . .not permanent devolution.
Thanks for the encouragement. You all seem like decent people. :)

I have made several constructive suggestions. I have suggested that if you use use the gamut control, you should use it on one primary only to minimize the effects on the secondaries. I have suggested that you not use color decoding controls to address errors in saturation. I have suggested that if you are really interested in color correction that you consider springing for the Radiance, which offers a CMS that works exactly as advertised. While we are on the subject, it would be useful to provide pre-calibration numbers (all adjustments zeroed out) so we can have a baseline against which to judge your efforts.

Tom,

If you, and others, are agreeable, I would like to start fresh. Why don't we do this in the correct way?

There are at least three of us that are trying this. The correct way to do this, is to start as you suggest. We should all post baseline measurements that represent out of the box performance. Why not also post settings with the color control at -15, but no other controls at work.

The next step is where the many paths diverge because there are several different strategies that appear to work. (1) Vision gamut controls only; (2) Vision gamut controls plus adjustments with other Vision controls (COLR, HUE, etc); (3) Vision gamut plus JVC color controls; and (4)All of the above (all vision and JVc controls).

Tom, if you are interested and the others agree, I would ask that we all work together under your direction. Tell us what to do and we will do it.

It really seems to me that this is all working. I don't know if we can get things to work any better than they are now, but it is possible.

What do you say?

Let me add that my HDP should arrive this week and I will be able to play with it next week. I will need to buy a probe though. Any recommendations under $500? I will be happy to post all my settings as well.

We appreciate everyone's efforts to better understand the Vision series Gamut and it's limitation. I want to specifically thank Tom for his efforts, and say his comments do not seem harsh at all. Facts often come across as bunt.

Tom is right that the Vision series does not provide gamut correction. Rather, it is gamut mitigation - if you understand gamut measurements and are willing to take the time to iterate and balance between conflicting requirements.

Tom is also correct in suggesting that if you want to "correct" Gamut you should use a Radiance, since you can achieve much better results using it's linear-gamma 3D palette.

As I have previously mentioned, we debated even releasing the Vision gamut knowing it's limitation. We were trying to provide extra value in the Vision series at no additional cost to our user base. I believe we have, but am sorry that it seems to have created a storm as well. Certainly this thread has provided useful information about gamut that might not have come out otherwise. So, maybe it's a good storm. :)

Good information here.

I have a VisionHDP and an Eye One Display LT. I'm new at this, but am willing to provide measurement data, or anything else--just let me know (and maybe tell me how).

I don't usually respond to your posts because I make it a policy to ignore dedicated Internet trolls, but this requires an exception.
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=13003459#post13003459
Tom,
To tell the truth, I think you largely do good here, but you and Mr. Sorel did have a personal vendetta against JVC that went on for too many months.
You wisely backed off when your repuation began to suffer and have largely taken the high road since. But this childish name calling above must be a slip of desperation. :(
Consider being a bit more consistent? For example why not voice objections to the $15K Marantz S2 with its widely inaccurate and over-saturated greens? It has no CMS whatsoever. Inaccurate color is inaccurate color, irrespective of the manufacture. Thank you! :)

Same too goes for Lumagen. We have heard your voice clearly and its getting old. Why not go find the faults of the many other Video Processors? (Maybe you have as I don't read this forum too often). They are chocked full of bugs way worse than any Lumagen.

The errors of the inexpensive color probes you recommend can cause way more harm than good. Just ask manufacture technical support. I found the Eye-One's blue error at low levels to be quite lacking and the corrected picture overall to be a bit flat.

I'm waiting for Thx automated display calibration/standards to mature.

And now that I'm thinking, why not discuss how any UHP bulb changes its color temperature (greatly) as it ages. So a ISF (locked-in) calibration will need to be tweaked every few hundred hours. :mad:

I'm also waiting for LED light sources to eliminate the need for this constant recalibration. Why doesn't the ISF ever discuss this subject?:confused:

Tom,

"Ron, you ... appear to be operating exclusively on the level of subjective impressions, which OK as far as it goes."

"But since I can't see what you see, all I have to go on is the data. And the data has been remarkably consistent. Your subjective impressions simply aren't consistent with the data."

Tom, to put it bluntly, when will you get it through your head that WE DON'T CARE.

We want to like the image, not the numbers.

"You obviously really don't like it that I keep pointing this out, but why doing so is "unreasonable" is beyond me."

It's unreasonable because, again, you seem unable to grasp that your agenda of good objective numbers is not others' agenda of a good subjective image; if the numbers are bad and the image is good, it's fine with us.

So please stop telling us how bad Ron's, Lawguy's, and Dan's images much-improved images are.

Noah: As long as everyone's weighing in here, I have to say that I'm with Tom on this one. I think he is fine with folks finding some combo of multiple knobs and levers that provides subjective improvement of the RS-1's color. What he has taken pains to point out (drawing a lot of flack in the process) is that the Vision gamut control, by itself, has distinct limitations and cannot properly correct the RS-1 color gamut errors. As a consumer on the fence myself, I really appreciate hearing this. I DO CARE. When Lumagen's President thanks him for his contributions and volunteers that "Tom is right that the Vision series does not provide gamut correction. Rather, it is gamut mitigation", what more is there to say?

Kevin

Noah: As long as everyone's weighing in here, I have to say that I'm with Tom on this one. I think he is fine with folks finding some combo of multiple knobs and levers that provides subjective improvement of the RS-1's color.

I don't know why I have to keep repeating myself on this point: it is not just subjective improvement. The end result measures objectively better. You can get results that measure better if you use the Vision, by itself, or the Vision in some combination with the RS1's color controls. Under most scenarios, the end result will be that your xy points are close to dead on, but the Y of the primaries will be slightly too low and the Y of the secondaries will be slightly too high.

The results are not perfect so it is true that it is not gamut "correction." But, I am convinced that had the RS1 been released with out of the box color like that we are getting with the Vision, no one would have complained about the RS1's color and, even though it is not "perfect" it is close enough so that most people would consider it to be an extremely accurate projector.

As for the Y of the colors being off, I can do a before and after comparison isolating the Y of each of the colors. If you want to do an experiment to roughly see how the Y of the colors is off, make two presents on your RS1, one on User1 and one on User2. On the first, have the color control on the JVC set to -5. On the second, have the color control set to 0. Throw up some color test patterns and look for the differences as you switch between the presets for each color. These are the kinds of lightness differences that we are talking about.

I agree that if you insist on measurably perfect gamut, buy a Radiance. Unfortunately, it costs nearly as much as a good new projector and I don't think that its cost justifies what it does. A Vision made sense for me because, for a modest investment, I was able to dial in perfect grayscale and gamma, and greatly improve the color gamut. Everyone has to do their own cost-benefit analysis on whether it is worth it.

I understand that Lumagen is planning a stripped down Radiance that has only one input and one output (HDMI only) that will be sold at a reduced cost. That seems like the product for me, but I suspect that it will not be released this year and probably not until much later next year.

I don't know why I have to keep repeating myself on this point: it is not just subjective improvement. The end result measures objectively better. You can get results that measure better if you use the Vision, by itself, or the Vision in some combination with the RS1's color controls. Under most scenarios, the end result will be that your xy points are close to dead on, but the Y of the primaries will be slightly too low and the Y of the secondaries will be slightly too high.

The results are not perfect so it is true that it is not gamut "correction." But, I am convinced that had the RS1 been released with out of the box color like that we are getting with the Vision, no one would have complained about the RS1's color and, even though it is not "perfect" it is close enough so that most people would consider it to be an extremely accurate projector.

As for the Y of the colors being off, I can do a before and after comparison isolating the Y of each of the colors. If you want to do an experiment to roughly see how the Y of the colors is off, make two presents on your RS1, one on User1 and one on User2. On the first, have the color control on the JVC set to -5. On the second, have the color control set to 0. Throw up some color test patterns and look for the differences as you switch between the presets for each color. These are the kinds of lightness differences that we are talking about.

I agree that if you insist on measurably perfect gamut, buy a Radiance. Unfortunately, it costs nearly as much as a good new projector and I don't think that its cost justifies what it does. A Vision made sense for me because, for a modest investment, I was able to dial in perfect grayscale and gamma, and greatly improve the color gamut. Everyone has to do their own cost-benefit analysis on whether it is worth it.

I understand that Lumagen is planning a stripped down Radiance that has only one input and one output (HDMI only) that will be sold at a reduced cost. That seems like the product for me, but I suspect that it will not be released this year and probably not until much later next year.

The point is it still fixes the colors of all the primaries and secondaries so color itself is corrected. Only luma's are off. Frankly looking at a primary color and dropping it 30 % is hardly noticable on the screen. Very slightly less bright but at least the colors are as they should be.

By the way -5 color alone on the RS1 doesn't fix the colors where the Vision gamut does. I had to drop the JVC color down to -30 for the gamut to measure close to reference yet looking at real video it had very little color. The vision gamut fixes the color and luma is still kept high enough for good saturation.

""Tom is right that the Vision series does not provide gamut correction. Rather, it is gamut mitigation", what more is there to say?"

Exactly, but how many times does he need to say it?

Are there really any "consumers" who need constant protection in these threads?

I did.

Kevin

I've only had a few minutes here and there the last few days, but I have finished some more experiments and understand the HDP/Q gamut adjustment limitations better now.

I tried 3 different approaches: the "balanced correction" approach, a "green only" approach, and a hit "exact" REC709 approach (R,G,B,C dE<3). All were done with RS1 color=0, and all Lumagen color controls at defaults.

All approaches run into one inherent limitation. The gamut corrections get smaller at lower IREs. In other words, all corrected primaries move closer to their original starting points as the IRE is dropped. The secondaries move by a different amount, which increases their error at lower IREs.

Even the balanced approach suffers from this problem. It is dropping the lumas by 30+%, not the "balanced correction" that minimizes, but does not eliminate, the problem. A "green only" correction gives the same secondary behavior as "balanced correction" if you drop all primaries' luma enough.

So in the end, we are back to subjective preferences. Objective "proof" is fine, but good grief, a .001 xy change can change dE by +3. No meter under $1000 is that accurate.

I prefer my "exact" REC709, as it is the most accurate at 100IRE, and the secondary shifts are not visible to me on test patterns, and certainly not on real video. The "balanced" method -30% luma is very obvious to me on 100% test patterns (looks like a 50% saturation pattern with gamut off), and is occasionally visible in real video as missing detail.

--Dan

Up and until the latest firmware release, the Radiance suffered from the same problem at lower IREs. I try to calibrate at the 75% level. I find that it minimizes this effect and gives good results all around. What level are you taking measurements from?

When you have a moment, please post your preferred settings.

Thanks.

I've only had a few minutes here and there the last few days, but I have finished some more experiments and understand the HDP/Q gamut adjustment limitations better now.

I tried 3 different approaches: the "balanced correction" approach, a "green only" approach, and a hit "exact" REC709 approach (R,G,B,C dE<3). All were done with RS1 color=0, and all Lumagen color controls at defaults.

All approaches run into one inherent limitation. The gamut corrections get smaller at lower IREs. In other words, all corrected primaries move closer to their original starting points as the IRE is dropped. The secondaries move by a different amount, which increases their error at lower IREs.

Even the balanced approach suffers from this problem. It is dropping the lumas by 30+%, not the "balanced correction" that minimizes, but does not eliminate, the problem. A "green only" correction gives the same secondary behavior as "balanced correction" if you drop all primaries' luma enough.

So in the end, we are back to subjective preferences. Objective "proof" is fine, but good grief, a .001 xy change can change dE by +3. No meter under $1000 is that accurate.

I prefer my "exact" REC709, as it is the most accurate at 100IRE, and the secondary shifts are not visible to me on test patterns, and certainly not on real video. The "balanced" method -30% luma is very obvious to me on 100% test patterns (looks like a 50% saturation pattern with gamut off), and is occasionally visible in real video as missing detail.

--Dan

Dan make sure COLR on the lumagen is set to 112. The factory reset sets it to 128 and that is wrong. You will see clipping in primary color ramps set to 128 and lose color detail. If you start with that you will get some wierd gamut settings and secondary shifting like you talk about.

I use the balanced method and do not see any shifting of gamut all the way down to 50IRE. At 30IRE the gamut returns to oversaturated but that's a know issue.

Remember with the gamut off and even with color set on the RS1 to -15 the gamut is still over saturated so comparing a color bar pattern to between gamut on and off isn't a good comparison. You would need an RS1 cal'd with a radiance to do a proper side by side evaluation.

In all my testing I couldn't see much of a difference in most material except that it eliminates the funny colors we sometime see.

So in the end, we are back to subjective preferences. Objective "proof" is fine, but good grief, a .001 xy change can change dE by +3. No meter under $1000 is that accurate.Dan, this is a little hyperbolic. The worst case scenario in which one changes blue's y coordinate .001 increases dE by 2.1 Luv units. In all other cases, changes to either xy coordinate of just 0.001 results in a 1 dE or less change.

Also, I think the distinction between measured performance and subjective preference is a little overwrought--that is unless one just prefers inaccurate color, which evidently some people do. But for those people this entire enterprise is pretty much a waste of time in any case.

The dE method of color difference is not just an abstract theoretical model. It is also based on thousands of hours of empirical studies in which subjects stare at alternating color swatches and then report when they perceive changes in color.

There are some areas of performance in which measured results correlate poorly with perceived results. I just don't think that color is one of them. The standards for performance are precisely quantified and easily measured, though meter error does play a role here. I have found the Display 2 to be reasonably accurate, though as is often the case the more expensive i1Pro does better.

This link (http://www.aim-dtp.net/aim/evaluation/cie_de/index.htm)suggest that the dE method is not a good way to evaluate color differences.

These are its conclusions:

What are the two major findings?

Always when the color difference is due to a change in L* channel alone the perceptual difference is huge compared to any of the 10 cases where the color difference is due to a change in a* and/or b*. In other words the transfer function of the CIELAB is faulty. The dE(2000) formula increase this error the most.


None of the evaluated color difference models are in good agreement with our vision, or, more accurately, they are completely useless measures for color difference. E.g. dE=8 can mean that two colors are perceptually extremely different from each other but it can also mean that two colors are perceptually extremely similar.

It is interesting because it shows examples of colors at different dEs and you can see how much things can be different depending on a given dE.

If I understand this correctly, differences in luminance are especially noticable. As our Ys are all over the place, perhaps we need to think about this some more.

After looking at the grapic dE charts that are found in the link above, I am kind of startled. A dE of 8 can look spot on to the reference while a dE of 1 can look off.

Can anyone explain what this means?

Tom,

If you, and others, are agreeable, I would like to start fresh. Why don't we do this in the correct way?

There are at least three of us that are trying this. The correct way to do this, is to start as you suggest. We should all post baseline measurements that represent out of the box performance. Why not also post settings with the color control at -15, but no other controls at work.

The next step is where the many paths diverge because there are several different strategies that appear to work. (1) Vision gamut controls only; (2) Vision gamut controls plus adjustments with other Vision controls (COLR, HUE, etc); (3) Vision gamut plus JVC color controls; and (4)All of the above (all vision and JVc controls).

Tom, if you are interested and the others agree, I would ask that we all work together under your direction. Tell us what to do and we will do it.

It really seems to me that this is all working. I don't know if we can get things to work any better than they are now, but it is possible.

What do you say?
A very nice and respectful post and probably the main purpose of AVS forum: for members to share information to get the best performance out of their gear.

Now why was it ignored? Why no sharing of data whatsoever? Because the ISF trained calibrators want to stay employed. (They will state that digital projectors vary too much, but this is only a quarter truth). Its that basic.
For example go read the Pioneer Kuro plasma owners thread. Calibrators shamelessly troll there for business.
Without being a customer, you usually have to stimulate them to get any type of response. See above. (in effect Huffman said umr was ignorant - There Will Be Blood?). They need to defend their reputation is it is important for their business.

Most members wisely kept their real world identity to themselves. Always question the neutrality of those who frequently post for their business. (manufactures excepted). As usual its all about the money.

