HCFR - Open source projector and display calibration software - Page 135 - AVS Forum

AVS Forum > Display Devices > Display Calibration > HCFR - Open source projector and display calibration software

Display Calibration

harlekin's Avatar harlekin
06:29 AM Liked: 20
post #4021 of 5061
07-13-2014 | Posts: 272
Joined: May 2007
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stereodude View Post
I'm pretty sure there's a BT1886 topic that you can spam with your tinfoil conspiracy hat theories on the ITU and BT1886 instead of this one.
I'm sorry, either this is science that can be challenged by looking at the impact and the reproducibility of data.

Or this is a believe system where anyone finding flaws that especially impact the range of devices that are available on the market gets shouted out the way you elegantly tried to short out the criticism at hand - trollingly combined with the most severe of accusations > wrong thread. (Essentially doubling down on "dont talk about it here", and "dont talk about it anyways".)

Sorry - I don't pander to

- threads where as a suggestion videos are linked in which a member of the body that formulates the suggestions that then become the standard - clearly doesnt know a thing about the standard he actually was booked to talk an hour about are STILL LINKED as the explanations one should listen to to.

- as alternatives papers and (calibrating software manufacturers) websites are linked in which a surface explanation is given that doesnt add up with the intent (at least for the vast majority of devices out in the market).
--

And especially no explanation is given upon the results that this produces on devices on the market - which display huge variation dependent on their black point only. While brightness doesnt seem to affect the standard at all, and there is no explaination given regarding bt1886 and room light levels.
--

That added to the _incredible_ fact, that this standard is getting shoe horned in 10 years after the first Blurays were released. Which brings up the _really_ sensitive question - what were you guys calibrating your devices to before? (Ups, we totally forgot about gamma compensation..) - which now should be implemented on the end users side rather then at post production?
harlekin's Avatar harlekin
06:51 AM Liked: 20
post #4022 of 5061
07-13-2014 | Posts: 272
Joined: May 2007
In a more measured tone:

HCFR is the only open source approach this whole industry is confronted with - as in "look at it and be encouraged to learn what it actually does" - depending on some highly regarded maintainers understanding both theory and implementation.

Now in addition I am pleading for them even to chip in on public explanation. Which normally isn't their job.

Because whats public so far in the bt1886 threads doesnt take into account the actual variations we are seeing at the device level, induced purely by one measurement only - black level.

Why does black level, almost entirely determine the gamma my light tones should be viewed at? Regardless of brightness, contrast or room light.

And if it is truly "compensating" characteristics at mastering - why does it vary that much dependent on solely the black point of the end users device.
harlekin's Avatar harlekin
07:03 AM Liked: 20
post #4023 of 5061
07-13-2014 | Posts: 272
Joined: May 2007
And what does that mean for the local dimming/pseudo local dimming we see in current TV sets? Does the local dimming setting now impact which gamma points my device should be set to? So is accurate color representation (minimal dE) only reached in certain SCENES?

Questions that ought to be asked when suddenly there is a new default.
harlekin's Avatar harlekin
09:05 AM Liked: 20
post #4024 of 5061
07-13-2014 | Posts: 272
Joined: May 2007
Another fun fact:

Remember Spectracals fact sheet where it states:
"BT.1886 is quickly being adopted in the field, particularly in the broadcast, production, and post-production industries." ?
http://www.spectracal.com/Documents/BT.1886.pdf

Well ask yourself HOW its "quickly being adopted".

If bt1886 is seen as a correction curve, not applied in post, but only on the end users side - that counteracts "most material being produced due to analog standards/mastered on CRTs" the answer quickly becomes...

By them not doing _anything_ apart from them still using their old CRTs/analog camera equipment and forcing gamma correction onto the end user which prior to this had perfectly linear gamma tracking on his devices.

Oh and how quickly they are adopting this, by not doing anything! Its simply astonishing!

And on the end users side? Gamma becomes an approximation (heavily influenced by the least accurate factor measurable - black point, in a comparatively huge scale of variance produced by the black points that devices out there actually have, or in less ideal scenarios - were wrongly measured or approximated) of an approximation (the median CRT that never existed) to then produce "accurate colors" according to something that was first invented as a fudge factor (by definition!), because gamma on LCDs/Plasma was perfectly linear.

