or Connect
AVS › AVS Forum › Display Devices › Display Calibration › LightSpace CMS Now Supports Lumagen + eeColor 3D-LUT 4 All
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

LightSpace CMS Now Supports Lumagen + eeColor 3D-LUT 4 All - Page 6

post #151 of 710
I don't own a Lumagen. Wish I did, but it doesn't fit in the budget. Of course the eeColor would be even better.
post #152 of 710
Quote:
Originally Posted by buzzard767 View Post

Chad, I'll get you a free LS full CMS trial and if you like, and definitely recommend, an eeColor Processor at my cost so you can really see what LS can do. Email via the link in my signature and you're on your way. smile.gif

Why a Full LS over LS home???

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chad B View Post

I don't own a Lumagen. Wish I did, but it doesn't fit in the budget. Of course the eeColor would be even better.

Yes the eecolor is the way to go.

Chad, after are little friendly debate last week I am a little surprised to see your posting here. After all I guess you didn't think a large or even small LUT was of benefit.
Now you know why I had given you a friendly offer to come to my home court and play. But that offer is off the table now, I would want to make some money off of a "pro ". However for DYI'es its free.smile.gif

btw, the version of Calman that you have does a very nice job with both a small and large LUT.

ss
post #153 of 710
Quote:
Originally Posted by sillysally View Post

Chad, after are little friendly debate last week I am a little surprised to see your posting here. After all I guess you didn't think a large or even small LUT was of benefit.
Now you know why I had given you a friendly offer to come to my home court and play. But that offer is off the table now, I would want to make some money off of a "pro ". However for DYI'es its free.smile.gif

btw, the version of Calman that you have does a very nice job with both a small and large LUT.

ss
I don't really understand what you're driving at. I am interested in the technology; that's why I keep up on the thread, though I've not been a participant in it till now.

Our friendly debate was about if a specific TV needed a LUT calibration to correct a particular performance characteristic, not whether LUTs were of benefit in general.

Personally I would be excited to see what an Elite or even lesser TVs like the Mits DLP RPTVs would look like with a large LUT cal.

I don't know if this caused any confusion, but when I posted that I had done one LUT cal with a Lumagen, I don't remember specifying what display it was on. It was on a JVC projector, and it looked beautiful.

Just curious- why would what I've posted here prompt you to modify your offer?
Edited by Chad B - 4/26/13 at 10:44pm
post #154 of 710
Quote:
Originally Posted by sillysally View Post

Why a Full LS over LS home???

To the best of my knowledge the full CMS is the version of which LightSpace has been offered for trial. Home Cinema is exactly the same except for the LUT formats it outputs.
post #155 of 710
Quote:
Originally Posted by sotti View Post

I would just hope that a recommendation could come with some actual data.

I like it because it's faster.

I like it because it produces lower dE's.

I like it because there are fewer visual artifacts in the pictures.

It's better because I said so is hardly an endorsement. You could likely put the TV in vivid mode and get people to say they prefer that look. Calibration and 3D LUT generation are not about preference but accuracy.

I removed myself because i'm sick of the idiotic bunfights that follow, and that i knew would follow. The pros and cons of all the software out there have been debated. I have tried them all and made my choices. I suggest that others do to. I am sure you stand by the value and performance of your product and I am sure that you will continue to sell it and improve it.
post #156 of 710
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iron Mike View Post


Needless to say if a manufacturer of a VP and LUT holder box who knows the capabilities of it's hardware and has done a gazillion tests, states that a specific solution (--> LS) achieves superior results just re-iterates what other users have reported here a long time ago...

The fact that the manufacturer does not go into details, i.e.: stays away from embarrassing other solutions is just polite business behavior... all obvious to anybody who is older than 5 years...

- M

Can i just point out that I am not a lumagen employee. I am a Lumagen distributor...the oldest Lumagen distributor they have i think. I believe Lumagen do not unequivocally endorse any product over another.
post #157 of 710
Quote:
Originally Posted by sillysally View Post


My point is that if you are just interested in a small LUT and have limited knowledge of how to calibrate, whats the point in buying LS software for well over 2K and still have to do a "greyscale and gamma manually", when you can get a much more user friendly software that will do everything automatically for under $400. usd

I think you missunderstood my post. I found that with the auto cal software you actually get superior results by doing the greyscale and gamma manually and then run the auto part just on the 125 cube. As has been pointed out you don't do any manual greyscale and gamma with lightspace. It's the software you currently use that is best done manually in part rather than fully automatic.
post #158 of 710
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Light Illusion View Post

We've made some very interesting developments with the various algorithms we use for colour space matching - the results have driven the final Delta-E values for all points within the 3D cube down to levels that are well below any concept of visible difference.