If I want to be cynical (engineers frequently are) the push here is for people to spent $4K for the only 'good' video processor. One large technical problem is this $$$ processors dual HDMI outputs driving two displays, which for HDMI is ill-equipped and problematic to say the least. (HDMI was never designed for this important capability.) I'll bet that both HDMI outputs are identical and are limited to correcting only one of the displays at a time. The older DVI port solution is frowned upon by many when it should actually be preferred, as the audio can be stripped of by the receiver/AV controller first. Then a DVI based video processor (such as the HDP) can isolate and prohibit the second display's HDMI handshaking from interfering with the first displays response.

This was the only way to get the Monoprice 4*2 dual HDMI output switcher to work in my system. The first display has a Silicon Optix processor built in and the second display is driven by the Lumagen HDP. Now even my family can turn the power on an have both picture and sound appear without fiddling on both corrected displays simultaneously! :)

This link (http://www.aim-dtp.net/aim/evaluation/cie_de/index.htm)suggest that the dE method is not a good way to evaluate color differences.

It is interesting because it shows examples of colors at different dEs and you can see how much things can be different depending on a given dE.

If I understand this correctly, differences in luminance are especially noticable. As our Ys are all over the place, perhaps we need to think about this some more.This page and its author (Timo Autiokari) is fairly well known, and I really don't know what to say, except that at least for this dataset, it sure seems that the L component plays a bigger role in color difference perception than hue and saturation differences. It also seems to show that the amount of color error for hue and saturation differences varies considerably depending upon the color involved and the background conditions.

Taking the dE 8 sample and dE94 method (which I prefer), for example the first swatch seems to show only very subtle differences when the hue and saturation are altered, but the next one shows more profound differences. But in both cases, it is where the L is altered (top and bottom right corners) where the differences seem most obvious.

http://home.comcast.net/%7Etlhuffman/swatch/test1.jpg

http://home.comcast.net/%7Etlhuffman/swatch/test2.jpg

As the page points out, CIE is constantly searching for more accurate ways to quantify color difference. The latest standard is CIECAM2002, which Microsoft has adopted for its Windows Color Management, but which the CIE has yet to officially endorse.

There is something else that occurred to me. All of the colors in this dataset are pastels. The 1976 system, on which the current dE system is largely based, substantially reduced the poor perceptual uniformity inherent in the 1931 system it replaced, but it did not entirely eliminate it. It may be that the residual lack of perceptual uniformity is especially obvious in pastel shades.

This link (http://www.aim-dtp.net/aim/evaluation/cie_de/index.htm)suggest that the dE method is not a good way to evaluate color differences.

These are its conclusions:



It is interesting because it shows examples of colors at different dEs and you can see how much things can be different depending on a given dE.

If I understand this correctly, differences in luminance are especially noticable. As our Ys are all over the place, perhaps we need to think about this some more.

The only thing to think about then is to save up for a Radiance because it ain't happening with the vision series. :p

I think it means that you are better off having xy errors than Y errors. So, maybe get the best dE that you can with the smallest Delta Luma.

I would have thought the opposite would have been true and that xy errors would have been more noticable.

I think it means that you are better off having xy errors than Y errors. So, maybe get the best dE that you can with the smallest Delta Luma.

I would have thought the opposite would have been true and that xy errors would have been more noticable.

The only way to get better Y numbers is to reduce the amount of gamut correction thus oversaturated colors return. I already tried this. Except for the oversaturated scenes returning all the other scenes looked the same as lower Y settings. DOH! I believe the errors are mostly in the higher IRE's and we don't see it because most scenes don't use a lot of color saturation anyway. Heck I can use settings that clip my primaries from 60 IRE and above and its hard to find a scene that has excessive loss of color detail and/or flat color. Video essentials you can see it because they wanted to use the entire color luma range.

Think about it...we only saw the bad colors in brighter scenes. Our eyes are just not as sensitive to color at lower IRE's and at lower IRE's the saturation is back anyway. We just tamed the upper IRE's.

I think if we want to use this gamut control you need to try and get the luma's balanced as close as possible. With my settings my red and green are only at 4 precentage points apart. Magenta is abot the same as green and the other two secondaries are higher but there isn't a thing I can do about it due to the excessive green correction.

Ron

I am not overly troubled by this at all.

I know that things measure quite well and I know that they look very good.

I wrote you earlier that I kept looking for real world references to try to determine how closely what I see on my display mirrors the real world. I think that those comparisons show that I am very close.

Now, if I place a can of Coke next to the screen, could I discern a difference in the color red from a can in a Coke commerical and the color of the can in the real world? I am not sure. But, things look as they should and I won't be bothered by the fact that perhaps I can see some subtle variation of the color as compared to a reference object that will never be present in my theater.

As much as there is a scientific-like procedure to go about a color calibration, there are so many weak links in the chain: questionable colorimeters, flaws in methods of measuring accuracy, flaws in the display and/or video processor. I find that I have to take a step back and look at what I see. It looks good to me. (don't get me started on the errors introduced in the film mastering process either).

I learned a lot about calibration in this process and I am glad that I did it because I significantly improved the quality of my picture.

I still question how much luma matters for us. I can move the color control on the JVC quite a bit before I see a noticable difference (and that would move the Luma of the colors beyond the range necessary to correct the Luma error for a given color).

So, I am happy.

I still question how much luma matters for us. I can move the color control on the JVC quite a bit before I see a noticable difference (and that would move the Luma of the colors beyond the range necessary to correct the Luma error for a given color).

So, I am happy.

I feel the same! I am done with it and happy. Just enjoying the show now. I will be looking at the new lower port density radiance when I comes out. The HDQ has the port density I need. I don't need any more.

I enjoyed this but I put way too many hours on my lamp calibrating. Totally sick of calibrating and trying different settings. I am glad I created a 2.2 gamma along with my 2.4. I find that some shows on TV do look better with 2.2. They record some shows way to dark. I can see everything and it doesn't look washed out but why so dark? Then on another channel another show looks great at 2.4. Maybe the contrast levels they use are off I don't know.

Can't trust anything especially color on TV stations.

Ron

Dan, this is a little hyperbolic. The worst case scenario in which one changes blue's y coordinate .001 increases dE by 2.1 Luv units. In all other cases, changes to either xy coordinate of just 0.001 results in a 1 dE or less change.
In one of my measurements, I changed one primary coord cell in the spreadsheet by .001 and the dE jumped from 12 to 15. That's when I realized that obsessing over only the dE numbers may not be very productive.
Also, I think the distinction between measured performance and subjective preference is a little overwrought--that is unless one just prefers inaccurate color, which evidently some people do. But for those people this entire enterprise is pretty much a waste of time in any case.I was actually agreeing with you Tom. The Vision series will never provide objective gamut improvement over anything beyond a narrow range of IRE. So we are left with subjective personal preference of the resulting image (saturation errors with perfect decoding vs. correct saturation with decoding errors).

In fact, I'm thinking that the whole concept of an external CMS box is doomed by the extreme complexity of external non-linear correction vs. the extremely simple linear correction that could be done in the display. One Teranex paper describes how doing non-linear gamut correction to 10-bit accuracy requires 100+ multiplications per pixel. Even the Radiance may never be capable of achieving the perfection you're looking for.

--Dan

Dan make sure COLR on the lumagen is set to 112. The factory reset sets it to 128 and that is wrong. You will see clipping in primary color ramps set to 128 and lose color detail. If you start with that you will get some wierd gamut settings and secondary shifting like you talk about.I did have it at 112 for all of my recent measurements. But now I see that Jim Peterson posted in the Lumagen forum that 128 is the correct value for 1.0 gain, but some oversaturated displays like the RS1 look better with 112. I'll trust what Jim says since they can measure and compare the actual binary output with the input. That could explain why I've never been too bothered by the uncorrected RS1. The COLOR=112 would lower the brightness of all primaries.

I use the balanced method and do not see any shifting of gamut all the way down to 50IRE. At 30IRE the gamut returns to oversaturated but that's a know issue.With your original balanced settings, I can measure a small shift of the primaries and secondaries at 75IRE. Even though the magnitude is small, the direction of the shift is the same as for any settings without the big luma subtraction. Reducing all of the SUB* by an equal amount will increase the shift at lower IRE.

As an example of the magnitude of the shift with no luma reduction, my green-only correction gives y=.600 at 100IRE and y=.611 at 75IRE. Subtract some luma, and the magnitude of that shift decreases, but it is always there.

Remember with the gamut off and even with color set on the RS1 to -15 the gamut is still over saturated so comparing a color bar pattern to between gamut on and off isn't a good comparison. You would need an RS1 cal'd with a radiance to do a proper side by side evaluation.

In all my testing I couldn't see much of a difference in most material except that it eliminates the funny colors we sometime see.I'm more sensitive to the luma reduction. The first time I noticed it was a scene where a car pulls up to a sidewalk and brakes. With gamut off, I could clearly see the bright lightbulb inside the tail light. With balanced gamut on, I could barely see any increased brightness of the entire tail light, and could not see the actual bulb at all. I'm personally not willing to trade a loss of detail for color (xy) preference.

I haven't decided yet whether to keep gamut enabled or not. I'll watch a few more movies before doing anymore changes.

--Dan

In fact, I'm thinking that the whole concept of an external CMS box is doomed by the extreme complexity of external non-linear correction vs. the extremely simple linear correction that could be done in the display. One Teranex paper describes how doing non-linear gamut correction to 10-bit accuracy requires 100+ multiplications per pixel. Even the Radiance may never be capable of achieving the perfection you're looking for.I am not really looking for perfection. That's an unrealistic goal. What I try to achieve is dE94 for RGBCYM at 1.0 or below measured at 75% stimulus. The Radiance gets you there.

But you are right in that color correction at the display level is much simpler. It's just that you can't count on the manufacturers to step up in this regard.

When I am adjusting "Color", be it D65 grayscale or Primary/Secondary, I prefer to look at the "Color Difference" only:
((measured x - target x)^2 + (measured y - target y)^2)^.5, then, in addition, look at the measured x & y. Essentially, better to have a bigger error of +Blue than a small error +Green (within reason)...........

Delta E is really more appropriate for print than it is for video, IMO.

I feel the same! I am done with it and happy. Just enjoying the show now. I will be looking at the new lower port density radiance when I comes out. The HDQ has the port density I need. I don't need any more.

I enjoyed this but I put way too many hours on my lamp calibrating. Totally sick of calibrating and trying different settings. I am glad I created a 2.2 gamma along with my 2.4. I find that some shows on TV do look better with 2.2. They record some shows way to dark. I can see everything and it doesn't look washed out but why so dark? Then on another channel another show looks great at 2.4. Maybe the contrast levels they use are off I don't know.

Can't trust anything especially color on TV stations.

Ron

Sign me up for that Radiance as well. I don't know what I'll do without a component input, but I guess I'll manage. Hopefully it comes out soon. But, I suspect that it will be some time before we see it.

I have noticed that shows like Law and Order are just dark. I think that the directors are trying to capture a more film like feel, but they don't take the time to really set up the shots to add appropriate points of contrast. A scene in a dark office is visually boring if the darkness is not broken up by some points of light, which add depth to the scene.

I did some more critical viewing last night. I haven't really watched my RS1 in out of the box condition for a long, long time. I always turned down the color control. I have to admit that at least on some material, it looks pretty dazzling. I watched some stuff last night. There were outdoor scenes with lots of green grass, leaves and other vegetation. With gamut control on, things looked natural and appropriate. With gamut off, the green grass turned lush, the leaves became extremely vivid, and vegetation that had looked shriveled took on a pleasing red hue. None of it looked correct, but it did look good, at least to me. I suspect that if you took random people off the street, most would prefer that material with the gamut control off.

When I am adjusting "Color", be it D65 grayscale or Primary/Secondary, I prefer to look at the "Color Difference" only:
((measured x - target x)^2 + (measured y - target y)^2)^.5, then, in addition, look at the measured x & y. Essentially, better to have a bigger error of +Blue than a small error +Green (within reason)...........

Delta E is really more appropriate for print than it is for video, IMO.

Glen,

Thank you.

Does this method take luminance into account? Why do you think that Delta E is more appropriate for print than video?

I did have it at 112 for all of my recent measurements. But now I see that Jim Peterson posted in the Lumagen forum that 128 is the correct value for 1.0 gain, but some oversaturated displays like the RS1 look better with 112. I'll trust what Jim says since they can measure and compare the actual binary output with the input. That could explain why I've never been too bothered by the uncorrected RS1. The COLOR=112 would lower the brightness of all primaries.

With your original balanced settings, I can measure a small shift of the primaries and secondaries at 75IRE. Even though the magnitude is small, the direction of the shift is the same as for any settings without the big luma subtraction. Reducing all of the SUB* by an equal amount will increase the shift at lower IRE.

As an example of the magnitude of the shift with no luma reduction, my green-only correction gives y=.600 at 100IRE and y=.611 at 75IRE. Subtract some luma, and the magnitude of that shift decreases, but it is always there.

I'm more sensitive to the luma reduction. The first time I noticed it was a scene where a car pulls up to a sidewalk and brakes. With gamut off, I could clearly see the bright lightbulb inside the tail light. With balanced gamut on, I could barely see any increased brightness of the entire tail light, and could not see the actual bulb at all. I'm personally not willing to trade a loss of detail for color (xy) preference.

I haven't decided yet whether to keep gamut enabled or not. I'll watch a few more movies before doing anymore changes.

--Dan

I know Jim said 128 but it clips the incomming colors from my XA2 and that's a fact. 112 is the correct level with my XA2. Put up a primary color luma ramp like red and look at luma. 128 I get clipping at about 85 IRE! That's not right. It's clipping in the Lumagen so it can't be corrected in the RS1.

I see the shifting secondaries down low without the lumagen so I disregard it as RS1 errors.

You can't get perfection at every IRE and some shifting is going to happen with any CMS.

When I am adjusting "Color", be it D65 grayscale or Primary/Secondary, I prefer to look at the "Color Difference" only:
((measured x - target x)^2 + (measured y - target y)^2)^.5, then, in addition, look at the measured x & y. Essentially, better to have a bigger error of +Blue than a small error +Green (within reason)...........

Delta E is really more appropriate for print than it is for video, IMO.This is what Cliff Plavin always argues. I think that you can make a case for this with grayscale, where Luma is not measured but I really don't understand why you would want to ignore dL for primary/secondary measurements. Color is color, whether print, video, textiles, or paint. Luminance is an important component to our perception of it.

Also, that formula ignores the advances in perceptual uniformity that the 1976 system introduced. Why would you not first convert the xy coordinates to Lab or Luv?

This is what Cliff Plavin always argues. I think that you can make a case for this with grayscale, where Luma is not measured but I really don't understand why you would want to ignore dL for primary/secondary measurements. Color is color, whether print, video, textiles, or paint. Luminance is an important component to our perception of it.

Tom,

Do you know what the basis is of Cliff Plavin's argument?

Tom,

Do you know what the basis is of Cliff Plavin's argument?All I have ever heard him say is that video engineers he has spoken to have told him this. However, I have not seen this view expressed in the literature I've read on color science, and I've looked.

Is this (http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=12848986#post12848986) the discussion that you recall?

The majority of delta E calculations were developed for comparing a reference object being measured under controlled lighting situations and have reference luminance/illuminance values. A good example is a fabric manufacturer trying to compare a Pantone color swatch to a new sample of fabric. The Pantone reference sample has a given brightness value to calculate the Delta E with (measured with a calibrated light source) whereas there is no stated value for the brightness of D65 or any other illuminant value used for video applications. I have spoken with the Chief technology officers of a number of very knowledgeable instrumentation manufacturers which agree that the proper formula for video purposes should be Delta C* for the very reason that brightness is not a factor in the calculation!

Is this (http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=12848986#post12848986) the discussion that you recall?Yes, this and other places as well.

It is true that for maximum accuracy it is always better to specify the lighting conditions under which something is viewed. For example, this is part of the new CIECAM2002 specification I mentioned earlier. So if you look at a red color swatch when illuminated by a 100-watt fluorescent bulb, the color will appear different than when viewed under a 25-watt incandescent bulb.

