LightSpace 3D LUT Home Cinema Calibration Software - Page 63 - AVS Forum | Home Theater Discussions And Reviews
Forum Jump: 
 1032Likes
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #1861 of 2284 Old 02-10-2019, 02:44 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Light Illusion's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 1,750
Mentioned: 24 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 733 Post(s)
Liked: 1074
I've just checked Jamie's profile.
It is simply appalling.
The issue is not the gamut being smaller than the colour space, but the total irregularity within the colour space, combined with it being smaller.

Both these volumetric graphs are mapped to the display's own gamut, so there should be next to no large errors at all.
Unfortunately, that is not the case.





The RGB Separation graph does show there are issues, but they are actually far worse than the RGB Graph shows.
It's like a skewed rotational error...

Ths is shown in the 2D CIE chart.



You can easily see how 'yellow' is the most accurate, and all the other colours seem to rotate incorrectly around that.
And as all the graphs are based on the RGB gamut f the display itself, that is very, very bad.

It really is one of the worse display profiles I have ever seen.

Steve
Attached Thumbnails
Click image for larger version

Name:	finney-uv.png
Views:	97
Size:	105.7 KB
ID:	2523744   Click image for larger version

Name:	finney-Cube.png
Views:	94
Size:	102.2 KB
ID:	2523746   Click image for larger version

Name:	finney-xy.png
Views:	90
Size:	453.8 KB
ID:	2523778  
bobof likes this.

Steve Shaw
LIGHT ILLUSION


Last edited by Light Illusion; 02-10-2019 at 03:07 PM.
Light Illusion is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #1862 of 2284 Old 02-10-2019, 04:58 PM
aka jfinnie
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: Norwich, UK
Posts: 2,893
Mentioned: 44 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2343 Post(s)
Liked: 1488
Quote:
Originally Posted by Light Illusion View Post
I've just checked Jamie's profile.
It is simply appalling.
The issue is not the gamut being smaller than the colour space, but the total irregularity within the colour space, combined with it being smaller.

Both these volumetric graphs are mapped to the display's own gamut, so there should be next to no large errors at all.
Unfortunately, that is not the case.

Spoiler!


Spoiler!


The RGB Separation graph does show there are issues, but they are actually far worse than the RGB Graph shows.
It's like a skewed rotational error...

Ths is shown in the 2D CIE chart.

Spoiler!


You can easily see how 'yellow' is the most accurate, and all the other colours seem to rotate incorrectly around that.
And as all the graphs are based on the RGB gamut f the display itself, that is very, very bad.

It really is one of the worse display profiles I have ever seen.

Steve
Thanks for this Steve. Interesting that you don't think the gamut boundaries are involved. I'm not 100% convinced yet just because if you map the LUT into the modified colourspace many of the crazy LUT points go away (and I think the ones that are left might go away if I trimmed a little more off the custom gamut - I think they may be "stragglers" that are still not reaching quite the gamut defined by 255,0,0, 0,255,0 and 0,0,255 )

As I explained in the mail while I don't doubt that the display might be behaving in colorimetrically (is that even a a word) "interesting" way (in fact I discussed something similar with @Manni01 and @Dominic Chan the other day around something I'd noticed in a REC709 LUT that I thought was fishy); if you look at the LUT you generate it is basically sane to a certain point and then all hell breaks loose. I did quickly create a LUT using ArgyllCMS and this profile data and while the greyscale tracking isn't as nice (one of the reasons I'm persevering with LS), it does generate a perfectly useable LUT which looks outwardly a similar shape except for the missing very random looking sections you have at the moment.