And I mean all points within the cube - not the usual RGBW primary measurements, or limited colour patches, used for standard Delta-E measurements.

The results really do speak for themselves.

For those not so familiar with how LightSpace Works, then a new version of LightSpace is released, lets say with some improvements like these Steve is mentioning above, you simply installng the new version and load your latest saved 17-Point (or any othe size) Display Profiling Data you have stored and you have only to make your target color space converions (it takes some seconds) you want.

You can create one REC 709 2.2, 2.3, 2.4 , NTSC, PAL, whenever you like and then upload them to your Lumagen or eeColor.

You don't have to remeasure anything, hookup meters etc again. This saves a lot of time and you will have more free time to check reference material or actual movies from re-calibrating at every week upon any new software change.
post #159 of 710
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chad B View Post

I don't really understand what you're driving at. I am interested in the technology; that's why I keep up on the thread, though I've not been a participant in it till now.

Our friendly debate was about if a specific TV needed a LUT calibration to correct a particular performance characteristic, not whether LUTs were of benefit in general.

Personally I would be excited to see what an Elite or even lesser TVs like the Mits DLP RPTVs would look like with a large LUT cal.

I don't know if this caused any confusion, but when I posted that I had done one LUT cal with a Lumagen, I don't remember specifying what display it was on. It was on a JVC projector, and it looked beautiful.

Just curious- why would what I've posted here prompt you to modify your offer?

Na I am just messing around,. you are welcome.

Mater of fact I can't say as I blame you for holding off on this type of calibration. The reason is imo Calman does need some work for its large LUT, after all it wasn't till last weekend that i could run a large LUT with a reasonable outcome. .

However never using LS I can't say if Steve is close to perfecting the Larger LUT profiles with his software.

ss
post #160 of 710
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gordon Fraser View Post

I removed myself because i'm sick of the idiotic bunfights that follow, and that i knew would follow. The pros and cons of all the software out there have been debated. I have tried them all and made my choices. I suggest that others do to.

Then perhaps you should've said nothing?

Or perhaps you could've simply stated why you prefer lightspace, and actually added value to the conversation. Your tone that you do not wish to debate it, makes any statements ring hollow. Someone who has a strong opinion and data to back up their beliefs I would think would not shy away from critique.
post #161 of 710
Quote:
Originally Posted by sotti View Post

Then perhaps you should've said nothing?

Yep, would be better for YOU here in the LightSpace CMS thread ... mad.gif
post #162 of 710
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nudgiator View Post

Yep, would be better for YOU here in the LightSpace CMS thread ... mad.gif

It's important for us to pay attention to all products, and it's a general service to the calibration community to try and sort fact from fiction even if it doesn't agree with what we want to hear.

Which is why having Gordon chime in and say, "LS is better, don't want to talk about it, bye now." was something I felt compelled to comment on. I love hearing constructive criticism of my product, I love to see comparison on how it stacks up to the competition. But that kind of thing only feels helpful to the community when it's backed up with data or some sort of description of why one seems to perform better, and as I mentioned in my first response raw image quality isn't a good metric (ie looks better to me), color accuracy is imminently quantifiable and should be backed up with evidence not anecdotal, looked better to me, descriptions.
post #163 of 710
Quote:
Originally Posted by sotti View Post

It's important for us to pay attention to all products

All of us know VERY GOOD what happened a few years ago in the Chroma Pure thread. So I can really understand why nobody wants to talk about such things. And now: BACK TO TOPIC ! Otherwise I will contact a moderator to end that kindergarden.
post #164 of 710
The only reason Joel or I are in this thread is because someone keeps saying LS is better than CM without backing it up. It is our right to defend our product and company. Now saying one prefers LS over CM or CP over CM or HCFR over CM is one thing and something we won't debate, someone's opinion. I fully understand it is someone's right to feel product A is better than product B without any empirical evidence. Heck look at the Ford vs. Chevy, Windows vs. Mac, iPhone vs. Android and not that long ago Blu-Ray vs. HD DVD. Those are all personal choices and we all have them.

My background comes from development and quality assurance for MIL-SPEC testing, verification, calibration and certification where your evidence is backed up by documentation. That is how I run SpectraCal and we build CalMAN.