However, to proceed from that observation to the conclusion that our evaluation of the color in all video images should ignore the dL component does not seem valid to me, especially when talking about front projection in which external lighting is kept to a minimum. In addition he seems to claim that we should also ignore dH, which is a completely separate issue from luma errors, which I really find strange. CIECAM2002 allows you to specify dark or brightly lit conditions, and perhaps if CIE ever gets around to endorsing it or some alternative, then we can have a better standard.

Finally, if this is the consensus of the video engineering world that we should use dC only for video, then why do no other professional products, such as ColorFacts or Sencore, use this method? Why do none of the professional reviewers (at least those who report dE at all) use it. Why does Greg Rogers not use it?

BTW, in case the terminology I am throwing around isn't clear:
dL Luma color difference
dC Chroma color difference
dH Hue color difference

These settings/measurements are my best results so far, and will be the final numbers I post for a while (I'm all tweaked out...).

The target was exact REC709 at 100IRE. I find that this gives much lower secondary errors at 75IRE than setting gamut for exact REC709 primaries at 75IRE. I also set the Lumagen input COLR to give 0% luma error for blue. Red and green luma can be adjusted easily with gamut SUB or input COLOR controls.

All measurements were done with external test patterns (AVS HD709) from a Panasonic BD30. Using internal patterns, or another disc player that has color/tint/hue controls will not match my results.

Red: SUBR = 009 ADDG = 013 ADDB = 028
Green: ADDR = 068 SUBG = 005 ADDB = 061
Blue: ADDR = 000 ADDG = 046 SUBB = 000
White: (all zero)
Input COLR = 116
all other inputs = default
RS1 Color = 0
Rec709
x y Y dE dLuma
R 0.6400 0.3310 0.2102 1.5 -1.07%
G 0.3000 0.6000 0.7123 0.3 -0.41%
B 0.1510 0.0600 0.0717 0.9 -0.91%
Y 0.4030 0.4870 0.9832 8.7 5.99%
C 0.2260 0.3300 0.8151 1.7 3.51%
M 0.3080 0.1540 0.3149 10.4 10.55%
--Dan

These settings/measurements are my best results so far, and will be the final numbers I post for a while (I'm all tweaked out...).Yes, this is definitely the best I have seen from a Vision corrected RS1.

http://home.comcast.net/%7Etlhuffman/vision.jpg

with nearly perfect primary luma. The ΔE94 for the secondaries is:
Y: 3.7
C: 1.3
M: 3.1

Could I impose just a little and ask for your baseline readings? This post (http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showpost.php?p=13847612&postcount=71) you provided baseline readings with Color set at -10. What are your readings with Color at 0?

Getting these results with only this much correction

Red: SUBR = 009 ADDG = 013 ADDB = 028
Green: ADDR = 068 SUBG = 005 ADDB = 061

makes me wonder if your gamut was less oversaturated to begin with than what many have had to deal with.

For example, using the Radiance I have to add much more red and blue to the green primary of my Panasonic plasma to get green right, and these displays are typically less oversaturated than the RS1.

Dan,

Those setting work very nicely. I just had to play with them a bit.

I have been on the fence between the Radience and the HDP for a while. A post on Wednesday on the Lumagen forum by Ronomy, who had been enthusiastic about the HDP, had me convinced to spring for the RadienceXD:

"After more tweaking and checking I can get 60-100 IRE to track correctly in the secondaries using the gamut control and color hue settings but below that they are all over the place. Secondaries error on the over saturated side with 50 IRE and lower. It's visible by eye using a secondary color in the lumagen test screens and dropping IRE levels so i know the meter is reading this correctly. Yellow saturation noticably changes by eye with each step in IRE from 50IRE and lower. I think I will try the 75% saturation color/hue offsets instead of using the gamut control to tame the greens on the RS1. So right now I am not convenced the gamut control is of any use. Although I don't see any shifting colors with real live video."

I called Lumagen to discuss a separate issue (their video processing delay, and how to address the resulting audio advance in my system), and spoke to Randy Freeman there. Our discussion drifted into the HDP/RadienceXD debate , and I heard a number of points, some known, some new:

* They developed the HDP gamut correction specifically with the popular RS-1 and its oversaturated primaries in mind.

* They also realized that the HDP gate count limited this to "gamut mitigation", and that the limitations might be viewed negatively (as has occurred).

* They were and are aware that improving the gamut correction doesn't really work below IRE50. On the other hand, the low IRE gamut errors are much less obvious visually.

* Randy indicated that you don't want to try and nail the primaries, but simply improve them, and to focus on the green, where the RS-1 has the most obvious deficiency ("neon lawns").

* His bottom line was that while numerical perfection is not possible with the HDP, visual improvement is, and that many users agree.

So maybe everyone is right. The new HDP gamut control cannot nail all the numbers, and it helps to add additional controls on the RS-1 and HDP, but from a visual perspective, the HDP with its new features can improve the RS-1 colors. Dan's latest efforts seem to bear this out.

I'm still on the fence, of course, trying to balance cost versus performance, but for the moment, the calculus has become a little clearer.

Kevin

Could I impose just a little and ask for your baseline readings? This post (http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showpost.php?p=13847612&postcount=71) you provided baseline readings with Color set at -10. What are your readings with Color at 0?Here are two baseline measurements, both with RS1 color=0. Not much change in xy from the earlier post.

The first has Lumagen COLR=128, which is neutral (1.0 gain), and gives near perfect luma for these oversaturated primaries. The second has Lumagen COLR=116, which gives near perfect luma for the corrected primaries that I use when gamut is enabled.

gamut Off
Input COLR=128
RS1 Color=0
Rec709
x y Y dE dLuma
R 0.6590 0.3370 0.2383 8.3 -0.37%
G 0.2880 0.7060 0.7225 33.3 1.88%
B 0.1460 0.0390 0.0508 15.9 -1.70%
Y 0.4420 0.5530 0.9486 0.3 0.04%
C 0.2070 0.3270 0.7668 0.6 0.79%
M 0.3240 0.1420 0.2935 1.5 0.91%

gamutOff
Input COLR=116
RS1 Color=0
Rec709
x y Y dE dLuma
R 0.6590 0.3380 0.2173 4.4 -9.25%
G 0.2880 0.7040 0.6902 29.8 -2.83%
B 0.1460 0.0380 0.0449 10.7 -10.57%
Y 0.4410 0.5520 0.9335 1.4 -1.71%
C 0.2080 0.3260 0.7398 1.7 -2.73%
M 0.3260 0.1430 0.2688 5.2 -7.22%
--Dan

Can anyone explain why taking readings as between the Lumagen and an external source are different, even when the Lumagen patterns are being processed as if it they were external?

I know that Lumagen recommends using external patterns so that may be all that we need to know.

One curiousity in general.

I have noticed over the last several weeks that in switching the gamut controls on and off, the most common noticable changes are in red and yellow. Skin tones almost always change and look more natural.

Most of the correction is green correction yet it is rare that I see a dramatic difference in green. I suspect that truly oversaturated greens in source material are rare occurrences. However, when they do show up, the change is very obvious with the correction on.

The thing that bothers me about Dan's numbers is he is using very little subtraction of the primary colors. When I do that and have excessive positive DL in the secondaries I see clipping and if it’s excessive enough I see clipping even down to the 75% levels. So if I see a +3% luma reading in magenta at 100% my luma can be +28% at the 75% levels if I am still clipping at 75%. 3% + 25%= 28% because the luma doesn’t change when it’s clipping.

Now I see that dan used his COLR control to eliminate that clipping at 75%. That is interesting! I never tried that. The other thing that bothers me is my XA2 must have excessive luma output although it seems to track with white when I am set to 112 in the Lumagen. Dan's numbers say 128 is the correct default COLR. Clearly something is either screwed up with my XA2 or something is wrong with my HDQ because I am clipping my primaries like crazy when I am set to 128 even without the gamut settings turned on.

You know! My Gamma before I calibrate gamma is 2.0 at 10IRe and 1.8 at 90IRE. Why a slope like that using my XA2 through the HDQ? I am beginning to think it has something to do with the handshaking between the XA2 and HDQ. When my XA2 is set for video levels the HDQ needs to be set to PC levels. It forces PC levels for some reason when connected to the HDQ. Something is out of whack between the two. I may have to wait until I get a panny BD50. Then again I get the same slope using the HDQ internal grey ramps. What is going on with my setup? XA2 direct to my RS1 doesn't force PC levels. I should check my gamma without the HDQ in the path. I did notice excessive color levels when I first got my HDQ COLR set to 128 even with my satellite box so is my HDQ screwed up?


Ron

I received an email from Jim at Lumagen and he said if 112 works for me then that's OK. Here is Jim's comment about the COLR control:

"To be clear 128 is unity color gain *if* you have PC in/out or video in/out. If you have video in and PC out, there is - as there should be - some gain in the color levels."

The worst case scenario in which one changes blue's y coordinate .001 increases dE by 2.1 Luv units. In all other cases, changes to either xy coordinate of just 0.001 results in a 1 dE or less change.I don't get such a large dE error for blue. Using Rec 709 blue as a reference a change of 0.001 in a single x or y coordinate produces less than a 1 dE difference (1976 CIELEV).

When I am adjusting "Color", be it D65 grayscale or Primary/Secondary, I prefer to look at the "Color Difference" only:
((measured x - target x)^2 + (measured y - target y)^2)^.5, then, in addition, look at the measured x & y. Essentially, better to have a bigger error of +Blue than a small error +Green (within reason)...........

Delta E is really more appropriate for print than it is for video, IMO.If you are going to use color differences you need to use a more perceptually uniform color space, and definitely not CIE x,y differences. I use dE 1976 values as defined in the CIELUV color space

If you are going to use color differences you need to use a more perceptually uniform color space, and definitely not CIE x,y differences. I use dE 1976 values as defined in the CIELUV color space

I still don't see value in using calculations that include lightness of the color being measured when we are trying to adjust to a two dimensional "x/y" target value. As with others, I have seen a .001 change in x or y, make a large change in deltaE........From http://www.aim-dtp.net/aim/evaluation/cie_de/index.htm

About Accuracy of Color Evaluations Using Computer Monitors

The implementation of ICC color management in current applications gives one major trouble for color evaluations, they do not manage the blackpoint, no matter how accurately the display is calibrated and profiled.

When an RGB=0,0,0 or L*a*b*=0,0,0 color code is shown on the monitor screen that resulting color is not anywhere near to absolute black. A typical situation is that the black of the screen has something around 0.3cd/m^2 luminance, it is mainly reflected ambient illumination. At RGB=255,255,255 or L*a*b*=100,0,0 a typical CRT outputs about 100cd/m^2 luminance. The result of this is that what is color code L*=0 in the image data is about L*=2.7 on the screen.

This amount of blackpoint error is very significant for colors at the deep dark end of the range. For the colors that are at around L*=25 this error affects 0.91 L* units, for the colors that are at around L*=50 this error affects only 0.36 L* units and for colors that are at around L*=75 this error affects only 0.19 L* units. Nearly all of the color patches in the below comparisons are above L*=50 and this is a comparison so all patches are affected towards the same direction and in each comparison segment at about the same amount.

What are the two major findings?

1. Always when the color difference is due to a change in L* channel alone the perceptual difference is huge compared to any of the 10 cases where the color difference is due to a change in a* and/or b*. In other words the transfer function of the CIELAB is faulty. The dE(2000) formula increase this error the most.

2. None of the evaluated color difference models are in good agreement with our vision, or, more accurately, they are completely useless measures for color difference. E.g. dE=8 can mean that two colors are perceptually extremely different from each other but it can also mean that two colors are perceptually extremely similar.As can be seen from this document http://dba.med.sc.edu/price/irf/Adobe_tg/models/cieluv.html , the use fo the CIELUV formula will more closely approximate the "color difference" only formula using the distance from the x/y target point. We have all been taught that the eye is more sensitive to slight changes in color than changes in brightness.

I still haven't seen anything that indicates a small dE with a larger x/y delta is better than a small delta x/y (not +green) and a larger dE. IMO, when the measured "L" is used in the formula and affects dE, it is of little value when setting the primary x/y or white to D65.

I don't get such a large dE error for blue. Using Rec 709 blue as a reference a change of 0.001 in a single x or y coordinate produces less than a 1 dE difference (1976 CIELEV).Greg: Against the Rec. 709 standard, of
x 0.150
y 0.060
Y 0.0735

and test data of
x 0.150
y 0.061
Y 0.0722

I get 2.06 CIELUV

I get 0.9 CIELUV if I work off of a static reference Y of 0.722 for blue, but changing the measured y from 0.060 to 0.061 changes the reference Y to 0.0735, which bumps it up over 2.

I THINK the math is right.

I still don't see value in using calculations that include lightness of the color being measured when we are trying to adjust to a two dimensional "x/y" target value. As with others, I have seen a .001 change in x or y, make a large change in deltaE........As can be seen from this document http://dba.med.sc.edu/price/irf/Adobe_tg/models/cieluv.html , the use fo the CIELUV formula will more closely approximate the "color difference" only formula using the distance from the x/y target point. We have all been taught that the eye is more sensitive to slight changes in color than changes in brightness.

I still haven't seen anything that indicates a small dE with a larger x/y delta is better than a small delta x/y (not +green) and a larger dE. IMO, when the measured "L" is used in the formula and affects dE, it is of little value when setting the primary x/y or white to D65.Greg can speak for himself, but why do you assert that "we are trying to adjust to a two dimensional "x/y" target value"? That's all we do when adjusting hue and saturation, but that's not the full extent of color calibration, which also requires adjusting the lightness component. This statement seems to define color decoding errors out of existence. Sophisticated color management systems in the Yamaha, Sharp, and the recent Epson 1080UB projectors all include Lightness adjustments. Are we supposed to ignore these?

The link you referenced simply points out that, though not perfect, the 1976 chromaticity diagram is much more perceptually uniform than the 1931 xy version it replaced. It also points out that the the Y component (the L in Luv and Lab) is not completely uniform either. However, it says nothing about ignoring Y entirely.

In fact, the entire 1976 system (and subsequent systems) that this page discusses explicitly recommends a color difference formula that includes a lightness component. It sounds to me like your beef is with CIE.

Here are two baseline measurements, both with RS1 color=0. Not much change in xy from the earlier post.

The first has Lumagen COLR=128, which is neutral (1.0 gain), and gives near perfect luma for these oversaturated primaries. The second has Lumagen COLR=116, which gives near perfect luma for the corrected primaries that I use when gamut is enabled.

gamut Off
Input COLR=128
RS1 Color=0
Rec709
x y Y dE dLuma
R 0.6590 0.3370 0.2383 8.3 -0.37%
G 0.2880 0.7060 0.7225 33.3 1.88%
B 0.1460 0.0390 0.0508 15.9 -1.70%
Y 0.4420 0.5530 0.9486 0.3 0.04%
C 0.2070 0.3270 0.7668 0.6 0.79%
M 0.3240 0.1420 0.2935 1.5 0.91%

gamutOff
Input COLR=116
RS1 Color=0
Rec709
x y Y dE dLuma
R 0.6590 0.3380 0.2173 4.4 -9.25%
G 0.2880 0.7040 0.6902 29.8 -2.83%
B 0.1460 0.0380 0.0449 10.7 -10.57%
Y 0.4410 0.5520 0.9335 1.4 -1.71%
C 0.2080 0.3260 0.7398 1.7 -2.73%
M 0.3260 0.1430 0.2688 5.2 -7.22%--DanDan, what you have done here is actually rather clever.

The problem with the Vision CMS is that adding, say, R and B to desaturate G has two unwanted effects:

1) It raises the Y of Green somewhat
2) It substantially lowers the saturation and raises the lightness of yellow.

The first effect can be fixed by using the SUBG control. However, unlike the Radiance, the Vision offers no control over the saturation or lightness of the secondaries. What you did was lower the global chroma in the Vision. This not only fixed the excessive lightness of Green, it also mitigated somewhat the negative effects on the secondaries in a way that using the SUBG control would not.

