CalMan 5 Release Notes and Discussion - Page 39

@derekjsmith: I'm looking at purchasing CalMan5 in the near future and was wondering if there are any issues with running CalMan5 on my MacBook with Windows Parallels?

CalMAN 5 runs just fine with Parallels, Fusion or Bootcamp and we test on all three. The only issues we have seen with Parallels sometimes is device drivers.

Thanks Derek. Can't wait!

Feature Request: Ability to specify gamut luminance and saturation targets for AutoCal.

For example, the Sharp Elite is known for its bad color tracking. A better picture quality can be attained by using 75%-80% saturation targets rather than the default 100%.

not saying that isn't true, but you might want to read this:

http://www.tlvexp.ca/2013/03/color-management-system-pie-eat-half-or-all/

Thanks! That was definitely a good and informative read from Michael TLV.

I agree with his theories that would apply to most TV sets but in the case of the Sharp Elite, there is definitely 'visible' improvement in picture quality when using 75% saturation targets compared to 100%.

Here are saturation sweep and dE charts of the Elite calibrated to 100% saturation targets...


Here are similar charts (25% vs 20% sweeps) using 75% saturation targets...

So I should be able to do a pretty good calibration with the tutorial version? And then Basic and onward will let me fine tune it even further (CMS, 10-point adjustment, etc)?

I'm looking to calibrate my Sharp AQUOS LC-60LE847U.

I got good results with the tutorial version: http://www.avsforum.com/t/1333561/samsung-d7000-d8000-settings-calibration-thread/3180#post_22855523

I should add that it took so many passes mostly because of known issues with the 10 point controls at low contrast settings on the D7000 series.

Yes, and the same applies to Epson projectors. Calibrating using 100% Saturations make for a washed out image as the Gamut from 75% and down become very unsersaturated.. Calibrate using 75% Saturation patterns and although 100% goes off, everything from 75% and down tracks extremely well, and provides a more accurate image.

I have asked Joel and Derek about this and I have been told that this feature WILL be added to AutoCal soon.

I have an LCD TV which has a CMS but unfortunately will not fully saturate its blue (or for that matter change its hue at near maximum saturation).

I use a DUO to calibrate so if I use the 100% saturation patterns I get a different incorrect blue every time.

I used a different software at the time to assess whether 75% patterns would benefit me (it measured average dE values as Michael Chen suggests in his article).
From these results it became clear better calibration could be made at 75% saturation patterns despite my 100% dE values being high (it could easily have indicated the reverse).

I think it is most important that the overall dE impact when calibrated at both saturation values is assessed before making a decision as to which is better.

The article refers to the use of the magnificent Colorchecker which assesses dE values throughout the full 3D gamut at non 5x5x5 LUT calibrated points so its patterns have to be interpolated.
As a non technical person I use this in conjunction with its associated Color Comparator to assess the theory (ie check that the mystical dE values and graphs they produce are in fact borne out visually).

Just to let you guys know... as a point of interest... the second season of Downton Abby has great greens! Everything is fine, looks wonderful. The proper CalMAN 5 calibration seems to be the final arbiter.

I agree that Calman 5.1 for 3D LUT cube calibration does a very nice, I use a Mini 3D, C6 profiled by a I1 2 pro.

I am getting a eecolor box to be able to do 17^3 LUT calibration whit Calman's next updates for 5.1 Enthusiast.

ss

Yes, I am using a Mini 3D/C6 combo also. I'm a little confused... I have 5.1 Enthusiast. So Specracal is planning to release a 17^3 version? How awesome! I don't use any of the scaling capabilities of the Mini 3D so I could sell that and get an eeColor box. I assume it would be the same multiple-read process as current, not necessarily a bad thing... but I understand that CalMAN's upgrade to 5.1 separated out the profiling and calibration internally at least. Interesting times...

Without the Mini 3D you will need a pattern generator capable of displaying the necessary triplets for the eeColor processor.

I wonder if the DUO could be made to act as pattern generator for this?

Otherwise the imminent Disc from Tedd would be the answer I suppose.

