or Connect
AVS › AVS Forum › Display Devices › Display Calibration › D2 compared to i1pro
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

D2 compared to i1pro

post #1 of 90
Thread Starter 
There have been a bunch of threads with folks trying to calibrate there high end sets and projectors with D2 meters and the like. These meters are cheap and folks want to use them with the HCFR to learn how to calibrate. Unfortunately, even new D2 meters are not really accurate enough to use and expect good results.

Yesterday I calibrated a Mitsubishi WD73C11 RP set for another AVS member who had used his New (couple of month old) D2. The idea was when complete he would do a profile run with the HCFR software and my i1pro so he could profile his meter.

After resetting the input I would be working on, I check several inches of the screen to verify uniformity. Then I hug the i1pro, C6, and D2.
I profiled my C6 since that is what I would be using to do the gray scale, then ran 4 Pre-Cal captures to see what the d2 looked like
Here is a link to the word doc with the screen prints of those captures.
Screen Captures of i1pro, D2 an D2 profiled from i1pro

I did not check the D2 at low light levels, just did the pre-Cal capture.
As you can see, unprofiled even using the proper screen type in Calman, the New D2 is really far from anything resembling accurate.

Hope this answers some questions as to "Is the i1 display 2 or LT good enough" ..
post #2 of 90
Quote:
Originally Posted by airscapes View Post

There have been a bunch of threads with folks trying to calibrate there high end sets and projectors with D2 meters and the like. These meters are cheap and folks want to use them with the HCFR to learn how to calibrate. Unfortunately, even new D2 meters are not really accurate enough to use and expect good results.

Yesterday I calibrated a Mitsubishi WD73C11 RP set for another AVS member who had used his New (couple of month old) D2. The idea was when complete he would do a profile run with the HCFR software and my i1pro so he could profile his meter.

After resetting the input I would be working on, I check several inches of the screen to verify uniformity. Then I hug the i1pro, C6, and D2.
I profiled my C6 since that is what I would be using to do the gray scale, then ran 4 Pre-Cal captures to see what the d2 looked like
Here is a link to the word doc with the screen prints of those captures.
Screen Captures of i1pro, D2 an D2 profiled from i1pro

I did not check the D2 at low light levels, just did the pre-Cal capture.
As you can see, unprofiled even using the proper screen type in Calman, the New D2 is really far from anything resembling accurate.

Hope this answers some questions as to "Is the i1 display 2 or LT good enough" ..

how much closer was the C6?
post #3 of 90
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by PlasmaPZ80U View Post

how much closer was the C6?

I have checked it in the past, much much much closer!
post #4 of 90
If you could quantify the overall dEUV grayscale difference between this D2 and your i1Pro, what kind of numbers are we looking at?
post #5 of 90
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by PlasmaPZ80U View Post

If you could quantify the overall dEUV grayscale difference between this D2 and your i1Pro, what kind of numbers are we looking at?

look at the numbers in the grid of the doc.
Oh, I see..no deltaE in the precal .. no idea didn't really do any thing with the D2 other than the precal

I will try and add the deltaEs to the precal and post the screen shots late tonight or in the morning
post #6 of 90
Quote:
Originally Posted by PlasmaPZ80U View Post

If you could quantify the overall dEUV grayscale difference between this D2 and your i1Pro, what kind of numbers are we looking at?

Here's how my 14 month old i1d2 compares to my i1pro on a reset ISF Expert mode on 47LD520 CCFL LCD. The tan line in the lower graph is the dE between the two. Pretty much 4dE across the entire grayscale range. It's not nearly as bad as I thought it would be, based on what I've read here.

post #7 of 90
Thread Starter 
post #8 of 90
Quote:
Originally Posted by airscapes View Post

Yesterday I calibrated a Mitsubishi WD73C11 RP set for another AVS member who had used his New (couple of month old) D2.

Yes, by all means available lets condemn a device that was designed to work on directview CRT's and (CCFL) LCD's because it didn't provide "accurate" results on one individual DLP based RPTV. Excellent scientific method there.
post #9 of 90
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by HDTVChallenged View Post

Yes, by all means available lets condemn a device that was designed to work on directview CRT's and (CCFL) LCD's because it didn't provide "accurate" results on one individual DLP based RPTV. Excellent scientific method there.