At the end of the day the displays are the displays, we have to calibrate them, and we have to get on with it with what we have. Not many folk are doing 3DLUT for HT, it's either Lumagen users or MadVR users now for 4k (and some 1080p EEcolors). Most of them are using projectors, and your guess is probably better than mine as to how many folk have these kind of projectors (but there are clearly a few in here trying to do this and getting a bit frustrated in the process). Obviously you can see there's not great mileage in calibrating these modes with LS at the moment as things stand.
Manni01 likes this.
bobof is offline  
post #1863 of 2284 Old 02-10-2019, 05:20 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Manni01's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 9,020
Mentioned: 313 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5365 Post(s)
Liked: 5427
Quote:
Originally Posted by bobof View Post
Thanks for this Steve. Interesting that you don't think the gamut boundaries are involved. I'm not 100% convinced yet just because if you map the LUT into the modified colourspace many of the crazy LUT points go away (and I think the ones that are left might go away if I trimmed a little more off the custom gamut - I think they may be "stragglers" that are still not reaching quite the gamut defined by 255,0,0, 0,255,0 and 0,0,255 )

As I explained in the mail while I don't doubt that the display might be behaving in colorimetrically (is that even a a word) "interesting" way (in fact I discussed something similar with @Manni01 and @Dominic Chan the other day around something I'd noticed in a REC709 LUT that I thought was fishy); if you look at the LUT you generate it is basically sane to a certain point and then all hell breaks loose. I did quickly create a LUT using ArgyllCMS and this profile data and while the greyscale tracking isn't as nice (one of the reasons I'm persevering with LS), it does generate a perfectly useable LUT which looks outwardly a similar shape except for the missing very random looking sections you have at the moment.

At the end of the day the displays are the displays, we have to calibrate them, and we have to get on with it with what we have. Not many folk are doing 3DLUT for HT, it's either Lumagen users or MadVR users now for 4k (and some 1080p EEcolors). Most of them are using projectors, and your guess is probably better than mine as to how many folk have these kind of projectors (but there are clearly a few in here trying to do this and getting a bit frustrated in the process). Obviously you can see there's not great mileage in calibrating these modes with LS at the moment as things stand.
Welcome to the club

In my experience, Ligthspace customer support always blame the display or the user (sometimes both) as a first port of call. It doesn't matter how experienced you are in calibration, how many times you've been right before, how well you know the display, or how other software do better with the same profile/data. If Lightspace doesn't deliver good results, it's because you're doing it wrong or the display is beyond salvation. And if you need ten steps with Lightspace to get what other solutions deliver in one, then tough. In other words, the customer is always wrong.

I'm glad to see that I'm not the only one experiencing or reporting these issues, as I've been told repeatedly. Or to report that DisplayCAL produces better results from the same LS profile, which entirely rules out profiling, display ability or meter issues, but clearly lays the blame at LS LUT engine's door.

Hopefully some welcome improvements in LS will come out of this.

By the way, another thing that was never explained or resolved: do you notice too that when the LS LUT is enabled, the greyscale is worse at 10% and below than with the LUT disabled (after a gamma autocal, so with a very decent baseline before the LUT). For some reason that's what I always observe with LS. Gamma/RGB balance is better above 10% white, and worse below.
omarank likes this.

JVC Autocal Software V11 Calibration for 2019 Models (Google)
Batch Utility V4.02 May 16 2019 to automate measurements files for madVR with support for BD Folders

Last edited by Manni01; 02-10-2019 at 05:30 PM.
Manni01 is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #1864 of 2284 Old 02-10-2019, 10:18 PM
Senior Member
 
KarlKlammer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Germany
Posts: 299
Mentioned: 7 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 250 Post(s)
Liked: 243
Quote:
Originally Posted by Manni01 View Post
By the way, another thing that was never explained or resolved: do you notice too that when the LS LUT is enabled, the greyscale is worse at 10% and below than with the LUT disabled (after a gamma autocal, so with a very decent baseline before the LUT). For some reason that's what I always observe with LS. Gamma/RGB balance is better above 10% white, and worse below.
I spend half an hour afterwards with the Radiance Gamma-EQ to correct RGB/Gamma.
bobof likes this.