I no longer have the Vision so I can't check, but if adjustments that small are able to completely remove the RS1's oversaturation, then its controls are much less granular than the Radiance. For example, to fix the (less severe) oversaturation of my Panasonic plasma using the Radiance I have to use these values:
AddR 483
AddB 255

In any case, if another Vision user can confirm your results, I am prepared to change my mind. The numbers you provide--though not sufficient to satisfy an anal retentive such as me--offer a massive improvement in primary accuracy that appears to justify the less severe loss of secondary accuracy.

Unfortunately, after testing, I can't confirm Dan's results on my RS1.

Simply setting COLR at 116 and using Dan's gamut numbers gives me pretty decent looking secondaries but primaries that are messed up, still oversaturated and with Lumas that are too high. If I play with the JVC color control by reducing it to -10, things look a lot better and I had hoped that playing with combinations of COLR and color control would give me better results than what I had been getting.

Maybe I am missing something but I can't get results that are as consistent as Dan's.

Dan's RS1 has pretty good luma numbers before making any adjustments. My numbers are all over the place. Dan's gamut settings cause excessive color luma clipping on my setup. I need to subract a lot more primary color from each primary and I end up with low primary luma.

How are you guys measuring? Off the screen with out the diffuser or directly from the projector with the diffuser installed on the color probe?

Ron

Unfortunately, after testing, I can't confirm Dan's results on my RS1.

Simply setting COLR at 116 and using Dan's gamut numbers gives me pretty decent looking secondaries but primaries that are messed up, still oversaturated and with Lumas that are too high. If I play with the JVC color control by reducing it to -10, things look a lot better and I had hoped that playing with combinations of COLR and color control would give me better results than what I had been getting.

Maybe I am missing something but I can't get results that are as consistent as Dan's.I was afraid of that. I just don't see how he is getting his primaries reigned in so far with that relatively small amount of color addition.

I no longer have the Vision so I can't check, but if adjustments that small are able to completely remove the RS1's oversaturation, then its controls are much less granular than the Radiance. For example, to fix the (less severe) oversaturation of my Panasonic plasma using the Radiance I have to use these values:
AddR 483
AddB 255I seem to recall the Vision gamut adjustment range is much smaller. I haven't tried to max out the ADD/SUB, but I don't think they would even go that high.

--Dan

Unfortunately, after testing, I can't confirm Dan's results on my RS1.

Simply setting COLR at 116 and using Dan's gamut numbers gives me pretty decent looking secondaries but primaries that are messed up, still oversaturated and with Lumas that are too high. If I play with the JVC color control by reducing it to -10, things look a lot better and I had hoped that playing with combinations of COLR and color control would give me better results than what I had been getting.

Maybe I am missing something but I can't get results that are as consistent as Dan's.How are you measuring (internal/external pattern, 100IRE/75IRE)? My measurements are from external patterns at 100IRE, and no Lumagen gamma or grayscale corrections. The primaries will shift a little at 75IRE. Trying to get perfect primaries at 75IRE requires much larger correction values, and it doubles the secondary error (yellow looks horribly wrong).

Could you post your baseline measurements with external 100% patterns, gamut off, RS1 color=0, input COLR=128?

I only use external patterns because I want to calibrate and verify the entire system. Otherwise, how would you know if a source or AVR had a color conversion error, or some other negative effect?

I also do a quick grayscale adjustment to have perfect D65 at 100IRE before doing any color measures/adjustments. You might want to disable your 2.4 gamma and grayscale corrections while working on color. They'll probably need different corrections anyway with gamut enabled.

--Dan

Dan's RS1 has pretty good luma numbers before making any adjustments. My numbers are all over the place. Dan's gamut settings cause excessive color luma clipping on my setup. I need to subract a lot more primary color from each primary and I end up with low primary luma.

How are you guys measuring? Off the screen with out the diffuser or directly from the projector with the diffuser installed on the color probe?

RonI always measure off the screen. Diffuser on or off depends on the probe. This guide (http://www.curtpalme.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=10457) says always keep it on for Spyder2, and always leave it off for Eye-One.

--Dan

Off the screen, no diffuser, and external patterns is the way to go. I would avoid the Spyder. It suffers from severe unit-unit variability and can be VERY inaccurate.

Greg can speak for himself, but why do you assert that "we are trying to adjust to a two dimensional "x/y" target value"? That's all we do when adjusting hue and saturation, but that's not the full extent of color calibration, which also requires adjusting the lightness component. This statement seems to define color decoding errors out of existence. Sophisticated color management systems in the Yamaha, Sharp, and the recent Epson 1080UB projectors all include Lightness adjustments. Are we supposed to ignore these?

The link you referenced simply points out that, though not perfect, the 1976 chromaticity diagram is much more perceptually uniform than the 1931 xy version it replaced. It also points out that the the Y component (the L in Luv and Lab) is not completely uniform either. However, it says nothing about ignoring Y entirely.

In fact, the entire 1976 system (and subsequent systems) that this page discusses explicitly recommends a color difference formula that includes a lightness component. It sounds to me like your beef is with CIE.This is where everything gets complicated. There are two uses for the word “saturation”, especially with projectors and colorspace and CMS. If, you define saturation as movement of a color towards or away from the white point, then that is different from some projector CMS that merely changes the color lightness.

There is a two dimensional and three dimensional part of color calibration. Setting the x/y of white or primaries and secondaries is done in the two dimensional realm. When we get into color decoding or color balancing, we start to deal with the brightness of the colors. If Red is perfect on the x/y, and it has too much brightness, you have “Red push”, the color of red is not wrong, there is just too much of it. Ideally, Red will have the proper “brightness” at 100 IRE and at 75IRE when we check the relationship to the other colors on the SMPTE color bars pattern. Now on the other side, the “brightness” of red may be proper at all IREs, but the x/y is out beyond the target colorspace. You don’t have any red push, however, the “Color” of Red is wrong.

If one is trying to adjust/calibrate a display, it is important to know the components of what you are adjusting. When working with “x/y” adjustments, it is important to leave “L” out of the Delta calculation, if one wants to use a “Delta” reading to evaluate their adjustments. I prefer to merely use the actual “x/y” measurements. If you then have the ability to adjust the “lightness/brightness” of the colors, adjust to that specific target values. Then, when finished, use the DeltaE measurements to report the overall performance of the finished calibration. If a projector/system does not have the ability to adjust the “lightness/brightness” of the colors, what value is a DeltaE measurement that includes lightness when you only have control over color? From my previous post; “….. dE=8 can mean that two colors are perceptually extremely different from each other but it can also mean that two colors are perceptually extremely similar:………….

It is easy to see that there is no “Correct” method for reporting results, however it is meaningful to know the pieces. On the side of reporting to customers, a poor performing display with large DeltaE numbers, after calibration, are less meaningful than the before and after results of what you can adjust.

This is where everything gets complicated. There are two uses for the word “saturation”, especially with projectors and colorspace and CMS. If, you define saturation as movement of a color towards or away from the white point, then that is different from some projector CMS that merely changes the color lightness.

There is a two dimensional and three dimensional part of color calibration. Setting the x/y of white or primaries and secondaries is done in the two dimensional realm. When we get into color decoding or color balancing, we start to deal with the brightness of the colors. If Red is perfect on the x/y, and it has too much brightness, you have “Red push”, the color of red is not wrong, there is just too much of it. Ideally, Red will have the proper “brightness” at 100 IRE and at 75IRE when we check the relationship to the other colors on the SMPTE color bars pattern. Now on the other side, the “brightness” of red may be proper at all IREs, but the x/y is out beyond the target colorspace. You don’t have any red push, however, the “Color” of Red is wrong.I am entirely with you here. I agree with every word.

If one is trying to adjust/calibrate a display, it is important to know the components of what you are adjusting. When working with “x/y” adjustments, it is important to leave “L” out of the Delta calculation, if one wants to use a “Delta” reading to evaluate their adjustments.I also completely agree with this as far as it goes. It is true only with respect to grayscale adjustments, where, as I indicated earlier, Luma is irrelevant.

I prefer to merely use the actual “x/y” measurements. If you then have the ability to adjust the “lightness/brightness” of the colors, adjust to that specific target values. Then, when finished, use the DeltaE measurements to report the overall performance of the finished calibration.This seems fine to me.

If a projector/system does not have the ability to adjust the “lightness/brightness” of the colors, what value is a DeltaE measurement that includes lightness when you only have control over color?Here's where we part company. Geez, we report errors we have no control over all the time. If a display had only RGB Gains that operated across the entire range, would you NOT report a failure to track neutral white at the low end simply because the display offered no ability to adjust the low end independently? Reporting performance and a display's ability to adjust performance parameters strike me as completely different things that have very little bearing on one another.

From my previous post; “….. dE=8 can mean that two colors are perceptually extremely different from each other but it can also mean that two colors are perceptually extremely similar:………….This comes from a single data set from a single source. This may be true in some circumstances, but I tend to think that it is the exception rather than the rule. In any case, the point of this source is that we need a more perceptually uniform way to measure dE, not that we should ignore the Lightness component. Indeed, he takes it as a given that the lightness component is critical to color difference as the core of his entire argument.

Finally, quite apart from the Luma issue, if your concern is the lack of perceptual uniformity of dE reporting, then the last thing you should be doing is reporting dE using xy coordinates. These are much less uniform than the corresponding Luv or Lab data.

BTW, Bill Blackwell recently pointed out Bruce Lindbloom's approach to this issue, which strikes me as more sound than Timo Autiokari's.

http://www.brucelindbloom.com/index.html?UPLab.html

Let me post what I have done.

I am using an Eye-One Lt. All measurements are taken from external patterns at 75 IRE that are generated from the bluray version of the AVS test pattern disk.

My before readings (no gamut, COLR at 128) look like this:

r g b y c m w
x .666 .283 .137 .446 .203 .331 .316
y .332 .703 .047 .544 .340 .151 .335
Y 45.067 118.951 10.836 157.086 127.978 55.444 164.436

dE 37.4 33.5 6.9 19.6 19.8 21.2

Here are my best corrected readings:

r g b y c m w
x .645 .288 .147 .428 .218 .332 .317
y .332 .617 .063 .495 .318 .167 .332
Y 30.371 102.037 10.944 152.994 141.155 53.9 166.245

dE 10.4 7.1 8.2 9.9 10.1 9.8

These are not bad but not as good as Dan's. However, the readings translate very well to 100. Dan's numbers at 100 fell apart for me at 75.

Based on the Accupel Calculator, my dE's are 10.5, 7.2, 8.4, 10.3, 10.5, and 10.

You will note that I kept green a bit outside the triangle. I think that this is unavoidable because if there is too much green correction, the secondary lumas skyrocket.

Oh. My gamut settings are:

R: SR 55, AG 17, AB 17
G: AR 60, SG 27, AB 65
B: AR 30, AG 27, SB 41

Greg: Against the Rec. 709 standard, of
x 0.150
y 0.060
Y 0.0735

and test data of
x 0.150
y 0.061
Y 0.0722
It looks like you swapped the Y values above. The correct Y value for Rec. 709 is 0.0722. I'm only pointing this out because I'm sure you don't want to propagate a wrong value for the Rec 709 standard around the forum.


I get 2.06 CIELUV

I get 0.9 CIELUV if I work off of a static reference Y of 0.722 for blue, but changing the measured y from 0.060 to 0.061 changes the reference Y to 0.0735, which bumps it up over 2.

I THINK the math is right.If you start with a 4 decimal place value for the Rec 709 (0.0722 for Y) reference blue, and you make a 0.001 change for blue_y (from 0.060 to 0.061), then dE = 0.9. We definitely agree on that.

(Note: The calculator that I created and previously posted rounds the Y values of the standards to 3 decimal points, i.e. 0.0722 is rounded to 0.072, so it computes the above dE = 0.9 if you enter a measured value of 0.072. I suppose I should change it to round to 4 decimal points since 4 decimal points are shown in the official Rec 709 standard. That will produce a visually insignificant difference in dE and more precision then anyone will be able to measure here, but I'll change it later today so there won't be a 0.1 or 0.2 difference in dE when comparing math values here on the forum.)

Where we disagree is on changing the Y reference value to calculate the dE value for blue (that is how you got the 2+ dE value.) If the goal is to adjust the display to match a reference color gamut (i.e. Rec 709) with a D65 color temperature, why would you then change the blue_Y reference value to something other than the Rec 709 value? If you do that, and set the grayscale to D65, the dE value will include the error in u'v' from Rec. 709 blue, but not the luminance error from Rec.709 blue. i.e. the dE deviation will not show the error of the actual blue colors of the display from the Rec. 709 blue colors. Said another way, you will be showing the error from some blue primary color that is not the Rec. 709 blue primary.

Just a few notes. I set out to calibrate for the lowest overall dEs that I could. Tom has convinced me that this is the correct approach. If I wanted, I could get each primary and seconday with near perfect xy. Lumas suffer. I am convinced that this is not the right approach. Whatever faults the dE approach might have, I think it is the best way to proceed.

This is the best balanced set of numbers that I could get with the Vision. It is still not perfect, but I have improved each color and reduced error by large amounts.

Here's where we part company. Geez, we report errors we have no control over all the time. If a display had only RGB Gains that operated across the entire range, would you NOT report a failure to track neutral white at the low end simply because the display offered no ability to adjust the low end independently? Reporting performance and a display's ability to adjust performance parameters strike me as completely different things that have very little bearing on one another."RGB Gains" is more of an analog term..... with digital diaplays driven by LUTs, the RGB control is an RGB Level to balance the grayscale. The tracking is controlled by the LUT. Some displays have a low and high RGB level adjustment, commonly referred to as cut/drive. I always like to report the 10 step results, however prefer to focus on the x/y.
Finally, quite apart from the Luma issue, if your concern is the lack of perceptual uniformity of dE reporting, then the last thing you should be doing is reporting dE using xy coordinates. These are much less uniform than the corresponding Luv or Lab data.

BTW, Bill Blackwell recently pointed out Bruce Lindbloom's approach to this issue, which strikes me as more sound than Timo Autiokari's.

http://www.brucelindbloom.com/index.html?UPLab.htmlIf you use the calculator on Bruce's sight and input Y=5, x=.3127, y=.329, for both reference (Target) and sample (measured), you get 0.0 for error. Now change sample Y=5.05 and the error 1976 goes to .0500. Change Y=5.04 and change y=.36 (way green) the error is now .0506. Virtually no change in the Error, but color went way green........ Reset Y=5 and y=.333 (slightly noticeable +green) however the Error is now .004, where .004 delta in the x/y realm is considered visible.

This is where some new calibrators are being taught to look at color temp and DeltaE and not reviewing the x/y data. Some programs being sold don't even display the 10 step x/y results.

Let me post what I have done.

I am using an Eye-One Lt. All measurements are taken off the screen from external patterns at 75 IRE that are generated from the bluray version of the AVS test pattern disk.

My before readings (no gamut, COLR at 128) look like this:

r g b y c m w
x .666 .283 .137 .446 .203 .331 .316
y .332 .703 .047 .544 .340 .151 .335
Y 45.067 118.951 10.836 157.086 127.978 55.444 164.436

dE 37.4 33.5 6.9 19.6 19.8 21.2

Here are my best corrected readings:

r g b y c m w
x .645 .288 .147 .428 .218 .332 .317
y .332 .617 .063 .495 .318 .167 .332
Y 30.371 102.037 10.944 152.994 141.155 53.9 166.245Those are very good secondaries for 75IRE.

One thing I do that might give you more balanced lumas is to first calibrate 100IRE white to have exactly 100% even R,G,B in HCFR continuous measure using the RS1 color temp controls in User1 or User2. That should make xy for White close or right on .313,.329 and your starting lumas should be more even.

--Dan

I still don't see value in using calculations that include lightness of the color being measured when we are trying to adjust to a two dimensional "x/y" target value. The goal of display color calibration is NOT to simply match x,y target values. The goal is to match reference colors (usually defined by Rec 709 or SMPTE C primaries with a D65 reference white point - ignoring gamma for the moment), and those colors MUST be defined by tristimulus values, where x,y,Y values are one method, but x,y values without Y values are not tristimulus values. (XYZ values are tristimulus values, but x,y,z values are not.) Put another way, two colors with the same x,y values can look very different if they have different Y values.