Nudgiator go ahead and contact the moderator. We have done nothing but defend our product by asking for documented evidence of LS vs.CM. We have not attacked anyone. Called anyone something inappropriate. Or even said CalMAN is better.

AVS is one of the great places for very passionate like people to hangout and discuss or debate these topics. Yet sometimes it does get a little heated and emotional when someone's passion gets the better of them. But what I can say is no one from SpectraCal including myself will attack anyone expressing an opinion here or otherwise. We will however defend our product when called into question.
post #165 of 710
move on please: if you see a problematic post: please report it: do not respond to it or quote it
post #166 of 710
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by derekjsmith View Post


So here is the challenge: Calibrate a display using the Radiance as the LUT device and pattern generator using both LS and CM. Now measure using ColorChecker SG + 100% sats, 5% saturation sweeps, 5% luminance sweeps and the original 125 points. Show the DATA.

All Current Beta Versions of CalMAN 5.1 that are coming with ColorChecker SG feature have 3 invalid enties for Range 16-235 (Video Levels)

There some Color Patches with incorrect values, I have selected the Luminance level of 16-235 and the following Color Patches have invalid levels for that range:

2K = RGB Triplet 237.189.147
6M = RGB Triplet 255.169.16
7M = RGB Triplet 237.180

Joel has already fixed that (after my bug report) and send me the correct values that will be used for the next CalMAN Beta or Final.

So we can't report with ColorChecker SG currently...
post #167 of 710
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chad B View Post

I don't really understand what you're driving at. I am interested in the technology; that's why I keep up on the thread, though I've not been a participant in it till now.

Our friendly debate was about if a specific TV needed a LUT calibration to correct a particular performance characteristic, not whether LUTs were of benefit in general.

Personally I would be excited to see what an Elite or even lesser TVs like the Mits DLP RPTVs would look like with a large LUT cal.

I don't know if this caused any confusion, but when I posted that I had done one LUT cal with a Lumagen, I don't remember specifying what display it was on. It was on a JVC projector, and it looked beautiful.

Just curious- why would what I've posted here prompt you to modify your offer?

I am very interested in large LUT technology as well. Inline with your point. I have a Lumagen attached to a 92" Mits DLP and I would consider the 125 point calibration it provides to have been oretty much transromational for it. When an EEcolor box and and there is software that works andis affordable for the enthusiast I will jump in with both feet. Even though the Mits might be considered a lesser TV, its great weakness is the built in CMS and the non-linearaity of it. Honestly I can't visualize myself ever beeing able to afford LSI. I know this is their thread but it seems there is no way for those who are interested in this technology to objectively compare competitive claims. I don't expect a $400 solution to provide all the same capbilities of a $2500 solution. But either the basic math works or it doesn't. Clearly if I own a Lumagen, I am not beyond buying an EEcolor box. And just because I bought a Lumagen doesn't mean I can afford Light Source.

While LSI may have a mature solution, citing its pedigree and reputation doesn't mean much to me. On the other hand if the competition can't make it's $400 solution work than all this back and forth seems awfully premature.

If and when Calman, perhaps CP and LSI all have working software I can't think of anyone better than you Chad to provide great comparison reviews. Maybe Buzz can provide a test box, the software vendors provide evalution copies and you give it a go on an Elite and on a Mits DLP. Your repuation as a working professional who has donated immense time and effort to the community establishes for me at least your absolute bona fides. Until we get someone like you who has worked with lots of sets and is not a paid endorser provides comparative information it all is just so much hot air.
post #168 of 710
Go look in the spears disc thread. Just because a value is above 235 means the value is invalid. Infact all the guys from post houses we talk to are thankful our product supports calibrating all the way to 255.
post #169 of 710
Quote:
Originally Posted by sotti View Post

Go look in the spears disc thread. Just because a value is above 235 means the value is invalid. Infact all the guys from post houses we talk to are thankful our product supports calibrating all the way to 255.

Joel, we should never let perfect be the enemy of the very good. For some displays the reduction of light output is such that going to 255 ain't happening. You may want to design in some intermediate destinations along the way. The farher to right we go, the less common those value are in a scene and arguably the less value they have. I like the idea of this being a configuarble choice. I recall you saying one could choose 100 percent white or 109 percent for max. If using a tool like Stacey's new one it is pretty clear you can avoid any color clipping to say 245 or 250 why should the software NOT be configurable to work within the 16-245 or 16-250 spac?