UNPROFILED it is not all that accurate, profiled it is fine. No complicated science needed, just look at the 3 charts in the word doc. Not trying to condemn anything, just save someone $50 that could be better spent or at least know they need to buy,rent or borrow a spectro.
post #10 of 90
Quote:
Originally Posted by HDTVChallenged View Post

Yes, by all means available lets condemn a device that was designed to work on directview CRT's and (CCFL) LCD's because it didn't provide "accurate" results on one individual DLP based RPTV. Excellent scientific method there.

The problem with colorimeters is that you never know when the calibration tables will be close enough and when they won't (without having a spectro to check the results against). This applies to all colorimeters, though cheaper ones may have more issues in terms of accuracy across various display types..
post #11 of 90
Quote:
Originally Posted by PlasmaPZ80U View Post

The problem with colorimeters is that you never know when the calibration tables will be close enough and when they won't (without having a spectro to check the results against). This applies to all colorimeters, though cheaper ones may have more issues in terms of accuracy across various display types..

Yes ... but who watches the watchers.

How do you know that the i1pro was the more accurate device? The tester is just making an assumption, and furthermore he is extrapolating a general rule based on a single data point derived from questionable methodology.

I'm not saying the result is wrong, I'm just saying that it doesn't *prove* anything one way or the other.

The question we should be asking is, "Will a D2 at a cost of $120-$150, produce better results than attempting to eyeball (or greycard) a grayscale." And the answer to that question is probably going to be YES on just about any display.

I don't know why people keep slamming a $120ish device because it doesn't always perform as well as a $750+ device. It just pointless. .... Or perhaps the point is simply to encourage more rentals and purchases of expensive modern electronic devices.
post #12 of 90
+1 I agree. . . and on and on it can go.

Not a fan of having to buy a meter. . . to verify a meter. And yes, assumptions thrown in there too. All for consumer grade TVs for the most part. But if it gives a person the warm fuzzies to know their TV is "accurate"?

That's why AVS HD709 is great for Media Assisted Settings. And it's free.
post #13 of 90
Thread Starter 
Sorry I bothered..Nuff said!
post #14 of 90
Doug,

Don't be sorry at all, you are making positive contributions and I would bet that most do appreciate it.

I did not see any agenda in your post and even though it's pretty much a given it is still beneficial to see it documented and it is a positive contribution for those that care (which should be most reading in this area of the forum where we nit-pick every aspect of calibration to the Nth degree, even beyond what we can actually see).

So with that said, thank you for your contributions.

Jason
post #15 of 90
Quote:
Originally Posted by airscapes View Post

As you can see, unprofiled even using the proper screen type in Calman, the New D2 is really far from anything resembling accurate.

Hope this answers some questions as to "Is the i1 display 2 or LT good enough" ..

This is the objectionable part/conclusion of the post.

My response is that it is certainly "good enough" if you're not wanting to spend $1000 to calibrate a $500 display. You're comparing apples to filet mignon ... it's not a fair comparison. What do we not get about this?

PS: In this case my definition of "good enough" = "better than trying to eyeball it or trying to construct a homemade 'optical comparator.' "
post #16 of 90
The cheapo meters can do gamma accurate (or at least from my experience), gray-scale or the gamut is luck of the draw, just depends how far off yours is. Some eye LT's/2's will be way off, some will be right on, and some will be in the middle. The problem as others said is certainty.

In some calibrations when the sat. tracking is off enough and/or you're stuck without a full CMS, people calibrate their devices and sometimes make them worse even with perfect equipment, so there are a lot of variables. There were some Pro's I got flamed by because I noted Tom Huffman's findings on a particular TV about inaccurate sat tracking and a CMS error, and where he said don't even bother touching the gamut on a certain device (which I will leave unmentioned). "PRO's" did it anyways...
post #17 of 90
Quote:
Originally Posted by HDTVChallenged View Post

This is the objectionable part/conclusion of the post.

My response is that it is certainly "good enough" if you're not wanting to spend $1000 to calibrate a $500 display. You're comparing apples to filet mignon ... it's not a fair comparison. What do we not get about this?

PS: In this case my definition of "good enough" = "better than trying to eyeball it or trying to construct a homemade 'optical comparator.' "

I disagree that "Good enough" can not also be obtained using simple optical comparison especially on those older and lower end TVs that may only have a simple 1 point RGB grayscale/white balance. With only a 1 point white balance and not even high and low gains and cuts a meter isn't going to produce much. So, as you said in a post or two back, maybe not on "just about any TV. Plus, even eyeballing can get you "good enough" in the case I just mentioned. Not to mention the uncertainty of the meters as was discussed.