Having said the above, a goal of minimizing the cumulative sum of the dE values of the primaries and complementary colors is a poor way of optimizing the perceptual color accuracy of a display in my opinion.

As with others, I have seen a .001 change in x or y, make a large change in deltaE. Please provide one example.

The goal of display color calibration is NOT to simply match x,y target values. The goal is to match reference colors (usually defined by Rec 709 or SMPTE C primaries with a D65 reference white point - ignoring gamma for the moment), and those colors MUST be defined by tristimulus values, where x,y,Y values are one method, but x,y values without Y values are not tristimulus values. (XYZ values are tristimulus values, but x,y,z values are not.) Put another way, two colors with the same x,y values can look very different if they have different Y values.

Having said the above, a goal of minimizing the cumulative sum of the dE values of the primaries and complementary colors is a poor way of optimizing the perceptual color accuracy of a display in my opinion.I agree with this.

Please provide one example.I guess it all comes down to the visible reference. I was under the impression that a dE=1 is visible (with side by side comparrison). I may be wrong here....... With your calculator, changing "y" by .001 (.3127/.330) will yield a dE=.8. If I change y to .333 (.004 from .329) dE-3.4. With this result, then say a dE<=2.5 might be desirable, if one is looking at the dE for x/y grayscale results........

Where we disagree is on changing the Y reference value to calculate the dE value for blue (that is how you got the 2+ dE value.) If the goal is to adjust the display to match a reference color gamut (i.e. Rec 709) with a D65 color temperature, why would you then change the blue_Y reference value to something other than the Rec 709 value? If you do that, and set the grayscale to D65, the dE value will include the error in u'v' from Rec. 709 blue, but not the luminance error from Rec.709 blue. i.e. the dE deviation will not show the error of the actual blue colors of the display from the Rec. 709 blue colors. Said another way, you will be showing the error from some blue primary color that is not the Rec. 709 blue primary.This is interesting.

If I understand you correctly, when adjusting a display you aim for the Y value indicated by the measured primaries, not the ideal primaries. However, when indicating dE you compare the measured values with the fixed xyY standard for SMPTE-C or Rec. 709. Right?

In other words, were I to calibrate a display with perfect xy coordinates for red and green, but with an unadjustable blue of x0.150, y0.061, I would aim for a blue Y of 0.0735. But when I report the dE of blue, it would be HIGHER than it would have been had I aimed for the textbook target of 0.0722 (I realize that these are tiny real-world differences. I'm just trying to get the mathematical model right.). This would have me intentionally calibrating a higher dE than was otherwise achievable.

Either I am missing something here, or this is really counterintuitive.

There is a two dimensional and three dimensional part of color calibration. Setting the x/y of white or primaries and secondaries is done in the two dimensional realm.Setting the x,y values of the white point is done by adjusting the luminance (Y) of the red, green, and blue primaries. And the necessary luminance (Y) values of those primaries is a direct result of those primary's x,y chromaticity values. So the calibration of the x,y white point is 3-dimensional in your terms (but so is all color calibration). Conversely, if you change the x,y values of the primaries you must then change the Y values of those primaries to maintain any specific white point (e.g. D65). A really good CMS would do that automatically for you, but some CMS's will require you to manually readjust the Y values to maintain the white reference point after adjusting the primary x,y values.

When we get into color decoding or color balancing, we start to deal with the brightness of the colors. If Red is perfect on the x/y, and it has too much brightness, you have “Red push”, the color of red is not wrong, there is just too much of it.You can say the x,y chromaticity of red is not wrong, but its color is wrong if its luminance is higher or lower than specified by the standard target. You are using the term "color" to describe points in a single x,y plane in the color space. But there are many very perceptually different colors in the color space with the same x,y values (but different Y values), just as black, white, and many gray colors share the same x,y values. Adjusting a color decoder, for instance, involves adjusting its x,y, and Y values, not just its x,y values.

Ideally, Red will have the proper “brightness” at 100 IRE and at 75IRE when we check the relationship to the other colors on the SMPTE color bars pattern. Now on the other side, the “brightness” of red may be proper at all IREs, but the x/y is out beyond the target colorspace. You don’t have any red push, however, the “Color” of Red is wrong. Perhaps this is getting too technical, but if the relative luminance of the color bars is correct for an optimal color decoder in a display with accurate primaries, it still would not produce optimally accurate colors for projectors with other primaries. We see one effect of this as flesh tones that are too red in many projectors with oversaturated red primaries. In the absence of a way to correct the primary x,y chromaticity, we may have to change the luminance of the color decoding to get a palatable picture.

If one is trying to adjust/calibrate a display, it is important to know the components of what you are adjusting. When working with “x/y” adjustments, it is important to leave “L” out of the Delta calculation, if one wants to use a “Delta” reading to evaluate their adjustments. I prefer to merely use the actual “x/y” measurements. If you then have the ability to adjust the “lightness/brightness” of the colors, adjust to that specific target values. Then, when finished, use the DeltaE measurements to report the overall performance of the finished calibration. If a projector/system does not have the ability to adjust the “lightness/brightness” of the colors, what value is a DeltaE measurement that includes lightness when you only have control over color?It is often possible to change the x,y values of the primaries by adjusting the Color control (or some poor CMS implementations), but if you minimize the x,y value errors with those controls, the luminance values are sometimes driven so low that the Color is absurdly wrong. In that case it would be silly to use the x,y error (or even a more perceptually uniform u'v' error) to set the controls. Using dE which includes the luminance effects is a much better way to evaluate the results (although I still recommend that minimizing the cumulative sum of the dE errors is not in general a good idea).

Having said the above, a goal of minimizing the cumulative sum of the dE values of the primaries and complementary colors is a poor way of optimizing the perceptual color accuracy of a display in my opinion.Do you say this because our vision is more sensitive to errors in some colors (e.g., red because of its implications for skin tones) than others or for some other reason?

If you use the calculator on Bruce's sight and input Y=5, x=.3127, y=.329, for both reference (Target) and sample (measured), you get 0.0 for error. Now change sample Y=5.05 and the error 1976 goes to .0500. Change Y=5.04 and change y=.36 (way green) the error is now .0506. Virtually no change in the Error, but color went way green........ Reset Y=5 and y=.333 (slightly noticeable +green) however the Error is now .004, where .004 delta in the x/y realm is considered visible.
First, note that he requests Lab data not xyY data.
Second, Y is ordinarily normalized to 0-1.0, that when converted to Lab or Luv, is in the 1-100 range so let's stick with that.

Reference white's Lab value is 100, -0.0024, -0.0139, which when compared with itself of course yields 0 dE. Changing the Lightness component to 99 reports a dE of 1.0, Changing the color to x0.3127, y0.360, Y0.995, once converted to Lab gives a dE of 18.8, a huge error, not 0.506. I suspect you are getting that weird result because you are not normalizing Y and you are using xyY instead of Lab or Luv. x0.3127, y0.333, Y1.0 compared to reference white gives a dE of 2.5, or just barely visible.

This is interesting.

If I understand you correctly, when adjusting a display you aim for the Y value indicated by the measured primaries, not the ideal primaries. However, when indicating dE you compare the measured values with the fixed xyY standard for SMPTE-C or Rec. 709. Right?

In other words, were I to calibrate a display with perfect xy coordinates for red and green, but with an unadjustable blue of x0.150, y0.061, I would aim for a blue Y of 0.0735. But when I report the dE of blue, it would be HIGHER than it would have been had I aimed for the textbook target of 0.0722 (I realize that these are tiny real-world differences. I'm just trying to get the mathematical model right.). This would have me intentionally calibrating a higher dE than was otherwise achievable.

Either I am missing something here, or this is really counterintuitive.I adjust the display to match the reference standard "as closely as possible".

Perhaps I see where some confusion about this is coming from. When I first posted earlier versions of my Display Calculator there was a debate going on here on the forum about color decoding accuracy, i.e. converting YCbCr (or YPbPr) values to RGB. So I put up a calculator that allowed the user to enter the measured x,y values of a display and it calculated the resulting Y values for that display IF it had an "ideal" YCbCr to RGB color decoder (and it didn't do any "hidden" CMS functions to the primaries and complementary colors). Note: In today's displays RGB signals are usually internally converted to YCbCr, processed, and then converted back to RGB, so the calculator values could also be used to "prove" those conversions were being done symmetrically on RGB input signals.

So --- the calculator was initially intended to check "ideal" color decoding accuracy by computing the Y values of primaries and the x,y,Y values of a display's complementary colors based on arbitrary primary colors (with a D65 white point). And it will still do that. ("Ideal" color decoding means precisely reversing the RGB to YCbCr color encoding performed to create video source signals.) I don't think I even included dE calculations in the earliest versions of the calculator. (Since then I added dE, grayscale, gamma, etc. to evaluate the display calibration.)

BUT, that doesn't necessarily mean that "ideal" color decoding is the optimum color decoding for the best color accuracy on a display with non-standard (not SMPTE C or Rec 709) primaries. However, if the display has a decent a CMS (or an external CMS is available) then the "ideal" color decoding should be used and the primaries should be corrected with the CMS.

If there is no CMS, then the optimum color decoding must be the one that most closely produces accurate colors, although some combination of "non-ideal" color decoding and a shift in the white reference point may be more optimum than just "non-ideal" color decoding. But that is a bigger subject.

In any event, the goal should be to produce the "most accurate" colors, which I believe means to match the SMPTC-C and Rec 709 reference standards "as closely as possible". If one is going to use dE in some way to decide when you have achieved a match "as closely as possible" then you must compute dE relative to the applicable standard you wish to match, i.e. use the standards x,y,Y values as the reference. How you want to use dE to accomplish the goal is another discussion.

If I'm unclear, I'd be happy to explain further.

Having said the above, a goal of minimizing the cumulative sum of the dE values of the primaries and complementary colors is a poor way of optimizing the perceptual color accuracy of a display in my opinion.

Do you say this because our vision is more sensitive to errors in some colors (e.g., red because of its implications for skin tones) than others or for some other reason?Because our preferences for accurate colors is different than the human visual system's sensitivity (ability to perceive) small differences in color. Even if LUV (or some other perceptual color space) were perfect, I would still rather have much more accurate reds than accurate blues. i.e. I would want smaller dE values around red than blue. I recognize the color accuracy of many more common red objects (a bottle of katsup, a stop sign, a fire-truck) than blue objects. And most importantly the color of skin tones is critical to realism, and red tends to have the largest effect on skin tones. Likewise, green is more important than blue to me because of grass, trees, landscapes, etc.

Please excuse me for not using the terms correctly (color, saturation, chromaticity, luminance, hue, x, y, Y, whatever...........) and apparently the use of the calculator too. Therefore, I obviously haven't been able to explain my position/thoughts correctly. I am not a "color" engineer, it is easy to mis use common terms. With the potential of not being technically accurate, it appears my best option is to make no further comments..........

I adjust the display to match the reference standard "as closely as possible".

Perhaps I see where some confusion about this is coming from. When I first posted earlier versions of my Display Calculator there was a debate going on here on the forum about color decoding accuracy, i.e. converting YCbCr (or YPbPr) values to RGB. So I put up a calculator that allowed the user to enter the measured x,y values of a display and it calculated the resulting Y values for that display IF it had an "ideal" YCbCr to RGB color decoder (and it didn't do any "hidden" CMS functions to the primaries and complementary colors). Note: In today's displays RGB signals are usually internally converted to YCbCr, processed, and then converted back to RGB, so the calculator values could also be used to "prove" those conversions were being done symmetrically on RGB input signals.

So --- the calculator was initially intended to check "ideal" color decoding accuracy by computing the Y values of primaries and the x,y,Y values of a display's complementary colors based on arbitrary primary colors (with a D65 white point). And it will still do that. ("Ideal" color decoding means precisely reversing the RGB to YCbCr color encoding performed to create video source signals.) I don't think I even included dE calculations in the earliest versions of the calculator. (Since then I added dE, grayscale, gamma, etc. to evaluate the display calibration.)

BUT, that doesn't necessarily mean that "ideal" color decoding is the optimum color decoding for the best color accuracy on a display with non-standard (not SMPTE C or Rec 709) primaries. However, if the display has a decent a CMS (or an external CMS is available) then the "ideal" color decoding should be used and the primaries should be corrected with the CMS.

If there is no CMS, then the optimum color decoding must be the one that most closely produces accurate colors, although some combination of "non-ideal" color decoding and a shift in the white reference point may be more optimum than just "non-ideal" color decoding. But that is a bigger subject.

In any event, the goal should be to produce the "most accurate" colors, which I believe means to match the SMPTC-C and Rec 709 reference standards "as closely as possible". If one is going to use dE in some way to decide when you have achieved a match "as closely as possible" then you must compute dE relative to the applicable standard you wish to match, i.e. use the standards x,y,Y values as the reference. How you want to use dE to accomplish the goal is another discussion.

If I'm unclear, I'd be happy to explain further.This is a little hard to follow, with all the going back and forth between "ideal" and "optimal", so let me ask this:

It's clear that if you have a good CMS, then you will want to aim for the established reference xyY values for SMPTE-C or Rec. 709. That's the easy case.

However, the more interesting case is the pre-calibration state, where the colors are not accurate, or--getting back to the primary subject of this thread--you have a CMS whose functionality is short of optimal. In either case, the color may never match the reference values. How do we report the error in dE units in such a case? Do you compare the measured performance against calculated targets or against fixed targets?

To be really specific, Lawguy reports a pre-calibration dE of. 6.9 for his blue of x0.137, y0.047, Y0.0659. That's what you get if you compare his blue against x0.150, y0.060, Y0.0722, the Rec. 709 standard. However, when I calculated his dE I got a much higher 16.2. This discrepancy is based on the fact that based on his measured primaries of

x--------y
0.6660, 0.3320
0.2830, 0.7030
0.1370, 0.0470

I used x0.150, y0.060, Y0.0618 as the ideal blue target FOR THOSE PRIMARIES to calculate the dE against.

Which is the correct methodology?

I guess it all comes down to the visible reference. I was under the impression that a dE=1 is visible (with side by side comparrison). I may be wrong here....... With your calculator, changing "y" by .001 (.3127/.330) will yield a dE=.8. If I change y to .333 (.004 from .329) dE = 3.4. With this result, then say a dE<=2.5 might be desirable, if one is looking at the dE for x/y grayscale results........Yes, I agree with you Glen that a grayscale dE around 2 or 3 is desirable. The literature is full of numbers that claim the JND (just noticeable difference) is somewhere from 1 to 3. I think it really depends on what type of pattern is used to determine the JND. On an absolute basis we are quite adaptable over a larger range, but I think its important to keep the variation over the grayscale range (10% to 100%) within about 2 or 3.

This is a little hard to follow, with all the going back and forth between "ideal" and "optimal", Sorry, I was afraid of that. I'm not my most articulate today ...

... so let me ask this:

It's clear that if you have a good CMS, then you will want to aim for the established reference xyY values for SMPTE-C or Rec. 709. That's the easy case.

However, the more interesting case is the pre-calibration state, where the colors are not accurate, or--getting back to the primary subject of this thread--you have a CMS whose functionality is short of optimal. In either case, the color may never match the reference values. How do we report the error in dE units in such a case? Do you compare the measured performance against calculated targets or against fixed targets?
Fixed targets (Rec 709 or SMPTE C). (Again, the calculated targets are just a way of checking the color decoder design - or the presence of some other hidden CMS-like processing, on a display with a non-standard set of primaries.)

To be really specific, Lawguy reports a pre-calibration dE of. 6.9 for his blue of x0.137, y0.047, Y0.0659. That's what you get if you compare his blue against x0.150, y0.060, Y0.0722, the Rec. 709 standard. However, when I calculated his dE I got a much higher 16.2. This discrepancy is based on the fact that based on his measured primaries of

x--------y
0.6660, 0.3320
0.2830, 0.7030
0.1370, 0.0470

I used x0.150, y0.060, Y0.0618 as the ideal blue target FOR THOSE PRIMARIES to calculate the dE against.

