CalMan 5 Release Notes and Discussion - Page 36

I am using CalMAN 5 Control and was just wondering do I have to download 5.1 myself? I just started my version (5.0.4.993) and had it check for a new version. It told me that I am running the current version. Doesn't this program automatically check for a newer version?

When 5.1 is downloaded, whether by me or otherwise, will I need to reenter my license?

Thank you,

Steve

Manually... SpectraCal will update the online check update in a few days, they like to wait a few days/week after release for that (which is common for Developers to do).

You shouldn't have to re-enter your license, just upgrade over the top of your current version, no need to uninstall first.

Thank you turbe!


EDIT: Worked like a charm!!
Edited by Thunderduck - 2/22/13 at 2:50pm

Yes you are correct. And I am not trying to be smart with you, but by all means correct them, I don't have the time to do it.
I did try about 3 times to help folks understand some of the terminology and what all the numbers for all the values meant, but it seem to me there was nobody interested.


Yes, but guess what there are some top calibrators that still use IRE's and up in there calibration reports (RGB) that they give to the clients after a calibration.

imo knowing or not knowing is becoming a non issue when using a program like Calman 5.1 and there LUT Cube calibration software. Its all automatic and the results are very good.
Maybe autocal for a normal 6 point gamut and 10 point RGB/grayscale/gamma does as good a job as CM's LUT cube workflow, I don't know.

Anyway with programs like CM, CP, LS there is becoming less and less need to know the terminology, imo.

ss

Yes we will probably update the version check file on Monday and then over a two week period everyone will know about CalMAN 5.1 update. The reason it is done this way is to minimize support load peaks if any via what is called rollouts.

The Y-axis on RGB balance still has no label and I have asked several times what the units are or if it is simply %.

Melissa said release notes are in the usual place but I could not find the list of minor bugs fixed since RC3.

It's a percentage converted into perceptual difference.

It really doesn't have a unit.

Thanks Joel. Does it not make sense to label the chart "RGB Balance (%)" just to avoid future questions?

I guess you didn't see my other minor comments against RC3 in your forum. On the Calibration Standard page, the Input Video Signals widget still has "SelectorVideo, SelectorPC".

Default DeltaE Target is 0 for greyscale...

Since January of this year I embarked as a first-timer with Calman5.0.4 Control, C3, and the DPG2000. I think I have about 30+ DIY calibrations under my belt mostly on Panny VT50 and and a few practice sessions on my Sony HX820 LCD/LED. Fortunately there were several AVS forum members and SpectraCal support staff who were kind enough to provide limitless advice and answer my many questions during these last two months ( thank you ) I also purchased and reviewed about 5.5 hours of THX YouTube based training videos and last week I purchased a ColorMunki Photo spectrophtometer which I have now used in three Calman 5.1 calibration sessions on my VT50.

Now that I know a bit more, I'm thinking I'd like to upgrade to some equipment that would perhaps speed-up the calibration process? I have become familiar with both manual and autocal VT50 calibrations and both take a considerable amount of time--even if I use autocal 5.1 I still find that I have to go back and forth and touch up problem areas multiple times in the same workflow ( this takes lot of time as many of you already know) . I'm thinking the DPG2000, albeit a lot faster than using a DVD for the patterns might be an area where I could gain some speed. Is there another solution to replace the DPG2000 that might speed up the pattern display/cadance? Also, is there another color meter or spectrophotometer other than the C3 or ColorMunki Photo that would contribute to a speedier process. Thanks in advance for any recommendations.
Edited by LBJ2 - 2/23/13 at 7:00pm

Well, opinions vary.. C6, VForge orig, i1pro Spectro seems to be a good base...primarily the forge will give you a lot more options/speed/automation and the c6 more speed/better stability, Spectro to profile, as you already are doing likely with the munki... Then, there's also more.... I'm sure there will be more suggestions as well....

Accupel 5000, full triplet support, 3D - Pro class pattern generator (control support in CalMAN and ChromaPure though I don't think CalMAN has the full support for the Accupel's new custom window sizes, yet)...

I second this..... I own one, and really like it. Regarding the new window sizes, you can just go into the AccuPel's menu select the window size, and it will stay on that size while using CalMAN. I hope they do add full support for this in the future though.

Also folks may want to look at Radiance Mini 3D, its fully supported (auto) by Calman, as for use with standard calibration and LUT Cube triplets pattern generator. Plus it also Supports complete processing of 2D or 3D sources and stores all of your calibrations. So not only are you getting just a pattern generator you will be able to process and store a LUT Cube calibration, and probably for less money.

ss

I agree, unless he's talking about doing calibrations for other people.