Projection: JVC DLA-NX9
VP/Calibration: Lumagen Radiance Pro, LightSpace CMS, x-rite i1 Pro 2, x-rite i1 Display 3
KarlKlammer is offline  
post #1865 of 2284 Old 02-10-2019, 11:16 PM
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 46
Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 25 Post(s)
Liked: 26
Quote:
Originally Posted by Manni01 View Post
Welcome to the club

In my experience, Ligthspace customer support always blame the display or the user (sometimes both) as a first port of call. It doesn't matter how experienced you are in calibration, how many times you've been right before, how well you know the display, or how other software do better with the same profile/data. If Lightspace doesn't deliver good results, it's because you're doing it wrong or the display is beyond salvation. And if you need ten steps with Lightspace to get what other solutions deliver in one, then tough. In other words, the customer is always wrong.

I'm glad to see that I'm not the only one experiencing or reporting these issues, as I've been told repeatedly. Or to report that DisplayCAL produces better results from the same LS profile, which entirely rules out profiling, display ability or meter issues, but clearly lays the blame at LS LUT engine's door.

Hopefully some welcome improvements in LS will come out of this.

By the way, another thing that was never explained or resolved: do you notice too that when the LS LUT is enabled, the greyscale is worse at 10% and below than with the LUT disabled (after a gamma autocal, so with a very decent baseline before the LUT). For some reason that's what I always observe with LS. Gamma/RGB balance is better above 10% white, and worse below.
Surprisingly, I have had the same experience. On email conversations, I always got to hear that my TV is a bad display. Not that I say that it is not true. The thing is that despite the display being bad, Argyll/DisplayCAL produces a better looking LUT from the LS profile data. And practically too, I have always ended up using Argyll/Display CAL LUT (for other reasons as well) while watching movies despite slightly higher color accuracy of LS LUTs.

I tried creating fresh LUTs using Map Space, Fit Space, LUT Concatenation and Argyll/DisplayCAL from the Sony TV profile data, and as I visualized them in LS Cube View, I found Map Space one looked pathetic and Argyll/DisplayCAL one looked the neatest. Below are the screenshots:


Map Space LUT:
Click image for larger version

Name:	MapSpace_Image 1.png
Views:	30
Size:	236.6 KB
ID:	2523978
Click image for larger version

Name:	MapSpace_Image 2.png
Views:	31
Size:	216.2 KB
ID:	2523982
Click image for larger version

Name:	MapSpace_Image 3.png
Views:	31
Size:	216.7 KB
ID:	2523984


Fit Space LUT:
Click image for larger version

Name:	FitSpace.png
Views:	28
Size:	164.2 KB
ID:	2523986
Click image for larger version

Name:	FitSpace_Image 2.png
Views:	24
Size:	144.5 KB
ID:	2524000
Click image for larger version

Name:	FitSpace_Image 3.png
Views:	22
Size:	182.3 KB
ID:	2524002


LUT Concatenation:
Click image for larger version

Name:	LUTconcat_Image 1.png
Views:	32
Size:	131.0 KB
ID:	2523988
Click image for larger version

Name:	LUTconcat_Image 2.png
Views:	31
Size:	131.9 KB
ID:	2523990


Argyll/DisplayCAL LUT (eeColor FullScale LUT output from DisplayCAL; generated from LS profile data):
Click image for larger version

Name:	DisplayCAL LUT_Image 1.png
Views:	34
Size:	141.0 KB
ID:	2523992
Click image for larger version

Name:	DisplayCAL LUT_Image 2.png
Views:	32
Size:	166.3 KB
ID:	2523994
Click image for larger version

Name:	DisplayCAL LUT_Image 3.png
Views:	29
Size:	145.1 KB
ID:	2524010


For reference, I have also enclosed the Sony TV profile:
Sony TV.zip

Last edited by omarank; 02-10-2019 at 11:53 PM.
omarank is offline  
post #1866 of 2284 Old 02-11-2019, 01:31 AM
Advanced Member
 
Anger.miki's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2018
Posts: 589
Mentioned: 18 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 347 Post(s)
Liked: 361
Hi omarank,
I'd like to know what Sony TV model you own. I opened your bcs and I have seen that measured max luminance is 81 nits and measured black level is 0.0000 which is not what I'd would expect from a LCD, is it maybe a CRT? In the profile name I read "Sony GameMode...", does it mean you have used a gaming picture mode?