Eh - guys?
HDTVChallenged's Avatar HDTVChallenged
09:35 AM Liked: 154
post #4025 of 5061
07-13-2014 | Posts: 8,651
Joined: Jan 2002
Quote:
Originally Posted by harlekin View Post
Found user HDTVChallenged's "BT1886CalcV3.xls" which (if the math is accurate) I find extremely helpful in visualizing changes.

Scratch all my questions except for one.

Details on how a Black (0,04 cd/m2) White (120/140 cd/m2) device reacts under bt1886 compared to a lower (0,004 cd/m2) black level device - regarding "room light conditions".

Can you factor out room light at all?
I don't understand the question. From my perspective the process of "calibration" assumes that you are using the display in an appropriately light-controlled environment. Therefore, if one were to place the display in a less than appropriately controlled environment, the value of a "calibration" tends toward zero.

In other words, if you insist upon installing your "reference level" plasma in a solarium there's not much the "community" can do for you.

The point of BT1886 is simply to mimic the EOTF characteristics of CRTs on non-CRT devices, because, as it turns out, the simpler power-law method is not exactly the "correct" way of doing that emulation.
madshi's Avatar madshi
04:19 PM Liked: 140
post #4026 of 5061
07-13-2014 | Posts: 5,483
Joined: May 2005
Wow, 11 out of the last 13 posts are from harlekin. No offense, but that's not a healthy ratio. Also, this thread is about HCFR specific things, not about general calibration topics. Discussion about whether BT.1886 is a good thing or not should go into a separate thread, please. I'm not interested in such a BT.1886 discussion, just about HCFR. Thank you.
gwgill's Avatar gwgill
06:04 PM Liked: 88
post #4027 of 5061
07-13-2014 | Posts: 685
Joined: Jan 2013
Quote:
Originally Posted by harlekin View Post
As a visual reference:

How your black level decides upon what your gamma should look like according to bt1886:
Yep. So what ?
harlekin's Avatar harlekin
07:28 PM Liked: 20
post #4028 of 5061
07-13-2014 | Posts: 272
Joined: May 2007
Just to make it publicly known - I find it almost unnerving to see the kind of attitude all those questions remain glanced over. The reaction that was closest to being "on point" was a mere "so what?".

So let me just sum up what no one here finds problematic or unsettling at all:

- Changing the content reproduction chain mid standard, and doing so without much public recognition. If gamma correction was overlooked for this extensive periods (ten years), it is nothing short of a scandal.
- Reintroducing gamma compensation as part of the "end user realm", instead of accounting for it in post.
(Therefore ruining devices with a perfectly linear gamma (what we are aiming for), that could be set according to room light for example.
- Doing it in a way which produces an even higher variance between displays - dependent on solely their black level.
(The logic behind it, that compensates for black crush on displays where neither 2.2, nor 2.4 would introduces any - but now we are calibrating them at 2.0 and 2.1 at the low end.)
- Not having any opinion on the huge nature of variance in curves that bt 1886 produces (*quote*So what?*endquote*)
- Remaining silent about bt1886 not even adhering to other standards regarding roomlight - in fact brightness remains largely ignored, also gamma always tops out at about 2.35
- Introducing more uncertainty into the calibration process, by approximating an entirely made up approximation.
- Not making clear that bt1886 is used as a compensation curve on end user devices - which deviates in its nature according to the black point (= introduces new errors).
- Using in large parts marketing language to sell others on the concept of it.

I might have not been surprised that some people get a blank stare when they hear the words "algorithmically drawn curve", but just because math is used to present a "solution" it doesnt mean that suddenly all becomes better. It also doesnt mean that you shouldn't look at what is promised and whats actually happening.

Displays with great black points are almost configured at a linear gamma of 2.35, perfectly fit for dark room viewing, where gamma 2.35 in lighter scenes makes perfect sense. I call that a confirmation bias on part of what the standard was aimed for.