LBJ2 is a DIY.

ss
Edited by sillysally - 2/24/13 at 1:18am

Once the display is accurately calibrated, you need to put the gear away for a couple of years and watch it.

LOL.

Colormunki Photo and Calman 5.1

My colormunki seemed to struggle with the grayscale 20 and 10pt autocal process e.g., took a relatively long time to complete for these two points as compared to the other gray scale points. Is this a limitation of the ColorMunki ?

This is why you use the Spectro to make a profile for the Colorimeter. The Colorimeter works better at the bottom end of the scale and if profiled correctly is as accurate as the spectro for the display it was made on.

???? It is impossible for CalMAN to do anything you can't do with manual controls. And chances of you seeing the difference between a dE of 3.5 and 0.5 in moving video images are slim to none. Of course when it's possible to achieve lower dEs without spending a TON of time doing it, all calibrators will go for the lower errors, but that doesn't mean the lower errors will be particularly noticeable. Gamma and Grayscale errors are much more visible/obvious than color errors also, especially when the color error dEs are 5 or less.

The LUT calibration capability (with a Lumagen Radiance processor) will correct more points than you'd probably be willing to deal with manually, but when it comes to calibrating gamma, grayscale, and the 6 primary and complimentary colors... CalMAN's auto mode has access to the same calibration controls you have access to manually. So CalMAN will produce the same results manually or automatically if you are using the manual controls correctly.

It's well and good to like using CalMAN, but it's a bit over the top to assign results to CalMAN that you can achieve manually. And, of course, it's always nice when the next version of CalMAN refines the auto-cal process enough that it can achieve lower dEs... though the visibility of the lower dEs is minimal to nothing once your errors have reached a fairly low level (around CalMAN's yellow line or lower).

You make some good points, especially concerning the visibility of errors that are 3 dE from each other. But then when you dismiss the advantages of multi-point calibration vs. just a single point per primary/secondary you loose me. While I agree that gamma offers the most dramatic pq improvement, that doesn't mean proper color reduces to insignificance. If your display has a good color decoder you are right. But apparently few do and it has been an ongoing struggle to figure out how best to spread the decoder's errors over the saturation/luminance ranges. I notice a dramatic improvement in color rendition using the Color Cube technology. And just to remove the placebo effect, so does my wife. The picture is simply gorgeous.

And finally, the Radiance doesn't "correct more points than you'd probably be willing to deal with manually", it corrects more points than would be possible to correct manually. I can't imagine having the patience to run a color cube calibration manually. It would take far more ongoing attention to detail than I could muster. It's not just moving 125 points around. It is also dealing with interactions between them. I have heard estimates that it would take an experienced calibrator approximately 8 hours to do this calibration provided he remained focused during that time. I can't imagine. It would be utterly impossible for me, a home user, not a professional calibrator, to "produce the same results manually or automatically if you are using the manual controls correctly". Utterly impossible. But I can do it with CalMAN's Color Cube. And I can do it with ease. In fact, I don't think anyone does a color cube calibration manually. All of the color cube systems are automated just for that reason.
Edited by erkq - 2/25/13 at 12:59pm

One more item about IRE... if you use the Avia discs for anything, you'd damn well better understand the difference between IRE and % white or digital levels, because the Avia discs use IRE correctly and when using it to evaluate displays or to get the basic settings correct, you'd better be using 7.5 IRE for black (aka 0% white) or you're going to get really messed up.

IRE is NOT interchangeable with % white or digital levels and you REALLY need to understand the context and usage in the event you come across a TV or disc or whatever that is labeled IRE and is actually using IRE correctly. I never ASSUME that something labeled IRE is using it interchangeably with % white because there's a chance it is NOT using IRE as an equivalent for % white. When someone labels a digital display in IRE... that's just plain wrong. It's being sloppy and lazy (they used IRE for decades and never stopped using it when digital video finally left analog video in the dust.

Let's say you were working at a gas station in Oregon... a state where it is illegal to pump your own gas, an attendent must pump the gas for you. You drive in and a 20 year-old-guy or girl comes out and you say "Fill it with ethyl." Are they going to have a CLUE what you're talking about? Probably not because "ethyl" refers to the addition of tetraethyl lead to gasoline to raise the octane for premium fuel. So "Fill it with ethyl" means "Fill it with premium" even though there's no lead in fuel any more. So it's really WRONG to say "Fill it with ethyl" and surprise surprise... entire generations managed to stop using the term in fairly short order when leaded fuels disappeared. Likewise, generations need to stop using IRE since analog video disappeared.

We keep trying.. only thing we can do is to keep posted about this regardless if some (including some Professionals) post replies to ours that it's not important...