And to quote a well respected member here on AVS:

Quote:
Originally Posted by sotti View Post

In the correct lighting environment, with a good reference eyeballing it is acceptable.

The color matching functions that take raw spectral data and convert it into XYZ data were created by having test subjects eyeball match solid colors to blended colors.

We may use high precision instruments, but in the end even those results are derived from somebody eyeballing it.
post #18 of 90
Something to mention there is that the lightbulb you need is $300+ and the a quality white card is at least $50.

You'll then have to do the calibration in a totally light controlled environment.

The chances of being successful with this method in my opinion is much lower than using a meter.
post #19 of 90
That may be, but that is also only "one" way of doing a comparison. There were several methods used for purity adjustments on TV over the years.

One very simple way is use of a B&W (monochrome) monitor fed with the same signal source and pattern as the TV being adjusted. No chance of color infiltrating a B&W CRT monitor. This has worked fine in the cases I mentioned of TVs that do not have more than a single or even 2 point RGB white balance. And . . ., all do respect, a meter of hobbyist grade is not likely to visually do much better in these cases.

Yes, the use of a B&W monitor may also not be D65, but a user can always dial in a bit more red/green and reduced blue to give that slight "yellow" D65 is famous for. Even my 5 year old $3,000 Mitsubishi Diamond series LT-46231 has only a 1 point RGB white balance. And, in comparing what I got using the D2 I used to have, to the above method, there was little to no visual difference.

My point is, it is all really relative and a matter of degree as to what is "good enough" as another poster brought up. Even when using meters of recent years the results are a matter of degree of accuracy. So it depends on the owners choice as to the degree and also the certainty ( or uncertainty) of meter accuracy as has been discussed. Not to mention the cost/value of purchasing one or two meters. Certainly, cost would be no object if a user was also just interested in calibration as a hobby.

This previous post from another member also gives some interesting perspective that I generally agree with:

Quote:
Originally Posted by dovercat View Post

Usually image fidelity (looks identical to the original) is being sacrificed for more image quality (looks better than the competing displays). Image quality is determined by things like naturalness and colorfulness and visual information, contrast and sharpness. Image fidelity is determined by the inability to tell the difference between the original and the reproduction.

As I say I view consumer calibration as setting up a display correctly to the format. That is not overrating it.

Claiming it is highly desirable for the image reproduction be as accurate as possible. The idea being that otherwise they are loosing out due to lack of faithfulness to artistic intent. Strikes me as less true.

Take a DCI Theatrical presentation that is within spec if it has a contrast as low as 1,200:1 sequential, 100:1 intra-frame, luminance uniformity as low as 70%, a center white level of anywhere between 11 and 17ftL, gamma +/-5%, color accuracy +/-4 delta E.
Take a grade two monitor using EBU standards. It is within spec if it has a contrast ration above 500:1 full frame 1% patch, 100:1 intra-frame, gamma within +/-0.10 for 10-90% of input signal, white level of 58ftL, grey scale accuracy +/-4 Δu*v* , color accuracy 7 ΔE*
The standards are not very high or very tight, the reproductions would not be indistinguishable from the original or displays from each other, including color reproduction.

Consumer displays ideally want to have very high contrast, etc... and consumer displays are not going to look like DCI cinema presentations or video monitors anyway. They are after all consumer products playing consumer sources not monitors or reference displays being use during the mastering of content.

I can understand why color accuracy is desirable on a grade one monitor used by the colorist or director or for a cinema preview screening room.
But as a consumer although obviously I do not want a massively inaccurate image, looks odd unnatural, I do not see the requirement for the highest image fidelity accuracy the display can achieve as needed for enjoyment.
As a consumer image quality is the ultimate basis on which I pick a display and set that display up, image fidelity might be the start point but it is not the end.
post #20 of 90
Hi everyone,

Just wanted to chime in as I'm the guy with the Mitsubishi that was mentioned in the first post. I learned a lot with the D2 and HCFR but was only able to get mediocre results. As you can see by the charts posted, the reading from the D2 where quite a bit different than the i1 pro. Is my D2 more or less accurate than other D2's?..... I don't know. But the fact that the i1 pro and C6 were both pretty close, and are much higher end units, tends to substantiate the fact that the higher end meters are more accurate than the lower end ones. My subjective eye balls tell me the same thing

Essentially my D2 read green and blue too high, so when I did my calibration I subtracted too much green and blue, causing my image to have a red push. After Doug came over and calibrated with his meters my image looks much more natural and accurate.