Displays with "commercial black points" get a gamma of 2.0 to 2.1 applied to darker areas, but brights still are reaching 2.35 - which makes them problematic for dim room viewing and produces entirely different picture characteristics, even in brighter environments.

When we are introducing gamma variance willfully and thereby changing color targets arent we saying that now all displays with blackpoints that arent excellent also get a penalty on color reproduction just because their tracking should be less linear to go along with a less linear gamma curve? Should we now ask from display producers to compensate for that - therefore also introducing variance, where those displays would have a perfectly similar color representation at a linear gamma function? > Are we making most TV less accurate (color wise). And less suitable for both bright room as well as dark room viewing at once? Well I guess thats also a way to sell new TVs...

The problem regarding local dimming (how its implemented) and plasmas becoming extinct is also known - and with that much resting solely on the black point, we are establishing this standard now - to introduce more variance in calibrations yet again?

And for what? Just so the gamma compensation can be said to be in the end users responsibility - and all previous bluray mastering wasn't inaccurate at all, it was just that we have forgotten to make our perfectly linear gamma devices "more like those old CRTs"...
-

Also I might emphasize that "postings in a row" without being able to actually establish ANY kind of discourse arent "unhealthy" a priori, as upvoted by some users in here - if they are actually filled with content, arguments, comparisons.

I don't have it in my hand how fast or how on topic others respond to the contemplations I bring forward.

Theres a difference between accusing me of liking my own post showing up and in not responding in any constructive (or even counter argumentative) manner in the first place so my lists of accusations gets longer and longer, and longer - with every bit of additional information I process on my part.

Its a friendly way of saying - "catch up".

But dont worry. As most of the people here gladly are celebrating whenever a default change in the standards they calibrate to occurs and have no ambition whatsoever to understand or discuss the effects of a new "algorithmically drawn curve" to be implemented, I won't bother you much more.

If I don't get any takers - I have to accept it.

With one merit. I can call color calibration (at least for the current home cinema standard) a pseudo science that should rather be denounced than encouraged.

Someone care to sell me on a 3D LUT box?
spacediver's Avatar spacediver
07:45 PM Liked: 75
post #4029 of 5061
07-13-2014 | Posts: 946
Joined: May 2013
Harlekin, this thread is not your personal soapbox. If you have particular issues you'd like to discuss, then please post them in the appropriate thread and/or create new threads. This thread is dedicated to a discussion of HCFR software.
gwgill's Avatar gwgill
08:33 PM Liked: 88
post #4030 of 5061
07-13-2014 | Posts: 685
Joined: Jan 2013
Quote:
Originally Posted by harlekin View Post
But dont worry. As most of the people here gladly are celebrating whenever a default change in the standards they calibrate to occurs and have no ambition whatsoever to understand or discuss the effects of a new "algorithmically drawn curve" to be implemented, I won't bother you much more.
There was no official standard Video EOTF before BT.1886, just a an encoding standard and CRT display behaviour "expecation". The advent of alternate display technologies such as LCD heightened the problems the lack of a such standard can cause, so the introduction of something to fill that glaring hole can only be regarded as a good thing. It is not a magic wand to cure all that can go wrong with presenting color images to end users via consumer equipment in the widely varying situations they find themselves in though.

I'll leave it to yourself to comment on your own technical understanding of EOTF's - many people responding here already understand them and their interaction with the image encoding, display devices and viewing conditions quite well enough.
harlekin's Avatar harlekin
03:24 AM Liked: 20
post #4031 of 5061
07-14-2014 | Posts: 272
Joined: May 2007
As imagined I found zoyds perspective on this very enlightening.

As luck would have it - it is also well documented here on the forums. All problematic aspects already have been touched upon - especially the really astonishing oversight of gamma impacting color reproduction, when establishing the standard. So essentially someone slipped up and no one noticed until we were 10 years into Bluray production on linear gamma devices as the viewing standard.

*break for applause*

How power law gamma calibration can lead to crushed blacks

Now whats still puzzling me is the amount of near black level correction that bt1886 produces on different end market devices that I will call "consumer standard".