The one catch to the larger LUT's is that the calibration gets put on your HD, so from there you use eecolor's TruVue software to transfer the calibration from your HD to the eecolor.
Also if the Mini does the pattern generation as it does now, I will probably keep it and use it for a second TV.

http://www.avsforum.com/t/1461363/ee-colorbox-lightspace-and-3d-lut-calibration

ss

This is beyond the DUO's capabilities. For disk based patterns you would need to verify that the BD player did not alter the output. Also, I can't believe that all players will stay in sync throughout the calibration process assuming the layout is compatible with CalMAN. If there are sync issues or a lack of compatibility I doubt anybody would want to perform a 17 point calibration manually advancing the patterns.
Edited by praz - 3/12/13 at 9:56am

The Duo can be used as a full triplet pattern generator and can do different window sizes, the next jump starting at $1295 is the Accupel 5000 which is a professional level generator, full triplet, any size window, window with any surround etc.

Yes our processes requires the use of a full RGB triplet pattern generator. Radiance, VideoForge, AP5000, QD780, QD882 or if you know for a fact your PC HDMI output is correct.


This won't work because we do need the ability to generate any RGB triplet as part of our process so over 16 million possible RGB combinations.


No the Duo won't work either yes it is a limited RGB triplet generator but is in percent 0-100 not bit 0-255.

Derek, assuming we have meter, software, patterns and know accurate pattern source, what would be the process to determine if the HDMI output of ones laptop is accurate for use as a pattern generator? Has Spectracal got a white paper on the process?

Don't forget the Accupel 5000 in the list, full triplet at % or bit as CalMAN uses, starting at $1295 (Standard version may not be listed on the website but is available).
Edited by turbe - 3/12/13 at 10:40am

Well the only true correct method is using an HDMI protocol analyzer or HDMI wave form monitor. Some have suggested just comparing the outputs with grayscale ramps or pluge which will tell you only one thing, is the output compressed 0-255>16-235, clipped 0-255=16-235 or shifted 0-255>16-255. But won’t tell you if your setup is using dynamic gamma as do many video chips do today and it can’t be disable. So even if you output does look correct it still maybe off a couple of bits here and there which will not work.

No matter what anyone else claims the only true method is using a analyzer to verify.
Edited by derekjsmith - 3/12/13 at 11:42am

It is listed AP5000.

Forgot about that Derek, ah well back to trying to convince myself that my next display will show the same linearity that my current one does.

This is so true. While the output of a PC or homemade disk may be good enough it is nonsense to state complete accuracy without testing with a certified analyzer. I can understand Steve's position on this though. One of the major marketing claims of LightSpace is being able to use a PC to generate all needed patterns.

I didn't realise that there were variations of quality on the HDMI connector standard, irrespective of their proposed use.

I have seen problems with certain hardware that requires a minimum length of cable between its connectors so is it also necessary to verify the HDMI connectors attached to any cable that connects a dedicated pattern generator to its final destination?

The cable is either going to work or not work.


Steve, before you respond to my earlier post with some smoke and mirrors please clarify your previous post below. By your own admission the possibility exists that the output of the PC may not be bit perfect. This also holds true for user created test disks. Your continual blanket statements on this forum alluding to the contrary does a disservice to everyone. Please stop this type of approach and market your products in a professional manner. Thank you.

Please don';t misunderstand but surely the point is will it maintain the accuracy that the pattern generator has produced?

I think a previous post suggested that the HDMI port on a Laptop may not be up to 'video use'.

Like you, my experience is that an HDMI cable works or it does not work. However, if the HDMI output connector on a Laptop is a suspect for maintaining accuracy then surely the cable may suffer the same possibility.

Cannot comment on use of laptop cards but hopefully we can agree that whatever is generated is likely to be accurately transferred to its destination via HDMI connectors.

I should have been more clear. The physical HDMI port is not the issue, it is the video card that is providing the video output. Computer Video cards are not know for their accuracy and assuming the video signal from your laptop HDMI is accurate is not a wise assumption.

Yes. The issue is without proper test equipment there is no way to know that what is generated is accurate.