I know we're all hands on tweakers here and if the prospect of paying an ISF certified professional to do a calibration doesn't appeal to you, I feel what I did is a good compromise. Find an enthusiast or board member near you with better equipment and see if they'd be willing to come over for a reasonable fee and do a calibration for you and profile your meter to theirs. You'll end up spending the same or less than an ISF calibration with the benefit of now having a profiled meter that you can use for touch ups down the road. I'm not knocking ISF calibrators as they can probably do the highest precision calibrations and this probably the best option for the average Joe out there, who isn't a tweaker, but wants stellar image quality.
post #21 of 90
Quote:
Originally Posted by sotti View Post

Something to mention there is that the lightbulb you need is $300+ and the a quality white card is at least $50.

You'll then have to do the calibration in a totally light controlled environment.

The chances of being successful with this method in my opinion is much lower than using a meter.

This is what I'm saying.

Not to mention the issue of matching luminance between the comparator target and the display. If they don't match, your eyes *will* play tricks on you.
post #22 of 90
Quote:
Originally Posted by HDTVChallenged View Post

This is what I'm saying.

Not to mention the issue of matching luminance between the comparator target and the display. If they don't match, your eyes *will* play tricks on you.

See post #19.

There are many ways of doing optical comparison. Yes, they may be "old fashioned". . . but still gave good results over just guessing and unaided "eyeballing".
post #23 of 90
Wow, this thread really went south. The OP was just trying to provide a data point, much like the examples found in Michael Chen's article on colorimeters.
post #24 of 90
Quote:
Originally Posted by sotti View Post

Something to mention there is that the lightbulb you need is $300+ and the a quality white card is at least $50.

You'll then have to do the calibration in a totally light controlled environment.

The chances of being successful with this method in my opinion is much lower than using a meter.

Quote:
Originally Posted by HDTVChallenged View Post

This is what I'm saying.

Not to mention the issue of matching luminance between the comparator target and the display. If they don't match, your eyes *will* play tricks on you.

All very simple concepts to understand, yet still resisted by a relatively small group here. The myth of a cheap/free DIY optical comparator technique that consistently yields results comparable to what can be attained with even a cheap meter is just that - a myth. But basic calibration and imaging science facts still seem to evade the grasp of a select few who frequent this forum, and should know better by now.
post #25 of 90
Quote:
Originally Posted by hogpilot View Post

all very simple concepts to understand, yet still resisted by a relatively small group here. The myth of a cheap/free diy optical comparator technique that consistently yields results comparable to what can be attained with even a cheap meter is just that - a myth. But basic calibration and imaging science facts still seem to evade the grasp of a select few who frequent this forum, and should know better by now.

+1
post #26 of 90
I'll also chime in as the original poster was nice enough to come out twice to work on my RS40 and did a very good job. He had originally talked me out of buying a D2, and with good reason. However, by dumb luck I found an unused and unopened i1pro sitting in the basement at work and was allowed to borrow it, pretty much as long as I want. Now, we were able to get very good grayscale results with C6 and i1pro combo that Doug has, but gamma was a bit screwy (due to the display itself, not Doug or his equipment). It's running around 2.5 down below 20% and 2.1 at 80%. Eyeball correcting this using the gamma controls produced mixed results, so I had the idea that I could get a cheap D2, profile it against the i1pro and use the D2 only for gamma and for grayscale at 20% and below where the i1pro loses accuracy.

Having bought a unused D2 off ebay for cheap, I did some quick comparisons to the i1pro last night. I don't have the charts, nor did I save them....it was late. I only looked at gamut and then grayscale at a few points (80, 30, 20, and 10). The un-profiled D2 was way off. Once profiled, it produced very similar results to the i1pro except at 20% and below...here it was close, but who knows which was actually closer since the D2 can read lower light levels than the i1pro. I'll use the i1pro for the rest of the calibration