By what is presented the part of bt1886 that is "a CRT correction curve" is mostly the 2.4 exponent, while the black level correction part is in there to combat perceptual black crush - that I didn't see nor I can measure on my black level 0.04 cd/m2 device at power 2.2 gamma at home. But bt1886 sure does compensate against it!

As a fact, adhering to bt1886 standards (in the dark parts of the image) - worsens my contrast, worsens my greyscale, brightens my blackpoint - all while dE at near black arent substantialy different, or outrageous in both cases (before gamma is applied?).



So why again are we configuring for this "black compensation"? And why are we allowing for it to introduce measurable variance where prior to this there was none? Also at very dark blacks bt1886 gamma basically becomes 2.35, so why is there no educated opinion on bt1886's performance on various, slightly brighter black points.

Wait - that question was asked two years ago, also.
How power law gamma calibration can lead to crushed blacks

The only new glimmer of light in this whole matter is that zoyd mentioned that in one test run color performance on one system color errors werent extensibly worse than when meassured against powerline 2.4, so cheers to that guys. You just messed up gamma for (8 to) 10 years, but it didnt impact colors "that much" and only now we are fixing it against a "best guess recommendation" - with a black compensation bias that might be a tad overreaching on certain black points, or not or "so what" - who cares no one looked at it in practice.

And the variance it introduces is just rebranded "perceptually desired".
harlekin's Avatar harlekin
03:39 AM Liked: 20
post #4032 of 5061
07-14-2014 | Posts: 272
Joined: May 2007
Quote:
Originally Posted by gwgill View Post
The advent of alternate display technologies such as LCD heightened the problems the lack of a such standard can cause, so the introduction of something to fill that glaring hole can only be regarded as a good thing.
No kidding.

And how much of the Bluray Home Cinema standard was expected to be viewed on devices with a non linear gamma response close to 2.4 (avg) - because the last time I checked - CRTs in the consumer space weren't capable of displaying FullHD content in native resolution - therefore the number of customers buying Blurays just to watch them on non linear gamma devices may have been somewhat limited, all the way - even ten years back.

To again phrase it in a way business would understand. "A somewhat limited target demographic."

And it only took 10 years until the "not even a standard by now" "fix" (which consisted of a best guess with a black compensation bias, all being applied on the end user level (to "destroy" his perfectly 2.2 tracking reproduction unit) ) gets first rolled out.

So how far are we actually educating calibrators?
http://referencehometheater.com/2014...gamma-correct/

Well just about there I'd say?

Also there is no educated opinion on bt1886 regarding room light conditions (should it be able to shift, should it not), and no detailed view on what it actually does in real world scenarios when "compensating for black crush" - but thats okay, because the curve just is at a dandy 2.35 on all those Kuros no one can buy anymore.
-

edit:

@mods and fellow readers - I'm toning down my voice and posting frequency from here on - I understand that it got a bit overbearing over the last pages - also, I've about as clear of a picture on the the matter as I could get using preexisting resources on the forum (linked in my posts.). Thanks for bearing my outburst. As always, getting to know a new facet of a truth can be a disturbing process for the individual.
gwgill's Avatar gwgill
04:56 AM Liked: 88
post #4033 of 5061
07-14-2014 | Posts: 685
Joined: Jan 2013
Quote:
Originally Posted by harlekin View Post
And how much of the Bluray Home Cinema standard was expected to be viewed on devices with a non linear gamma response close to 2.4 (avg) - because the last time I checked - CRTs in the consumer space weren't capable of displaying FullHD content in native resolution - therefore the number of customers buying Blurays just to watch them on non linear gamma devices may have been somewhat limited, all the way - even ten years back.
The answer, is all of them. I hardly think selling Blueray's marked "Only to be viewed on brand XXX LCD displays set to some new EOTF, and by the way all your existing displays won't work" is going to fly.

But don't expect any further responses from me.
harlekin's Avatar harlekin
05:46 AM Liked: 20
post #4034 of 5061
07-14-2014 | Posts: 272
Joined: May 2007
Ten years after the Bluray was first introduced. Ten years.

