Originally Posted by fhoech
I have no idea what those numbers are.
It doesn't make sense to me. I can think of two scenarios:
- Display is very close to the target in terms of tone response, so a 3D LUT will do almost no correction.
- Display is not as close to the target, so correction is desired which a 3D LUT can provide.
I can see no useful scenario where you want to keep a response that's off from the target, that would defeat the whole point of a 3D LUT.
The 3D LUT doesn't change the native black level.
wrong numbers there.
2.38 and 2.34
the problem is that it does a correction to the gamma curve and probably also blacklevel.
and it doesnt do a good job
its not flat
low IREs to high and High ires to low. (fake contrast to the whole image..who wants that?)
the NATIVE gamma curve is closer to reference with low ires at gamma 2.3 as they should be.
i dont understand why its so difficult to correct the gamma curve when it corrects thousands of colorpoints and also grayscale without problem.
it takes 1% or 2% step readings from 0 to 100%.
it should be easy to correct gamma and make it flat when its only luminance changes that needs to be corrected.
i give up on this program
the native performance on the 500M will also work.
i get back the waterpainting effect and bad color grades near black thats all