Which is the correct methodology?IMO, the 6.9 dE. If I want to know how accurate my display is compared to Rec. 709 I can't see any justification for using anything other than the standard Rec. 709 x,y,Y values. If I wanted to know how accurate it is compared to SMPTE C I would use the SMPTE C standard x,y,Y values. I can't imagine what it would tell you if you used the x,y values from one of the standards, with the Y value for the native primaries.

I posted new Mac and PC versions of the AccuPel Display Calibration Calculator (now version 1.22) on the website under the HDG-4000 manuals. The only difference from the previous version is that the Y values in the Color Gamut section are now rounded to 4 decimal places rather than 3 decimal places. I'm glad the discussion came up here. The Rec. 709 standard provides the red, green, and blue Y values to 4 decimal places - so it was a good idea to make that change.

IMO, the 6.9 dE. If I want to know how accurate my display is compared to Rec. 709 I can't see any justification for using anything other than the standard Rec. 709 x,y,Y values. If I wanted to know how accurate it is compared to SMPTE C I would use the SMPTE C standard x,y,Y values. I can't imagine what it would tell you if you used the x,y values from one of the standards, with the Y value for the native primaries.OK, Greg, that's quite clear.

I must say that this is, as I said before, counterintuitive. A calibration job on a display that has adjustable color decoding controls but no control over inaccurate primaries could very well lead to adjustments that resulted in HIGHER dEs than the unadjusted state. Explaining to clients that a calibration has resulted in measurably worse primary/secondary color accuracy is going to be a challenge.

I consult with experts in their fields quite often and it is the part of my job that I enjoy the most. There is nothing better than discussions like this where, if the reader is really interested in reading and thinking, he can learn a bunch.

If I may steer the discussion further in a direction that it appears to have shifted to, let me ask the following, which I expect is based on a true assumption. I would expect that the situation most typical to a calibrator is, as Tom suggests, that they are presented with imperfect calibration tools. Most displays don't have any CMS. Some have an imperfect CMS. Most people don't have a Radiance that allows for complete correction. Under these circumstances, what to do?

I expect that the first rule should be akin to that followed by doctors: "first, do no harm." The guiding principle about any action that is taken that I have gleaned from this discussion is to attempt to reduce dE for each color as compared to the appropriate standard.

My next question is, what kind of results are successful results? This is particularly relevant in this thread where people may be reading to see whether the cost of a Vision justifies the results that can be achieved. I am not sure how one can judge a successful calibration. What seems meaningful to me might not be meaningful to an expert. How do we judge success?

In my case, I got the following results:

Red dE decreased 72.19% from 37.4 to 10.4
Green dE decreased 78.81% from 33.5 to 7.1
Blue dE increased 15.85% from 6.9 to 8.2
Yellow dE decreased 49.49% from 19.6 to 9.9
Cyan dE decreased 48.99% from 19.8 to 10.1
Magenta dE decreased 53.77% from 21.2 to 9.8

I suspect that merely looking at the percent of reduction of dE by color is only one way of viewing results. This is a subjective reduction that still leaves me short of objective measurements of success where we would prefer to see dEs of 3 or lower fior each color, so typically, my results are dEs are generally in the neighborhood of 300% to high.

So, at the end of the day, if this is what is typical for a Vision on a projector like an RS1 that is oversaturated, can this be considered a successful calibration?

I consult with experts in their fields quite often and it is the part of my job that I enjoy the most. There is nothing better than discussions like this where, if the reader is really interested in reading and thinking, he can learn a bunch.

If I may steer the discussion further in a direction that it appears to have shifted to, let me ask the following, which I expect is based on a true assumption. I would expect that the situation most typical to a calibrator is, as Tom suggests, that they are presented with imperfect calibration tools. Most displays don't have any CMS. Some have an imperfect CMS. Most people don't have a Radiance that allows for complete correction. Under these circumstances, what to do?

I expect that the first rule should be akin to that followed by doctors: "first, do no harm." The guiding principle about any action that is taken that I have gleaned from this discussion is to attempt to reduce dE for each color as compared to the appropriate standard.

My next question is, what kind of results are successful results? This is particularly relevant in this thread where people may be reading to see whether the cost of a Vision justifies the results that can be achieved. I am not sure how one can judge a successful calibration. What seems meaningful to me might not be meaningful to an expert. How do we judge success?

In my case, I got the following results:

Red dE decreased 72.19% from 37.4 to 10.4
Green dE decreased 78.81% from 33.5 to 7.1
Blue dE increased 15.85% from 6.9 to 8.2
Yellow dE decreased 49.49% from 19.6 to 9.9
Cyan dE decreased 48.99% from 19.8 to 10.1
Magenta dE decreased 53.77% from 21.2 to 9.8

I suspect that merely looking at the percent of reduction of dE by color is only one way of viewing results. This is a subjective reduction that still leaves me short of objective measurements of success where we would prefer to see dEs of 3 or lower fior each color, so typically, my results are dEs are generally in the neighborhood of 300% to high.

So, at the end of the day, if this is what is typical for a Vision on a projector like an RS1 that is oversaturated, can this be considered a successful calibration?I haven't had a chance to look at your numbers closely, but it appears that, in a word, yes. It's a profound improvement.

However, it appears that reducing the dE for each color is not the only goal. In particular, you want to aim for Y values that are indicated by the measured primaries. Depending on the details, that may lead to somewhat higher dEs that would would get if you aimed for Y's that more closely matched the Rec. 709 or SMPTE-C standard. That's what I referred to below as the counterintuitive result.

Tom,

Is it common to see major differences in color performance among different units of the same projector?

Dan's RS1 measures pretty well out of the box (but with a new lamp) and even better after calibration. Ron's is closer to mine on some colors but not others (his reds and red-secondaries are worse than Dan's but better than mine). Ron's has, I think, about 500 hours on his lamp. I have about 900 hours on my lamp.

I wonder if all units are just different or if the aging of the lamp degrades color. Either way, it seems to me that JVC's approach of having an unadjustable preset on their standalone processor seems like an unsatisfactory solution.

Is it common to see major differences in color performance among different units of the same projector?Yes, you'll always see some unit-to-unit variation, though it shouldn't be enormous. That's why people like me always caution against using someone's else's "settings." You really need to measure your own display and then adjust according to those results.

Dan's RS1 measures pretty well out of the box (but with a new lamp) and even better after calibration. Ron's is closer to mine on some colors but not others (his reds and red-secondaries are worse than Dan's but better than mine). Ron's has, I think, about 500 hours on his lamp. I have about 900 hours on my lamp.

Did you try setting perfect D65 at 100IRE like this:

One thing I do that might give you more balanced lumas is to first calibrate 100IRE white to have exactly 100% even R,G,B in HCFR continuous measure using the RS1 color temp controls in User1 or User2. That should make xy for White close or right on .313,.329 and your starting lumas should be more even.This should be the first step before doing any color measurements or corrections.

I'm curious if this works on lamps with higher hours. On mine, just this alone gives grayscale dE <= 1.0 from 50-100IRE.

--Dan

Dan,

"I'm curious if this works on lamps with higher hours. On mine, just this alone gives grayscale dE <= 1.0 from 50-100IRE."

I didn't measure the dE from 50-100IRE but on mine when I set the 100% white point in the projector but I'm sure the dE would be greater then that. To balance white at 100% (while also trying to maximize brightness/contrast) resulted in too much red pretty much everywhere else which I fixed that in the Lumagen.

Shawn

Shawn

Did you try setting perfect D65 at 100IRE like this:


I have not done this although I have gotten good results in general when calibrating greyscale and setting gamma. I know I run into a problem at 100 IRE because I run out of red. I thought I had it all balanced though I hadn't focused on it. I suspect that the uneven loss of red as the lamp ages is the reason your results are so different than mine.

I can't promise I have the energy to do much more. Fortunately the weather here in NY has been bad so I have gotten away with it so far.
I will post my setup file so if anyone wants it, they will have access to it. Tom is correct though that if someone is at all interested in this, they should invest in a colorimeter and have a go at it themselves. It is a lot of fun to do.

Yes, you'll always see some unit-to-unit variation, though it shouldn't be enormous. That's why people like me always caution against using someone's else's "settings." You really need to measure your own display and then adjust according to those results.

Thanks, Tom. I must admit that I would have settled for results that were not as good but your skepticism pushed me to keep at it.

It is not perfect but as compared to the uncorrected version it is an improvement. With a new lamp, the results can be extremely good, it appears.

I think it is good enough to tide me over until either my next projector or until Lumagen brings Radiance-style gamut correction to the masses.

In case anyone is interested, here is the method that I used to do the gamut calibration. If you follow these procedures, you can probably save yourself a lot of time trying different things.

1. Set all RS1 and Lumagen settings to defaults. Set proper contrast and brightness levels.

2. Focus first on the color with the greatest degree of oversaturation, green in the RS1's case. Thus, for green, I added blue and red until green's xy coordinates sat where they should. Notice that Green's Luma will now be incorrect.

3. Next, slightly overcorrect the Green Luma by using the SUBG control. I think I shot for a Luma at this point that was around 10% (or less) too low. This Luma overcorrection is necessary because when you add red and blue to green, the secondary colors that rely on green will have too much luma. We want to keep all the lumas in a range. Keeping the lumas of our primary colors slighty too low will keep the lumas of the secondary colors in check.

4. With green now correct, move on to the next color. I would choose red because its errors are apparently more visible to us than blue errors. Add green and blue to red until its xy position is correct. Then, used the SUBR control to remove enough red so that its Luma is slightly overcorrected (again around 10% or less luma overcorrection).

5. At this point, take a hard look at Yellow. Yellow falls between green and red. How does it measure? If its luma is too high, consider subtracting more green from green or red from red. If yellow's xy position is way off (it may be pushed toward red, for instance) consider backing off on some of the xy correction that you had done for green or red. Try at all times to keep the dE of these colors at around 10 or less (11 or 12 at this point is just as good).

6. Once you have a good balance between green, red and yellow, look at where blue, cyan and magenta are. Correct the xy position of blue so that it is correct. Use the SUBB control to overcorrect blue's luma in the same way that you overcorrected red's and green's.


7. At this point, you will see that some things look good and other things are screwed up. You will now turn to making corrections designed to balance things. Make these corrections with these assumptions in mind: (1) We want dEs of 10 or less, (2) it is better to sacrifice xy position than it is to have lumas that are excessive and unbalanced and (3) the luma of the primaries should be slightly too high and the lumas of the secondaries will be slightly too low. Now go back and forth adjusting the color additions and subtractions with an eye toward properly balancing the colors based on the three assumptions liasted above. I found that I had to retreat quite a bit on keeping green's xy position near the triangle in order to keep the lumas of yellow and cyan in check. This kind of compromise is OK because it keeps all the dEs in their proper range (don't go outside the ~10 dE range).

8. Know when to stop. I had it as a goal to get all my dEs under 10. I failed in this but got close. I could get five colors under 10 but the sixth was always stubbornly high. I spent about two hours fiddling with things at this point. I don't think you can get perfection. Note that if you have a newer lamp, better results may be possible. See Dan's results that are also posted in this thread. Special thanks to Ron for showing me how this is done and putting up with my stupid questions.

Let me post what I have done.
My before readings (no gamut, COLR at 128) look like this:

r g b y c m w
x .666 .283 .137 .446 .203 .331 .316
y .332 .703 .047 .544 .340 .151 .335
Y 45.067 118.951 10.836 157.086 127.978 55.444 164.436

dE 37.4 33.5 6.9 19.6 19.8 21.2

Here are my best corrected readings:

r g b y c m w
x .645 .288 .147 .428 .218 .332 .317
y .332 .617 .063 .495 .318 .167 .332
Y 30.371 102.037 10.944 152.994 141.155 53.9 166.245

dE 10.4 7.1 8.2 9.9 10.1 9.8I finally got around to looking at the numbers and it is clear that you can improve this even further with the tools you have.

Here's where the Vision's color decoding tools become very handy. Use the COLRED tool to raise the lightness of red and COLGRN to raise the lightness of green. Use HUERED to adjust the hue of magenta and the HUEGRN to adjust the hue of yellow.

Of course, this assumes that these controls do not have unwanted secondary effects. I don't think that they do when used in modest amounts.

However, it appears that reducing the dE for each color is not the only goal. In particular, you want to aim for Y values that are indicated by the measured primaries. Depending on the details, that may lead to somewhat higher dEs that would would get if you aimed for Y's that more closely matched the Rec. 709 or SMPTE-C standard. That's what I referred to below as the counterintuitive result.Tom, I fear that something I wrote is still causing confusion, or perhaps we just disagree (which would be ok, but now I'm confused trying to figure out what you are saying). Why would you want to aim for Y values that are computed from the measured (either native or adjusted) primaries? Why not try to minimize the dE values relative to the standard you want (Rec. 709 or SMPTE C), not as a cumulative sum, in my opinion, but prioritized by specific primary colors?

I finally got around to looking at the numbers and it is clear that you can improve this even further with the tools you have.

Here's where the Vision's color decoding tools become very handy. Use the COLRED tool to raise the lightness of red and COLGRN to raise the lightness of green. Use HUERED to adjust the hue of magenta and the HUEGRN to adjust the hue of yellow.

Of course, this assumes that these controls do not have unwanted secondary effects. I don't think that they do when used in modest amounts.


I'll give it a try! Thanks.

For those that are interested, Here is a copy of my config file for my Vision.

I have only set up mem A on inputs 1 and 6. Input 1 is a DVI input and input 6 is a component input.

Set all settings on your RS1 and Vision to default. Note that correct COLR on the HDQ is 128 on most configurations, but I know that some people have had issues with 128 and have used 112.

I am not sure what use this is to anyone because it seems either that all RS1's are different or that the age of the lamp dramatically changes color performance. I have around 900 hours on my RS1. I know that Ron has about half that and he is tweaking these settings for his use. I am sure that he will share them when he is done. The results that he had previously posted are quite good as well. Dan has a new lamp, gets much better results and needs a lot less correction overall.

Use these at your own risk. I have no idea what could happen to you or your equipment if you use them. I'm not responsible.

Good luck.

I finally got around to looking at the numbers and it is clear that you can improve this even further with the tools you have.

Here's where the Vision's color decoding tools become very handy. Use the COLRED tool to raise the lightness of red and COLGRN to raise the lightness of green. Use HUERED to adjust the hue of magenta and the HUEGRN to adjust the hue of yellow.

Of course, this assumes that these controls do not have unwanted secondary effects. I don't think that they do when used in modest amounts.

This can help, but be careful of crushing the colors when you raise any of the color gains from default settings. As Tom said add these "in modest amounts".

One other thought I had is that using "Video Levels" out, even when you might otherwise choose "PC levels" will give you a bit more headroom for increasing these without crushing colors. This is because you are backing away from the walls so to speak. Of course you need to adjust black and contrast in the display to account for this.

Is there any further word on the possible production of a 'Radiance-Lite', a CMS-only version of the Radiance that omits the scaling and de-interlacing processing?

Is there any further word on the possible production of a 'Radiance-Lite', a CMS-only version of the Radiance that omits the scaling and de-interlacing processing?
And eliminates all the "extra" inputs. I say "extra" because most of us don't need 18 inputs!

I had heard that Lumagen is planning a one input, one output (HDMI only) Radiance. If this is true, I don't think we'll see it for a long time yet.

I had heard that Lumagen is planning a one input, one output (HDMI only) Radiance. If this is true, I don't think we'll see it for a long time yet.

'long time' =/~ 6 months? 12 months?

'long time' =/~ 6 months? 12 months?

I have no idea but I would guess that it is a year or more away. Just a guess.

I think the one in one out radiance is only an idea. It may never come to market.

It will be a while before we have a one-in one-out Radiance. We do not have a schedule, even internally, and have not started working on it. We have started on the RadianceXS, but even that does not have a schedule yet. It would come after the RadianceXE (HDMI 1.3) verson of the Radiance (same I/O as RadianceXD with HDMI 1.3).

A calibration only box is also being discussed, but that would be after any Radiance with scaling boxes are introducted as there is quite a bit of software interacting with having a video processor in the mix that would need to be re-written.