Hard to Manually calibrate the XE or iScan Duos!
Have off loaded all the calibration into either the XE or my iScan Duos. Except for the 2 Point settings, all 10 Point and CMS are left at Zeroes. 2/10 Point setting is left on 2 Point.
Result, a lot more stable LG TVs, with no more periodic weird videos when turned on. Settings from calibration to calibration (always have to try out the newest Calman Version) are far more consistant than when I manually calibrated the actual sets. Now that Calman results have become a lot more stable (Not perfect yet, but I understand the boys are still trying.), the results are far better then in the past. And as mentioned, the 125 Point has greatly improved my sets, and 30 minutes AutoCal versus 8 hour Manually (However you would able to be able to do it?) will be my way of doing things. Originally, I did Manual because I did it better than AutoCal. Now, yes, if I spent a lot more time than AutoCal, I could do better, but as you say, who sees the difference between 3% and 0.35%? (I still beg to differ on this one!) Plus, AutoCal for me now that I've offloaded! This may not pertain to other Brands of sets, but this new way of calibrating my LGs has made one heck of a difference!

It's not hard to calibrate with any video processor... it just takes time (and knowledge of course). dE is not expresseed in %... dE=3 does not mean 3%. dE has no units... like a ratio... 16:9... no units. Or the 1-10 scale... Kate Upton = 10 (except for those curiously tiny hands of hers!).

Human vision can just BARELY recognize the difference between 1 digit of dE... 1 vs. 2 or 2 vs. 3, etc. Fractional dEs are a waste of time, always round fractional dEs to the next higher or lower number for perceptual discussions (you might prefer to use a setting that produces dE=1.0 versus another setting that produces dE=1.4, but you won't see the difference... you CAN'T see the difference, it is below the threshold of what we can see. The difference of "1" being just barely visible was arrived at after a LOT of study of human visual perception. The difference between 1 and 2 is also just BARELY visible -- you need a reference to detect it... something sitting right next to your test subjet that is "perfect" in every way you couldn't see the difference without a "perfect" reference. And detecting differences in MOVING COLOR IMAGES is much harder than detecting differences in a static image with a perfect d65 reference image sitting along side.

Granted, Spectracal is steadily improving autocal and the LUT calibration results, but your post made it sound like CalMAN somehow magically made your TVs Blue accurate when it wasn't accurate before. If you couldn't get Blue accurate before, CalMAN can't get it more accurate now. If you meant autocal or the automated LUT cal made blue better than ever before... OK, that I could believe. But that's not what you wrote... your blue primary (100% sat/75% luminance) is only going to be as accurate as you can set it manually, autocal or LUT cal can't improve the accuracy of 100%/75% Blue to be anything better than what you could set it for manually. But your post made it sound like you were attributing just that to the latest version of CalMAN... otherwise I wouldn't have posted anything. If you meant autocal and/or LUT cal made your Blue really correct for the first time, I don't have a problem with THAT statement at all.

There is lots of mis use of terms which cause unnecessary confusion, it isnt a problem confined to video calibration. It is why SI units should always be used in notation for the simple reason that a value becomes a basis of reference or judgement, using a different scale typically derived from imperial, metric or even a magnitude turns the same reading into a perceptualy meaningless value.
Actually a favourite in calibration, foot lamberts (fl) really needs to be dropped in favour of the SI unit (cd/m^2), unfortunately the US followers of (fl) would have to retrain their brains.

I always ask my (Prof) boss in my day job, what units he wants the results of trials expressed as. The only time we change a unit it is in the form of magnitude because the numbers get too big or small.
Edited by <^..^>Smokey Joe - 2/26/13 at 12:32pm

Surely digital and analogue terminology can coexist.
There must be enough similarity to their purpose for this to be allowed?
I must admit though that when I first got interested in calibration I was totally confused by a science that measures its blackness with a control called brightness.

Here in the UK a few years ago we were banned from using pounds and ounces in favour of kilograms and grams for sale of our market foodstuffs.
This law has now been rescinded and both can now be used despite all changing to Kilos..

I also note that the USA gallon is not the same volume as the UK one. Now that should be confusing but we seem to manage somehow.

This is a little different, though. The measurements you are citing all have the same range. That is, semantically they are the same. But IRE and % white actually mean different things. An analogy might be measuring weight with a tare. A tare+payload weight is different from just a payload weight. The range of the measurement is different, regardless of units.

Maybe so, I am not a techy person so like things nice and simple.
Color comparator is the best tool for people like me.

However, if we must change so be it.

Incidentally, why is gamma still referred to as such in this digital age?

Because it still describes the same stimulus/response curve it always has.