I guess what I got from this that the D2 might be better than no calibration at all.....but if you had a display that was close OOTB, you could actually make it worse. I would not trust it. Now if you are me and stumbled upon an i1pro to use for free, then a cheap D2 might get you pretty good results as once it was profiled, it was much closer to the i1pro. I intend to get a C6 for Christmas to go along with the i1pro. But for now, a profiled D2 might help me correct my gamma issues. If not I can sell it for what I paid on ebay!
post #27 of 90
Quote:
Originally Posted by curlyjive View Post

I'll also chime in as the original poster was nice enough to come out twice to work on my RS40 and did a very good job. He had originally talked me out of buying a D2, and with good reason. However, by dumb luck I found an unused and unopened i1pro sitting in the basement at work and was allowed to borrow it, pretty much as long as I want. Now, we were able to get very good grayscale results with C6 and i1pro combo that Doug has, but gamma was a bit screwy (due to the display itself, not Doug or his equipment). It's running around 2.5 down below 20% and 2.1 at 80%. Eyeball correcting this using the gamma controls produced mixed results, so I had the idea that I could get a cheap D2, profile it against the i1pro and use the D2 only for gamma and for grayscale at 20% and below where the i1pro loses accuracy.

Having bought a unused D2 off ebay for cheap, I did some quick comparisons to the i1pro last night. I don't have the charts, nor did I save them....it was late. I only looked at gamut and then grayscale at a few points (80, 30, 20, and 10). The un-profiled D2 was way off. Once profiled, it produced very similar results to the i1pro except at 20% and below...here it was close, but who knows which was actually closer since the D2 can read lower light levels than the i1pro. I'll use the i1pro for the rest of the calibration

I guess what I got from this that the D2 might be better than no calibration at all.....but if you had a display that was close OOTB, you could actually make it worse. I would not trust it. Now if you are me and stumbled upon an i1pro to use for free, then a cheap D2 might get you pretty good results as once it was profiled, it was much closer to the i1pro. I intend to get a C6 for Christmas to go along with the i1pro. But for now, a profiled D2 might help me correct my gamma issues. If not I can sell it for what I paid on ebay!

If you intend on profiling the C6 to the i1Pro, just get the i1Display.
post #28 of 90
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by curlyjive View Post


I guess what I got from this that the D2 might be better than no calibration at all.....but if you had a display that was close OOTB, you could actually make it worse.

This is exactly what happened to mfish's Mitsubishi.
Here are the deltaEs OUT OF BOX

i1pro out of box DeltaEs
dE76 1.6474 1.6557 1.9415 2.6283 2.7062 3.118 3.5121 3.931 3.7292

D2 out of box DeltaEs
dE76 3.3913 3.7905 5.768 6.4981 7.6321 8.8111 10.7827 11.4731 16.0817

As you see, if you calibrate to a DeltaE of .6 with D2 which can be achieved, you have really made things much worse than not even touching it!

Sure if you have a set that's best color temp is 8500 a D2 may do some good all by itself, but to think about using one of these to adjust a CMS unprofiled is just plain foolish if you are really trying to achieve good results.
post #29 of 90
Quote:
Originally Posted by ElectronicTonic View Post

If you intend on profiling the C6 to the i1Pro, just get the i1Display.

Thought about that....but doesn't the C6 read lower and faster? The RS40 isgets pretty dark, and shadow detail gets lost....so any extra sensitivity might help.

I believe they are both supposed to be sealed designs....not sure if the C6 is supposed to hold up longer though.
post #30 of 90
Quote:
Originally Posted by airscapes View Post

This is exactly what happened to mfish's Mitsubishi.
Here are the deltaEs OUT OF BOX

i1pro out of box DeltaEs
dE76 1.6474 1.6557 1.9415 2.6283 2.7062 3.118 3.5121 3.931 3.7292

D2 out of box DeltaEs
dE76 3.3913 3.7905 5.768 6.4981 7.6321 8.8111 10.7827 11.4731 16.0817

As you see, if you calibrate to a DeltaE of .6 with D2 which can be achieved, you have really made things much worse that not even touching it!

Sure if you have a set that's best color temp is 8500 a D2 may do some good all by itself, but to think about using one of these to adjust a CMS unprofiled is just plain foolish if you are really trying to achieve good results.

Yeah, I would never have picked one up, even cheap, without something accurate to profile it with. Your results of the profiled D2 look similar to what I was seeing. It does look like a profiled D2 is actually quite good...
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Display Calibration
AVS › AVS Forum › Display Devices › Display Calibration › D2 compared to i1pro