Also you are intentionally obfuscating the relational statement made here. ALL LCD and Plasma manufacturers were _targeting_ mostly linear power line 2.2 even in movie modes (until very recently (Sony f.e. now goes for 2.4)) - so there was a defacto standard that got mostly ignored over most of the lifetime of Bluray production so far - while now we are "fixing it" by tuning them to a gamma curve of an invented "proto CRT" - with questionable black level correction (and no clue how room light should relate if gamma is not at near perfect 2.35 linear progression).

And I shouldn't expect any responses on the matter any more? How very unexpected judging from the previous course of the exchange.

The calibration community proves to be transparent, open and proactive - and not at all making up clutches as they go a long - once more.

One more promise on my side - that is as far as I will go confronting anyone here on a personal level in regard to this matter, and only because the honor was first presented to me by the dear user gwgill.
omenII's Avatar omenII
06:00 AM Liked: 10
post #4035 of 5061
07-14-2014 | Posts: 149
Joined: Jun 2005
I ran a quick a few quick measurements on my Sony 55W905(900) over the weekend and the results were mostly perfect. Delta E's across the greyscale were all under 1 without any white balance adjustments at all and gamma came in at a near ruler flat 2.1 when set to zero in the TV menu's. I only used AVS709 full saturation patterns for primary colours but Red and Blue were spot on with Green a bit undersaturated. The TV only has a +/- colour control and no CMS so there wsn't anything I could do with the Green unfortunately.

But I'm going to put a bit more time into it this week and use the GCD patterns instead and measure the 75% colours as well as do other input sources. A couple of questions if anyone can answer them for us please :-

My set only has 2-point controls so I can't calibrate to BT.1886 gamma. I prefer 2.2 so will stick with that but do I use gamma with black compensation or power law? I used black compensation on my last full calibration a few years ago but that was an LG plasma with 0.20 cd/m2 black levels where as my W905 is coming in a under 0.05 cd/m2.

What setting does HCFR have to be in for best relationship between my meter (i1D3) and telly eg. LED White IPS or LED RGB? Just wondering if the fact that my set uses Quantum Dot RGB backlighting for the triluminous colours will have a bearing on this?

Finally, how do I calibrate 3D? I think I need to put one eye of the glasses in front of the meter but is there special patterns I need to use as well?

Cheers.
Holiday121's Avatar Holiday121
12:44 PM Liked: 39
post #4036 of 5061
07-14-2014 | Posts: 1,737
Joined: Feb 2009
Just wanted to let you all know I successfully calibrated my bluray player to 1886. The 0.005 worked I was entering it in 2 different spots.

Still have not had a chance to view anything because took my meter upstairs on my sharp 70 inch 650u.

The gamma controls suck on it but it does have cms.
So I am guessing there is no way to get a straight gamma line if it don't have the 10 point like my projector did.

Cms hue saturation and level I think are in there for that though.
Steffche's Avatar Steffche
01:43 AM Liked: 10
post #4037 of 5061
07-15-2014 | Posts: 173
Joined: Nov 2004
Guys I have purchased myself a Panasonic 65vt60 plasma, an eyeone display pro, and I have downloaded the latest hcfr software. I have also a copy of the AVS709 disc.

I understand the basics of calibration, grey scale, cms, gamma etc.

My question is regarding the necessary steps required to setup hcfr and the id3 properly for my plasma.

I've tried searching for a definitive guide but haven't been able to find clear info.

Can anyone please let me know what I should be doing in regards to hcfr config, meter profile tables ??

Thanks, Steve.
Holiday121's Avatar Holiday121
03:01 AM Liked: 39
post #4038 of 5061
07-15-2014 | Posts: 1,737
Joined: Feb 2009
From my understanding the display pro is just plug and play. Hcfr has the drivers already and recognizes the meter.