A calibration only box is also being discussed, but that would be after any Radiance with scaling boxes are introducted as there is quite a bit of software interacting with having a video processor in the mix that would need to be re-written.

I know that the Radiance does a myriad of things extremely well, but upconversion, scaling, de-interlacing, etc., and now done very well (though maybe not as well as the Radiance does them) by BluRay players, AV receivers, and even the vp's in good projectors themselves. But the ONE THING that is that often not available in any capacity is a CMS. So if Lumagen could offer a box that did this ONE thing--as simply and economically as possible--I think it would fill a real gap in the market and be quite a hit.

Many of us had hoped that this is what JVC was going to introduce (specifically for their RS projectors), but they simply tacked it onto a full-featured vp, and the price is thus unreasonable, almost what many of us paid for our RS1's.

I agree with millerwill. If Lumagen (or anyone else) came out with an affordable aftermarket CMS (including greyscale and gamma calibration), they would have the market all to themselves. I think that calibrators everywhere would push these because (1) they would know how to use them (no need to get up to speed with every model TV or projector) and (2) They could obtain consistently better results for their clients (how many TVs or projectors have the full range of control that is needed for a proper correction?).

Now, I could argue that the Vision is really close enough. I, and others, have gotten very good results using it. But, it takes quite a bit of time to get where you want to be because the controls aren't as flexible as they could be. Plus, you can't get technically perfect results, as least with a projector, like the RS1, that has major oversaturation (fn, I suspect a Vision would be easier to use with an RS2 than an RS1 because the RS2 is way oversaturated in green and red, as opposed to just green -- Just a theory).

Millerwill, if you are inclined to give it a try, the Vision will take your RS1 to another level.

Millerwill, if you are inclined to give it a try, the Vision will take your RS1 to another level.

I've thought about it and followed all your heroic efforts in this regard with great interest. I would like to buy an eye-one and get into this calibration thing at the amateur level, but it's likely that I will replace my RS1 with an 'RS3' (or something) this coming fall/winter, so I'm going to wait until then to get into it. And, of course, I am hoping that by then Lumagen will do what we (and others) are recommending to them ( though I'm not sure they appreciate us telling them how to run their business!).

I've thought about it and followed all your heroic efforts in this regard with great interest. I would like to buy an eye-one and get into this calibration thing at the amateur level, but it's likely that I will replace my RS1 with an 'RS3' (or something) this coming fall/winter, so I'm going to wait until then to get into it. And, of course, I am hoping that by then Lumagen will do what we (and others) are recommending to them ( though I'm not sure they appreciate us telling them how to run their business!).

That was my original plan. I even put my RS1 up for sale (and at a reasonable price too). Let's just say that the market for "pre-owned" projectors, even of the quality of the RS1 isn't really there. I wan't willing to lose as much money on the sale as I would have had to.

So, Ron convinced me to give the Vision a try and get a few years out of my RS1. I'm not saying that if something amazing comes along at CEDIA that I wouldn't jump at it (I might) but I am pretty skeptical seeing what I see right now with my RS1/Vision combo.

One other thing that both Ron and I noticed (and I don't think has been mentioned) is that the Vision does a MUCH better job than the RS1 with SD or poorer quality sources. I don't know why this is but a lot of the picture noise that people complained about with the RS1 is now gone and SD material looks much, much better. Deinterlacing isn't quite up to snuff with the RS1. Sometimes it seems to struggle to find the correct method), but that is rarely seen.

The biggest improvements in PQ are I think the result of the Vision's grayscale and gamma features. I noticed the improvements in PQ from the first moment after completing the calibration.

Calibration is really fun. If I were you I would pick up a colorimeter just to play around with and measure what you have. I was surprised to learn how messed up my grayscale was, for instance, because the RS1 was consistently reviewed as coming very well calibrated from the factory.

LG, Interesting what you say about gray scale, for I too had heard that the RS's came OTB with excellent gray scale. ??

Well, if I do decide to upgrade this fall/winter, at least I don't have to worry about selling my RS1; my daughter and son-in-law (in particular) are salivating over the fact that I may not have further need of the RS1. (They now have a Mits 73" rptv that I 'released' to them when I got the RS1.) OTOH, you may very well be correct that there is actually not going to be a very significant increment beyond the RS1 before a couple of more years, at least in the < $10K range. (But others say that the RS2 is already such an increment, so let's see what JVC has in store, as well as what the dlp group comes up with.)

LG, Interesting what you say about gray scale, for I too had heard that the RS's came OTB with excellent gray scale. ??



But that drifts big time as the bulb ages. You can get the greyscale perfectly calibrated with the 11 point system in the Lumagen and then set the gamma nicely.

It isn't the easiest processor to use so it will take some time to figure it out. Now that I know how to use it I really like the user interface. I can make changes easily without a big pop up menu blocking the picture.

I use forced Per pixel deinterlacing for my SAT DVR and forced film sometimes with movies if I am using 24p output. The auto modes have some issues but so far Per Pixel deinterlacing yields a very very sharp artifact free picture 99.9% of the time. The HDQ has all the inputs I need too. Plus the colors look much better now. I never see a color that stands out wrong to my eyes like the greens and really bad yellows it had before the vision gamut mitigation. I'll stick with my RS1 for many years. I am not the one to upgrade a lot. My last projector was a Sony VW10HT that lasted 7-8 years for me. My friend still has it and it still works great. So in 2016 I'll probably still be using my RS1 if it lasts like my Sony did.

I need to add that motion blur is much less noticable with my HDQ doing the deinterlacing. The HDQ has very smooth pans even in 1080p/60. And using 1080p/24 its just perfect. Think about it. You can watch movies on SAT using 1080p/24. It also allows you to connect a PC and use PC resolutions like if a game forces a different output resolution than you are set to using Windows. The RS1u doesn't allow for many PC resolutions. I think the newer RS1x does however. Not sure but I see the RS2 does accept PC resolutions.

Ron

Ron, a very persuasive summary of the HDQ (and I presume the HDP)!

Ron, a very persuasive summary of the HDQ (and I presume the HDP)!

Absolutely! Just less inputs.

Speaking of inputs, why not keep it simple and convenient and put the VP between the receiver/pre/pro and the display?

That's what I'm planning to do with my HDP, which I haven't installed yet.

Is it because they botch conversion of video sources to HDMI?

My only video sources are HDDVD and BD, both HDMI, so that shouldn't be an issue for me, right?

Speaking of inputs, why not keep it simple and convenient and put the VP between the receiver/pre/pro and the display?

That's what I'm planning to do with my HDP, which I haven't installed yet.

Is it because they botch conversion of video sources to HDMI?

My only video sources are HDDVD and BD, both HDMI, so that shouldn't be an issue for me, right?

I run the VP and receiver in parallel. My receiver has switching, but I figured why run everything through another device when that could just screw things up? Some receivers are alleged to change colorspace, for instance. So, all my video sources are just run through the Vision and to the projector.

I need to add that motion blur is much less noticable with my HDQ doing the deinterlacing. The HDQ has very smooth pans even in 1080p/60. And using 1080p/24 its just perfect. Think about it. You can watch movies on SAT using 1080p/24.

This is very true. I think that somehow, the implementation of the Gennum in the RS1 is the cause of the blur that some people see. Even at 1080p/60, motion is a lot better on the Vision than on the RS1 by itself. Movies at 1080p/24 are even better. Definitely no blur!

I still use a bit of the DNR on the RS1 itself when I need it, but overall, I am convinced that the Vision does a better job with image processing than the RS1 does by itself.

Speaking of inputs, why not keep it simple and convenient and put the VP between the receiver/pre/pro and the display?

That's what I'm planning to do with my HDP, which I haven't installed yet.

Is it because they botch conversion of video sources to HDMI?

My only video sources are HDDVD and BD, both HDMI, so that shouldn't be an issue for me, right?

The only issue I see with this is every source needs different geometry settings when using the HDQ/HDP. I guess the HDQ/HDP doesn't automatically adjust for perfect pixel maping. All you can do is try it.

I wouldn't use the AV receiver myself. Do as Lawguy does and run them parallel.

Ron

How do you run them parallel and retain the HDMI audio? I'm guessing a splitter of some sort. I'm only going to run HDMI from an A35 and a PS3 through the receiver into the HDP. The geometry on those should be the same (I think). I bought an HDMI switch and the HDP will go into one input while my xbox 360 is going into another. I'm doing it this way as the colors on games don't bother me at all and I'd rather not introduce any lag into my gaming. When football season rolls around and I start watching tv again, I'll run the cable/sat box into the HDP and send the audio via SPDIF to the receiver.

I finally got the theater back up and running after my move and installed a new bulb in the RS-1. Also have an HDP and a display LT unopened that I will be playing with this weekend. Should be a fun long weekend of experimentation ahead.

Then how do I get HDMI audio into the receiver?

Anyway, the receiver passes HDMI video just fine, looks the same as when I was running it directly to the pj.

Well for digital SAT I use the coaxial digital audio output and right now I use the same with my HDDVD player. I plan to get a Bluray player soon that can decode all the HD audio formats and then have it modified to add 3xSPDIF output to my Meridian audio processor.

I got to play with the HDP for a bit this weekend. I could get 1080p24 no problems with my PS3, but my A35 had major issues. With the player outputting 1080p24 into the lumagen, the picture was very odd. Almost like the framerate was 10fps. When I switched to output 1080i from the A35, the HDP would choke up pretty bad. Also, when outputting 1080p24 from my A35, the menu graphics on the HDP would get wavey. Anyway, I had issues with 1080p24 from the A35. Any idea what I can do to fix this?

Also interesting was the grayscale on my RS-1. Set to low color temp and natural profile, I had dE's of around 3 consistent across the grayscale (before adjustments). I was under the impression that natural profile and "middle" color temp was supposed to have the closest to D65. The bulb only had around 20 hours at that point.

I got to play with the HDP for a bit this weekend. I could get 1080p24 no problems with my PS3, but my A35 had major issues. With the player outputting 1080p24 into the lumagen, the picture was very odd. Almost like the framerate was 10fps. When I switched to output 1080i from the A35, the HDP would choke up pretty bad. Also, when outputting 1080p24 from my A35, the menu graphics on the HDP would get wavey. Anyway, I had issues with 1080p24 from the A35. Any idea what I can do to fix this?

Also interesting was the grayscale on my RS-1. Set to low color temp and natural profile, I had dE's of around 3 consistent across the grayscale (before adjustments). I was under the impression that natural profile and "middle" color temp was supposed to have the closest to D65. The bulb only had around 20 hours at that point.

When my HTPC outputs 1080p/24 and my Lumagen outputs 1080p/24 AND I have the Lumagen's menu engaged, I get the same problems that you do. But, once I close the Lumagen's menu, everything returns to normal.

I don't think that 1080i in/1080p/24 out works at all over DVI, but I think it works over component. With 1080i inputs, I output 1080p/60.

Watch how your grayscale changes as your lamp ages.

Did you play with gamma yet at all?

To be honest, I spent so much time trying to get the A35 to work with 1080p24, I didn't get the chance to mess with the HDP's grayscale or gamma adjustments. My gamma was very low (below 2) according to HCFR though. How accurate is HCFR's measurement of gamma? Is it using the correct calculation? Both Gregr and cine4home calculated gamma of around 2-2.1. I'm not sure why mine is so low.

To be honest, I spent so much time trying to get the A35 to work with 1080p24, I didn't get the chance to mess with the HDP's grayscale or gamma adjustments. My gamma was very low (below 2) according to HCFR though. How accurate is HCFR's measurement of gamma? Is it using the correct calculation? Both Gregr and cine4home calculated gamma of around 2-2.1. I'm not sure why mine is so low.


I assume that Color HCFR uses an accurate menthod of calculating gamma but you are right that many people appear to have gotten low readings with it. All I know is that my RS1 with a 2.4 gamma looks great.

Keep us updated on how things go.

When my HTPC outputs 1080p/24 and my Lumagen outputs 1080p/24 AND I have the Lumagen's menu engaged, I get the same problems that you do. But, once I close the Lumagen's menu, everything returns to normal.

I don't think that 1080i in/1080p/24 out works at all over DVI, but I think it works over component. With 1080i inputs, I output 1080p/60.

Watch how your grayscale changes as your lamp ages.

Did you play with gamma yet at all?

My Toshiba XA2 / HDQ works perfectly with 1080i in and 1080p/24 out over DVI/HDMI. My Direct TV DVR HR20 works perfectly using 1080p/24 out as well even with 720p/60 inputs. I did notice that If I engage the internal test pattern and then back out of it that sometimes I have weird behavior. I need to press standby and power the HDQ back up and everything works great. After your finished with the service menu your better off cycling the power to the HDQ. Then you can change output settings. The internal menus work at one refresh (60Hz) so 1080p/24 will do some weird things with the menu turned on.

Keep in mind that on SAT when comercials come that 1080p/24 will have judder so I only use 1080p/24 with movies usually already saved on my DVR. All other times I am set to 1080p/60. Also, you will want to use forced film while set to 1080p/24 and using 1080i/60 input or you may get some scenes where judder pops up after a scene change se to auto 1 or 2. The auto modes on the HDQ are not very good. They are too slow to change at least with HD material. The Sil 504 chip used for SD is much faster so Auto works fine on SD material.

Ron

To be honest, I spent so much time trying to get the A35 to work with 1080p24, I didn't get the chance to mess with the HDP's grayscale or gamma adjustments. My gamma was very low (below 2) according to HCFR though. How accurate is HCFR's measurement of gamma? Is it using the correct calculation? Both Gregr and cine4home calculated gamma of around 2-2.1. I'm not sure why mine is so low.


My RS1 measured between 2.0 gamma at 10IRE to 1.8 at 90IRE before I set gamma. I think it has something to do with the HDQ. I noticed that the picture was brighter with the HDQ installed. I never verified this though. Partly why I really didn't like the HDQ when I first got it. When it is setup finally with proper gamma and you are not constantly using the service menu and test patterns it works quite well.

Turning the lumagen off after making menu adjustments did the trick. Both A35 and PS3 output 1080p24 to the lumagen no problem now.

I did some playing around last night and settled on the following gamut adjustments.

Red SR 55 AG 17 AB 17
Green AR 64 SG 27 AB 62
Blue AR 27 AG 27 SB 36

My HCFR before numbers were: Y 63.253

All dE's calculated from the gamut calculator on the accupel website.

DEFAULT
x 0.67 0.286 0.138 0.437 0.203 0.319
y 0.33 0.704 0.047 0.556 0.337 0.143
Y 13.883 45.45 3.847 59.296 49.287 17.713
Y % 0.219 0.719 0.061 0.937 0.779 0.280
21.1 32.5 3.5 29.9 18.9 11.4 19.55 - average

My after numbers are: Y 64.016

x 0.661 0.295 0.145 0.413 0.227 0.322
y 0.331 0.617 0.057 0.51 0.337 0.157
Y 11.365 42.069 4.003 59.548 52.57 18.644
Y % 0.178 0.657 0.0625 0.930 0.821 0.291
4.5 3.8 6.5 6 5.8 2.1 4.783 - average de

I'm very happy with these numbers. The picture looks much better. I will probably play more with it later, but for right now I need to work on gray scale and gamma.

Special thanks to Lawguy without whose help I would still be wondering how to work the lumagen.

Those are great numbers Noah. Ron helped me. I help you. Hopefully you'll help someone else.

Your numbers are essentially a gamut correction!

That's 3 of us with good results with similar settings.

Thanks Lawguy. They really are very close to your numbers. I probably ran 20 adjustments through until settling on these. I got pretty good at it. I had to make a 2AM run to Walgreens to get some DVD-R's to burn the AVS test disc. I have no idea why neither the Blu ray or the HD DVD version of DVE have the 100% color window test patterns...

You are right that those numbers are very close.

I think we can say that someone who doesnt want to take the time to go through the whole process could just plug them and and get good results.

Hey Lawguy, Ron and mrlittlejeans: Thanks for all the hard work; your results are encouraging for those of us who just seek noticeable improvement, rather than perfection. I can hardly wait to hear how the gamut goes given Greg's endorsement of 2.4 or so with the RS2.