I guess what I am saying why must we throw the baby out with the bathwater. If the object it to optimize a display to be the best it can be, do we really need to be religious about the approach..
post #170 of 710
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by sotti View Post

Go look in the spears disc thread. Just because a value is above 235 means the value is invalid. Infact all the guys from post houses we talk to are thankful our product supports calibrating all the way to 255.

Lumagen Radiance Range Processors are working and can LUT correct Video Levels 16-235 ONLY, also eeColor is working flowless with Video Range too.

Studios are working at FULL RANGE because they previewing all stuff at Monitors, we are the final chain and we are calibrating to 16-235.

Personally I have checked nearly 100 different Blu-Ray movies that had scenes with clouds/highlights/spot lights etc that I thought had detail above 235 and none of the had any level 235-255.
Only some bluray movie extras had 236 and a lot of disks i own with reference video's to check contrast, color highlighs etc.
post #171 of 710
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by sotti View Post

Go look in the spears disc thread. Just because a value is above 235 means the value is invalid. Infact all the guys from post houses we talk to are thankful our product supports calibrating all the way to 255.

I wrote that CalMAN had invalid levels for that range 16-235...... If it was ok then why you found and fixed that bug?
post #172 of 710
The one and only reason is compatibility for the dvdo duo.
post #173 of 710
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by sotti View Post

The one and only reason is compatibility for the dvdo duo.

Oh, So ALL Video Processors of Consumer Market (eeColor - All Lumagen Radiance Series - DVDO) Give control over VIDEO LEVELS ONLY, Thank you.

and... you still telling that was not a CalMAN's bug but you fixed it for DVDO users. Ok. now I'm really in Disneyland...

BTW Disney is using LightSpace too! http://www.lightillusion.com/customer_list.html
post #174 of 710
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by sotti View Post

Infact all the guys from post houses we talk to are thankful our product supports calibrating all the way to 255.

Can you please name some studios they have installed CalMAN Studio and are performing Large Cube's Calibrations to their monitors?
post #175 of 710
Buzz or anybody with Claman5 and a K10-A comparing it to something like a C6 profiled by a I1Pro. Have you notice a fairly large (+/- 5) difference when you run a pre LUT RGB Balance chart using Calman and eecolor. And do you notice the same difference using LS ?

ss
post #176 of 710
Quote:
Originally Posted by sillysally View Post

Buzz or anybody with Claman5 and a K10-A comparing it to something like a C6 profiled by a I1Pro. Have you notice a fairly large (+/- 5) difference when you run a pre LUT RGB Balance chart using Calman and eecolor. And do you notice the same difference using LS ?

ss

are you profiling the K-10 to the i1Pro ?

- M
post #177 of 710
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by sillysally View Post

Buzz or anybody with Claman5 and a K10-A comparing it to something like a C6 profiled by a I1Pro. Have you notice a fairly large (+/- 5) difference when you run a pre LUT RGB Balance chart using Calman and eecolor. And do you notice the same difference using LS ?

ss

Can you post some calman report comparison screens about that?

Of course C6 / iD3 is not reading well lower than 10% Step Luminance or any color of a display with deep blacks like your Panasonic or my KURO. I see the greenish shade from miles...
post #178 of 710
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iron Mike View Post

are you profiling the K-10 to the i1Pro ?

- M

No I don't see any point to that. I am just asking if anybody who has used a K10 and also has profiled something like a C6 to a I1pro seen this difference.

ss
post #179 of 710
Quote:
Originally Posted by sillysally View Post

Buzz or anybody with Claman5 and a K10-A comparing it to something like a C6 profiled by a I1Pro. Have you notice a fairly large (+/- 5) difference when you run a pre LUT RGB Balance chart using Calman and eecolor. And do you notice the same difference using LS ?

ss

I'm not sure exactly what you're looking for. Anyway, my D3 was sold and the only colorimers I have are a K10 and a C5. One could probably use an unprofiled K10 as both LS & CM have the Klein display tables.
post #180 of 710
Quote:
Originally Posted by ConnecTEDDD View Post

Can you post some calman report comparison screens about that?

Of course C6 / iD3 is not reading well lower than 10% Step Luminance or any color of a display with deep blacks like your Panasonic or my KURO. I see the greenish shade from miles...

I think I have posted the RGB pre chart for both the K10 and the C6/I1pro.

And yes you are right about the lower step 15% for me using the C6/I1pro compared to the K10., Of-course I only have my 65VT50 to calibrate.

ss
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Display Calibration
AVS › AVS Forum › Display Devices › Display Calibration › LightSpace CMS Now Supports Lumagen + eeColor 3D-LUT 4 All