Did you follow the curt palmere guide
orion2001's Avatar orion2001
09:47 AM Liked: 278
post #4039 of 5061
07-16-2014 | Posts: 711
Joined: Jun 2008
Could someone please help me figure out how to get my Spyder 2 working with this version of HCFR? My Spyder 2 works fine with the version 2 of HCFR (placed CVSpyder.dll in the program folder and all was well). I understand that Zoyd's fork uses ArgyllCMS backend. I have used oeminst to create the binary file from the driver dll and this has worked for me in the past in getting dispcalGUI to work with my Spyder 2. By default, oeminst places the binary in an "APPDATA" folder for ArgyllCMS. However, HCFR isn't really "seeing" this and I don't quite know what I should be doing to get it to recognize my Spyder 2. The wiki/FAQ suggests posting here for help getting the Spyder 2 recognized. I'd really appreciate any help!
spacediver's Avatar spacediver
03:39 PM Liked: 75
post #4040 of 5061
07-16-2014 | Posts: 946
Joined: May 2013
Just picked up a new i1 display pro, and can't seem to get HCFR to recognize it.

I installed the x-rite i1 profiler software, and it seems to work there, but in my device manager all that shows up is this:

.

I'm pretty sure it's the second USB input device - the one that's selected - as it disappears when I unplug the meter. (ignore the unknown device further down that's something different).

When I run HCFR, there is nothing in the drop down menu for sensor selection. I've tried disabling the x-rite service too.

Win 7 64, latest version of HCFR (3.1.5)


never mind, figured it out. I updated the driver with the Argyll one and it worked
Holiday121's Avatar Holiday121
04:10 PM Liked: 39
post #4041 of 5061
07-16-2014 | Posts: 1,737
Joined: Feb 2009
I somewhat had the same problem it was a driver issue with the software that came with it. I actually ended up reformatting my whole pc trying to figure it out.

Try to uninstall the driver and software and try another USB Port and don't install the software that came with it
spacediver's Avatar spacediver
04:49 PM Liked: 75
post #4042 of 5061
07-16-2014 | Posts: 946
Joined: May 2013
see my edit
orion2001's Avatar orion2001
08:27 PM Liked: 278
post #4043 of 5061
07-16-2014 | Posts: 711
Joined: Jun 2008
Quote:
Originally Posted by orion2001 View Post
Could someone please help me figure out how to get my Spyder 2 working with this version of HCFR? My Spyder 2 works fine with the version 2 of HCFR (placed CVSpyder.dll in the program folder and all was well). I understand that Zoyd's fork uses ArgyllCMS backend. I have used oeminst to create the binary file from the driver dll and this has worked for me in the past in getting dispcalGUI to work with my Spyder 2. By default, oeminst places the binary in an "APPDATA" folder for ArgyllCMS. However, HCFR isn't really "seeing" this and I don't quite know what I should be doing to get it to recognize my Spyder 2. The wiki/FAQ suggests posting here for help getting the Spyder 2 recognized. I'd really appreciate any help!
*Bump* Anyone?
spacediver's Avatar spacediver
10:46 PM Liked: 75
post #4044 of 5061
07-16-2014 | Posts: 946
Joined: May 2013
I'm a bit confused about the integration time option for the i1 display pro.

You can select anywhere from 0.2 seconds to 1 second. I would imagine that the larger number is better, but it says 0.5 seconds is best, and 0.2 seconds is the Argyll default.

And how does this setting interact with adaptive integration? I also notice that even when I have adaptive integration turned off, it takes a long time to measure the dark readings. Is this because HCFR automatically turns on adaptive integration when it can't get a clear reading?
gwgill's Avatar gwgill
11:48 PM Liked: 88
post #4045 of 5061
07-16-2014 | Posts: 685
Joined: Jan 2013
Quote:
Originally Posted by orion2001 View Post
*Bump* Anyone?
You haven't provided enough information.

What error message does (ArgyllCMS) spotread return ?
harlekin's Avatar harlekin
03:20 AM Liked: 20
post #4046 of 5061
07-17-2014 | Posts: 272
Joined: May 2007
Setting Color with THX blue filter glasses

Once you've finished a good calibration run - you might want to look at the color/tint setting you've ended up with using your colorimeter vs. the one you'd end up with blue filter glasses. Then measure that again.

Someone else might comment on it and best practices regarding which one to pick in the end - but I found it useful to have two sets of parameters.

Greyscale has to be done prior to this using the meter.