Cheers
Peter

Noah,

Those numbers look great. I assume that has gone a long way to taming the colors?

Shawn

It has. I picked Transformers to test out the changes as I think the colors in that movie are overblown and were one of the times I was annoyed with the old colors. While you can tell the movie uses very saturated colors, it wasn't nearly as offensive this time. I didn't get to mess with the grayscale/gamma too much last night but I'm going to try and hit that today, although I just got home with a new pair of speakers (Revel F32's) which I'm itching to hook up...

One thing that is pretty shocking is running through the 100% color windows on the AVS HD709 test disc while toggling the gamut changes. Pretty large differences. I'm glad the HDP works as well as it does as I was very close to buying a Radiance last week. I don't think I need one any longer as the remaining errors aren't enough to bother me.

It has. I picked Transformers to test out the changes as I think the colors in that movie are overblown and were one of the times I was annoyed with the old colors. While you can tell the movie uses very saturated colors, it wasn't nearly as offensive this time. I didn't get to mess with the grayscale/gamma too much last night but I'm going to try and hit that today, although I just got home with a new pair of speakers (Revel F32's) which I'm itching to hook up...

One thing that is pretty shocking is running through the 100% color windows on the AVS HD709 test disc while toggling the gamut changes. Pretty large differences. I'm glad the HDP works as well as it does as I was very close to buying a Radiance last week. I don't think I need one any longer as the remaining errors aren't enough to bother me.

Try turning the gamut control on and off while watching something. See those colors light up and faces redden!

Great results Noah. At least 4 of us are happy with our HDP/Q + RS1 combo!

Were your measurements with 75% patterns or 100% patterns? Lumagen input COLR=128? RS1 color=0?

For HCFR gamma measurements, I found that selecting the "Camera gamma" calculation gives a higher number that is closer to the review numbers. I'm not sure if that is more "correct" as there's conflicting info on HCFR Camera vs default gamma formula.

--Dan

Great results Noah. At least 4 of us are happy with our HDP/Q + RS1 combo!

Were your measurements with 75% patterns or 100% patterns? Lumagen input COLR=128? RS1 color=0?

For HCFR gamma measurements, I found that selecting the "Camera gamma" calculation gives a higher number that is closer to the review numbers. I'm not sure if that is more "correct" as there's conflicting info on HCFR Camera vs default gamma formula.

--Dan

Dan, I finally figured out that my XA2 needed 112 COLR but everything else uses 128.


Ron

OK, everyone get ready to hate me, because I have more skeptical questions. Take a close look at mrlittlejeans results. Green and red are enormously improved, but blue is made worse. What I really want to focus on are the red results. Almost the entire improvement is due to lowered lightness. The oversaturation is reduced only slightly.

What I really find interesting about this is that the improvement in red is present ONLY according to a CIELUV analysis of the color difference. If you use CIE94 instead, there is no visible improvement at all. The profound green improvement is there according to both standards.

I have two questions about this:

1) Which is reporting the more accurate results, CIELUV or CIE94? If you want to follow-up on this, see more data at this thread (http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=13991701).

2) How much improvement does this bring (other than with green) relative to what you could have gotten just by some combination of lowered Color control and R and G color decoding adjustments?

OK, everyone get ready to hate me, because I have more skeptical questions. Take a close look at mrlittlejeans results. Green and red are enormously improved, but blue is made worse. What I really want to focus on are the red results. Almost the entire improvement is due to lowered lightness. The oversaturation is reduced only slightly.

What I really find interesting about this is that the improvement in red is present ONLY according to a CIELUV analysis of the color difference. If you use CIE94 instead, there is no visible improvement at all. The profound green improvement is there according to both standards.

I have two questions about this:

1) Which is reporting the more accurate results, CIELUV or CIE94? If you want to follow-up on this, see more data at this thread (http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=13991701).

2) How much improvement does this bring (other than with green) relative to what you could have gotten just by some combination of lowered Color control and R and G color decoding adjustments?

Tom,

Even with the JVC color control set to -15 yellows still look like gold and every color is way lighter and looks way more undersaturated than using the gamut control in the Vision processors. Besides the fix only affects 50IRE to 100IRE and most of the time lower IRE's are used with real video yet most of the time I don't think saturation is very high at lower IRE's with real video so we don't see the gold yellows. You really need to see it with your own eyes to apreciate what the Vision primary gamut controls do. I agree that they are by no means perfect but it does look a lot better.

Ron

The profound green improvement is there according to both standards.

Since I find green the most annoying (followed by the yellows) is the Vision correction still worth it in your opinion? I'd LOVE a "profound" green improvement so long as blue doesn't get near as out-of-wack as the green was. How much worse is the blue made compared to the green improvement? The compromises we make to save $3k, I know...

Since I find green the most annoying (followed by the yellows) is the Vision correction still worth it in your opinion? I'd LOVE a "profound" green improvement so long as blue doesn't get near as out-of-wack as the green was. How much worse is the blue made compared to the green improvement? The compromises we make to save $3k, I know...I have no question about the possible improvement to the green primary, which seems to be the most troubling color on the RS1. Regarding blue, it is either made slightly worse or slightly better. In any case, not a big change. Red is an open issue for me.

I am past the point of questioning whether it would be worthwhile. It clearly is. I am now more interested in the somewhat more technical issue of how we measure these things.

The differences I alluded to between the CIE94 and CIELUV numbers for mrlittlejeans' red are shocking.

I am not sure if I can trust blue luma measurements with either the Spyder2 or the i1. The i1 does read it higher though. My blue luma measured way low without any correction yet blue still looks over saturated and vibrant. I read somewhere that even the i1 LT has a problem with blue. I also know I am not clipping blue at 100IRE. I see the same low blue readings at 75% and other IRE's. I can increase green to blue and the luma goes up but skin tones begin to not look correct.

Even with the JVC color control set to -15 yellows still look like gold and every color is way lighter and looks way more undersaturated than using the gamut control in the Vision processors. Besides the fix only affects 50IRE to 100IRE and most of the time lower IRE's are used with real video yet most of the time I don't think saturation is very high at lower IRE's with real video so we don't see the gold yellows. You really need to see it with your own eyes to apreciate what the Vision primary gamut controls do. I agree that they are by no means perfect but it does look a lot better.I don't doubt that. I am now more concerned with the narrowly technical issue of how we measure this stuff, but I would still like to see some numbers from a creative use of the Vision color decoding and main Color control. As I pointed out, the changes to mrlittlejeans' red look exactly what you would expect from a lowered color control: slightly lower saturation and profoundly lower lightness.

Tom has given me a good idea.

My numbers sacrifice a little xy position to keep the Ys in check.

I might try lowering the color control a bit. This might enable a bit more flexibility to bring the xys to where there should be by allowing for the primaries to be a little lower in Y to begin with.

Truth is that I have no motivation because the colors measure pretty acceptably to me. I'll get around to it though.

I am not sure if I can trust blue luma measurements with either the Spyder2 or the i1.I wouldn't trust the Spyder2 for anything. Below 75% stim, I wouldn't trust the i1 either. There's just not enough light in blue. At 75% and above it should be fine.

Below 75% stim, I wouldn't trust the i1 either. There's just not enough light in blue. At 75% and above it should be fine.

I did notice the i1 struggling with lower levels. Took longer to get a reading. My Spyder2 didn't look that much different from the i1 but I liked the i1 because it measures so much faster.

If your saying that the lightness is profoundly different then something is wrong with the measurements because I don't see it up on the screen.

I guess I will not know until I get a radiance light someday! :)

Tom has given me a good idea.

My numbers sacrifice a little xy position to keep the Ys in check.

I might try lowering the color control a bit. This might enable a bit more flexibility to bring the xys to where there should be by allowing for the primaries to be a little lower in Y to begin with.

Truth is that I have no motivation because the colors measure pretty acceptably to me. I'll get around to it though.

I think I tried this already and it didn't help the readings any. All I know is colors look great. When compared to my tube TV red, blue, green and any color looks great. Vibrant and nicely saturated. I am sick of tweaking. I put to many damn hours on my projector/lamp tweaking. Someday I'll get a radiance and do it again...maybe...it looks so damn good now with my HDQ.

I ran through my grayscale adjustments and gamma tonight. I think it is working well. I first calibrated the RS1 at 80% with the HD DVD player plugged directly into the RS1. Then hooked the lumagen into the chain and got everything but 0 & 10 less than 3 dE. I shot for and achieved a gamma of 2.3. I'll try for a gamma of 2.4 tomorrow (hopefully). Once you get the hang of it, its not too hard. I've only watched about 15 minutes of the I Am Legend bluray, but it looked fabulous.

Tom, I thought about doing that as well. Pull the xy coordinates in for Red, use a lot of SubRed to lower the luminance so the secondaries don't get out of whack, and then add luminance back using the COLRED OFFSET in the lumagen which is supposed to affect only Red. There are also lightness controls for Blue and Green only in the lumagen. My first stab at it didn't work but I don't think I subtracted enough Red. I may try it this week.

Thanks Ron & Lawguy for all the hard work. Thanks Tom for the advice and analysis. I will try to play with the red lightness settings in the HDP.

I ran through my grayscale adjustments and gamma tonight. I think it is working well. I first calibrated the RS1 at 80% with the HD DVD player plugged directly into the RS1. Then hooked the lumagen into the chain and got everything but 0 & 10 less than 3 dE. I shot for and achieved a gamma of 2.3. I'll try for a gamma of 2.4 tomorrow (hopefully). Once you get the hang of it, its not too hard. I've only watched about 15 minutes of the I Am Legend bluray, but it looked fabulous.

Tom, I thought about doing that as well. Pull the xy coordinates in for Red, use a lot of SubRed to lower the luminance so the secondaries don't get out of whack, and then add luminance back using the COLRED OFFSET in the lumagen which is supposed to affect only Red. There are also lightness controls for Blue and Green only in the lumagen. My first stab at it didn't work but I don't think I subtracted enough Red. I may try it this week.

Thanks Ron & Lawguy for all the hard work. Thanks Tom for the advice and analysis. I will try to play with the red lightness settings in the HDP.

I am glad it is working for you. The grayscale/gamma controls are pretty easy to use once you get the hang of them. I have found that 2.4 works great. I have not tried 2.5, but I bet that it will be too dark, at least on my PJ.

My experience using the Lumagen hue and offset controls is that you may get good results at a particular Ire but that you will screw things up at other Ires. I have not tried Tom's suggestion that he made a while ago to use only very modest amounts of these controls to tweak your results a little. I believe that this will work and that we could shave off a few more dE. Like Ron (who put more time into this than me) I have run out of gas for the time being. Plus, the weather has gotten much nicer and it is good to get some sun.

I have two questions about this:

1) Which is reporting the more accurate results, CIELUV or CIE94? If you want to follow-up on this, see more data at this thread (http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=13991701).

2) How much improvement does this bring (other than with green) relative to what you could have gotten just by some combination of lowered Color control and R and G color decoding adjustments?

Tom,

The thing that surprises me most about the results is that although the largest correction was made in green, the large native green errors in the RS1 really are only apparent in rare cases. When they crop up, they are obvious to the eye, but they don't crop up that often. I had accidently turned the gamut control off one day and there was a scene with lots of green and I just said "something is not right here" and checked the settings. But, many times when a green scene comes up, I will turn off the gamut control expecting to see big differences but I don't. I suspect that the greens that are made obviously wrong to the eye by the RS1 are rarely used in real material. This comports with what I think is the experience of the typical RS1 user that they rarely see offensive colors.

I notice the changes in red much, much more, due mainly to changes in skin tone. It is much more common that turning off the gamut control reveals that the skin tones become overly red. This is the kind of change made famous by Shawn's Casino Royale pictures. Although I thought that I would notice green more. The thing I appreciate most about the gamut control is that skin tones look much, much more natural. Again, some skin tones look barely changed, if at all, but it is far more common to see changes in skin tone. The funny thing to me is that skin tones always looked great to me on my uncorrected RS1. Now I don't think I could watch them like that. Don't tell Bob Sorel.

Changes in blue are seen the least. There is sometimes a small difference in the sky, for instance, but not often at all.


Maybe others can shed some light on this.

I don't know if this helps you decide which measure is better, but there is no question that red is the color that I see most changed overall.

I think I tried this already and it didn't help the readings any. All I know is colors look great. When compared to my tube TV red, blue, green and any color looks great. Vibrant and nicely saturated. I am sick of tweaking. I put to many damn hours on my projector/lamp tweaking. Someday I'll get a radiance and do it again...maybe...it looks so damn good now with my HDQ.

I remember this being tried. Still, we know that reducing the color control on the JVC reduces color errors to a certain extent. What I would do is first find the setting on the color control at which we find the maximum amount of improvement (ie if you go beyong that point, dEs get larger). Then, starting with a more accurate image to start with, perhaps we will need to use less gamut correction to bring in our xys. This will screw up the secondaries less, so there won't be the need for as much balancing and trading off. We might get better results overall. I wish I had the energy.

Great results Noah. At least 4 of us are happy with our HDP/Q + RS1 combo!
--Dan

I am interested to see what happens to your dEs as your lamp ages. You had the best results overall, if I recall.

Let us know what happens at 100 hours, etc.

Forgive my newbie question, but I've been trying to figure this out and haven't been able to yet :). The new firmware gives the Lumagen HDP 1080p/24 output, but can you not input 1080p/24? Are you all just putting your BD players, etc; at 1080i/60 and letting the Lumagen convert it? I'm looking to correct my RS1 but I don't want to spend a fortune doing it.

Thanks!

I send 1080p24 from a Toshiba A35 and 1080p24 from a PS3. Then 1080p24 to the RS1. It works fine.

Forgive my newbie question, but I've been trying to figure this out and haven't been able to yet :). The new firmware gives the Lumagen HDP 1080p/24 output, but can you not input 1080p/24? Are you all just putting your BD players, etc; at 1080i/60 and letting the Lumagen convert it? I'm looking to correct my RS1 but I don't want to spend a fortune doing it.

Thanks!

You can both input and output 1080p/24. The Vision won't accept a 1080p/60 input, but it will output one.

Ok, thanks. The spec sheet up on Lumagen's site indicates it only takes up to 1080i.

A quick bit of info for those who were getting two screen blanks a couple of minutes after every output res change with the RS1 and Luimagen HDP. Try setting the output synch polarity to H - V -.

Another happy HDP RS1 owner here. Very nice 1080/24 from any film based source :)

Ok, thanks. The spec sheet up on Lumagen's site indicates it only takes up to 1080i.

Yes. Apparently that has provided incorrect information for some time.

A quick bit of info for those who were getting two screen blanks a couple of minutes after every output res change with the RS1 and Luimagen HDP. Try setting the output synch polarity to H - V -.

Another happy HDP RS1 owner here. Very nice 1080/24 from any film based source :)

Have you tried using gamut settings?

Have you tried using gamut settings?

No, I dont have the correct calibration equipment. The colours normally look fine to me but there is a very occasional "Green Issue".

A quick bit of info for those who were getting two screen blanks a couple of minutes after every output res change with the RS1 and Luimagen HDP. Try setting the output synch polarity to H - V -.

Another happy HDP RS1 owner here. Very nice 1080/24 from any film based source :)

I was getting the same problem with HDP and RS1 but only with a cable box changing resolutions. I turned off genlock to make it stop glitching. I will try this tweak. Did you already have genlock off when you had the screen blanks and was it only with 24p sources?

I was getting the same problem with HDP and RS1 but only with a cable box changing resolutions. I turned off genlock to make it stop glitching. I will try this tweak. Did you already have genlock off when you had the screen blanks and was it only with 24p sources?

Yeah, don't use genlock. I had problems with it on my RS1. Plus the scaling is top notch in the Vision HDQ. I have my lipsync dialed in with my audio processor and don't want to have to change it just for genlock.

I have genlock enabled. The problem did happen with 1080I/50 and 60 input (Combine with corresponding 50P, 60P and 24P outputs).

No, I dont have the correct calibration equipment. The colours normally look fine to me but there is a very occasional "Green Issue".

Just try the gamut setting posted in this thread. I think that you might be surprised that they make your picture look better.