The pattern you want to look at with your THX glasses is a color bar pattern - I recommend the one that comes with the AVS HD 709 disc called "flashing color bars" and the one that is on every Bluray produced by Sony/Columbia Studios ((preferably newer) James Bond movies f.e). To access the one on Sonys Blurays you have to type in the numbers 7669 followed by Enter in the main menu of the Bluray.

The guideline for setting Color/Tint with a blue filter is to reset the hue slider (most at least medium quality TVs come with the hue slider "somewhat properly set" and start from there (First move color, then tint if necessary, then both to see how they change in relation).

This way you are setting Color/Tint to minimize dE on the appearance of cyan/magenta (shifts are most noticeable for the human eye on those (using a blue filter) - thats why we use them and a blue filter).

Once you've set Color/Tint that way - measure again with HCFR and your colorimeter and compare your primary/secondary color readings as well as saturation and color checker values.

What I found useful getting this separate set of parameters:
My CIE triangle looks somewhat like this -


What you are seeing is a HCFR perfected setting with hue R1 (not 0) and color at 49 -

which for me produces the lowest dEs on prim/sec colors (avg), saturation sweeps (individual and avg) and Color Checker SC values (individual and avg). dE's of all below 3 except on 1 or 2 color checker values (highly saturated orange and a blue at 3,2 max) with dE avg being 1,3 on primaries/secondaries and avg 1,10 on color checker values. Saturation sweeps always sub dE 2 (mostly sub 1), with the exception of only blue 100% (slightly under dE 3). So a good (great) calibration.
greyscale is always sub 1,3 dE regardless of CIE76 or CIE2000 with most values sub dE1.

But notice that at cyan and magenta 100% saturation the points are a little bit off ("bent"). This is being introduced by using the R1 (hue) setting (slightly increased dE when measured, both to sub dE 2,5) - normally they would perfectly align with the other saturations.

Also notice that blue at 100% saturation is definitely "off target" as is red at 75% saturation. This is the "native characteristic" of the display I am working with - meaning, that those errors always show and I was compensating against them (with color and Tint settings).
--

When using the THX blue filter glasses, I ended up with a hue 0, color 53 setting, which would - perfectly align cyan and magenta at 100% saturation, would drop their dE errors to below dE1 (wow! blue filters work! ), but the display characteristics would suddenly "show more".

dE of blue 100% saturation would jump to 4,3 (seems about right from just looking at the CIE triangle in the first place)
dE of red 75% saturation would jump to 2,8 (most noticeably, because with the first setting it never got much above 2)

All other color points showed very nice values altogether, color checker SG average dE went up by 0,2, but mostly caused by some (few) breakout values at the high saturated orange range which suddenly jumped into dE 4,7 territory. While before those few breakout values were at dE 3,2 max.
--

So by all "best practice rules" of calibration, setting 1 would be the better one. Lower dE at all those points where it counts most (the higher ones.. ), lower averages (even on color checker SG), even better saturation tracking. And primaries/secondaries > blue could be suppressed to just below dE3. Even skin tones look better and are lower dE.

BUT.

Although I find the picture pleasing and looking great in most shots (I'd even say accurate) - there is a certain "rosé" tint on some pastel "not exactly white (warmer)" tones, that I'm very sensitive to, that doesnt show up in most scenes, but when it does - I notice it very strongly. It represents a "lack of green", and is fixed by just moving the hue R1 slider to the 0 position (color slider (a few steps) doesnt do much in this particular case).

Caveat: I have a red/green color "deficiency" (not exactly blindness) (damn you male gene defect! ) - so me so much noticing this "rosé" tint - might be related to that.

In setting 2 (because it uses hue at 0) this does not happen (but skintones are less "spot on" - *draaaaag*).
--

Blue filter assessments were done with a friend present who doesnt have a color perception deficiency - to make sure we both "see" the same "setting". Which was the case. ("I can use blue filters - whohoo!")
harlekin's Avatar harlekin
06:01 AM Liked: 20
post #4047 of 5061
07-17-2014 | Posts: 272
Joined: May 2007
Also I might recommend Home Theatre Geeks Episode 175 for when you are learning to calibrate - because although those "heroes" flunk things like "setting sharpness with overscan enabled", or as usual part of the explanation of the gamma settings, and are "surprised" to see how much a one step of gamma changes the curve, the basic workflow is pretty spot on - and whats more important, you see two sets of measurements with different devices, you see the importance of saturation sweeps and while Scott W shows interesting knowledge of some obscure details, Heron keeps him from messing up the calibration entirely (by disabling postprocessing, making sure that full/limited is correctly set for the calibration chain at least or noticing that red hasn't been measured (oh, Scott...))).

Its a more solid base than other video tutorials out there (like for example my favorite from Calman - where the tutor mentions to "if possible not to touch the green offset/gain in greyscale calibration" because - verbetum "it would influence the gamma curve more" - which is total BS and even harmful in the most depressing way).

Code:
h**p://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eqWd8qs9YAk
Also you get the differences in dEL, dEC and dEH explained which Calman tracks, which was the one thing I took with me from the video.

edit: And you'll see yet again how MUCH, MUCH slower the Calman workflow is, compared to HCFR. Because it always wants you to "compare with the "before" results" - which strangely are acquired in unnecessary small individual steps (click, click, click, click) and be very happy, then print a report which shows a few basics.
zoyd's Avatar zoyd
09:17 AM Liked: 434
post #4048 of 5061
07-17-2014 | Posts: 5,041
Joined: Sep 2006
Quote:
Originally Posted by orion2001 View Post
Could someone please help me figure out how to get my Spyder 2 working with this version of HCFR? My Spyder 2 works fine with the version 2 of HCFR (placed CVSpyder.dll in the program folder and all was well). I understand that Zoyd's fork uses ArgyllCMS backend. I have used oeminst to create the binary file from the driver dll and this has worked for me in the past in getting dispcalGUI to work with my Spyder 2. By default, oeminst places the binary in an "APPDATA" folder for ArgyllCMS. However, HCFR isn't really "seeing" this and I don't quite know what I should be doing to get it to recognize my Spyder 2. The wiki/FAQ suggests posting here for help getting the Spyder 2 recognized. I'd really appreciate any help!
Last time I tested the spyder2 the necessary file (spyd2PLD.bin) should be picked up from user/AppData/Roaming/ArgyllCMS

Quote:
Originally Posted by spacediver View Post
I'm a bit confused about the integration time option for the i1 display pro.

You can select anywhere from 0.2 seconds to 1 second. I would imagine that the larger number is better, but it says 0.5 seconds is best, and 0.2 seconds is the Argyll default.

And how does this setting interact with adaptive integration? I also notice that even when I have adaptive integration turned off, it takes a long time to measure the dark readings. Is this because HCFR automatically turns on adaptive integration when it can't get a clear reading?
The i1 display pro is operating with internal adaptive integration on (the HCFR button for adaptive integration should not be used for this probe). The integration times available for the probe are minimum values that will grow as the light level is reduced and 0.5 sec is my recommendation for the best trade-off between speed and precision.
orion2001's Avatar orion2001
09:32 AM Liked: 278
post #4049 of 5061
07-17-2014 | Posts: 711
Joined: Jun 2008
Quote:
Originally Posted by zoyd View Post
Last time I tested the spyder2 the necessary file (spyd2PLD.bin) should be picked up from user/AppData/Roaming/ArgyllCMS
Thanks zoyd. Forgive my ignorance, but I just wanted to clarify... Do I need to install Argyll CMS separately? As I understand it, it is included with the HCFR install. Also, do I need to install the Argyll driver as per instructions here: http://argyllcms.com/doc/Installing_...ows.html#WINV7 , in addition to having spyd2PLD.bin in user/AppData/Roaming/ArgyllCMS? Or is it simply sufficient to have spyd2PLD.bin in the APPDATA folder?
James Freeman's Avatar James Freeman
10:22 AM Liked: 76
post #4050 of 5061
07-17-2014 | Posts: 269
Joined: Sep 2013
HCFR does not see my .ccss files in the APPDATA\Roaming\Color, directory...
The "Use existing meter correction file" list is empty.

Am I doing something wrong?
How can I use them?

Reply Display Calibration

Subscribe to this Thread

Powered by vBadvanced CMPS v3.2.3