Then, I played a bit with it and created a fit space LUT (as you said, it is the best option for you) pass black filter applied for eecolor:









Nothing to really be ashamed of, IMHO. Green is probably the critical color.

TVs: Pioneer PDP-LX5090H, LG OLED55C8PLA | SintoAmp: Pioneer VSX-921 | BD Player: Panasonic DMP-BDT260EG | External LUT box: Entertainment Experience eeColor | Softwares: Light Illusion Lightspace HTP, Portrait Displays CalMAN Home Enthusiast 2018 R3, HCFR, DisplayCAL | Probes: x-rite i1 Pro 2 - i1 Display Pro OEM B-02, basICColor DISCUS | Test Pattern Generator: DVDO AVLab TPG
Anger.miki is offline  
post #1867 of 2284 Old 02-11-2019, 01:36 AM
aka jfinnie
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: Norwich, UK
Posts: 2,893
Mentioned: 44 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2343 Post(s)
Liked: 1488
Quote:
Originally Posted by Manni01 View Post
Welcome to the club

In my experience, Ligthspace customer support always blame the display or the user (sometimes both) as a first port of call. It doesn't matter how experienced you are in calibration, how many times you've been right before, how well you know the display, or how other software do better with the same profile/data. If Lightspace doesn't deliver good results, it's because you're doing it wrong or the display is beyond salvation. And if you need ten steps with Lightspace to get what other solutions deliver in one, then tough. In other words, the customer is always wrong.

I'm glad to see that I'm not the only one experiencing or reporting these issues, as I've been told repeatedly. Or to report that DisplayCAL produces better results from the same LS profile, which entirely rules out profiling, display ability or meter issues, but clearly lays the blame at LS LUT engine's door.

Hopefully some welcome improvements in LS will come out of this.

By the way, another thing that was never explained or resolved: do you notice too that when the LS LUT is enabled, the greyscale is worse at 10% and below than with the LUT disabled (after a gamma autocal, so with a very decent baseline before the LUT). For some reason that's what I always observe with LS. Gamma/RGB balance is better above 10% white, and worse below.
In the interest of balance, I think DisplayCAL LUTs are "often rougher" than LS and not as performant where they are working equally, which is why I persist - for me this looks just like a math / algorithm issue when displays have a certain characteristic. It is heartening to see that other folk get the same characteristic "random areas on an otherwise OK looking LUT" - this to me says if addressed it could be really high performing.

I don't pay as much attention to the low end GS anymore as I tend not to correct the GS before profiling and loading a LUT. For me the GS got much better and more predictable since doing this. I don't even adjust the WP any more, in case the extra level of colour temp adjustment adds something the LUT has to work around (I dislike the pivoting nature of the gain / bias colour temp controls - the unadjusted colour temp balance graphs look nicer - flat parallel lines). For what it is worth I think there are 2 inherent dangers in correcting the GS before profiling:
1) you can be targeting using the dE or zoom widgets, but end up with all your greyscale points in slightly different rotation around the greyscale neutral axis, which being pragmatic about things is quite likely to trip up an algorithm. The closer you can get to the actual values just being sent to the panels the better. The one exception I make is I think there is value in adjusting the panel gamma of the projector using autocal first.
2) even the Discus off screen has clear issues measuring colour accurately between JVC black and close to 10%, so there is a question of how valid the adjustments actually are for the GS that can be come up with. When I've played with fixing up the GS after the fact in the Radiance like @KarlKlammer is doing (you get 21pt GS you can adjust easily from the UI) what you realise is at the low values the adjustments that make reasonably large differences to the GS measurement are pretty tiny, so I think you have to temper your expectations a little about how good this can really be.

I do think a lot of the above that I wrote is just my personal preference and prejudice from having spent time fiddling with these units, it probably doesn't merit much in-depth discourse!

Last edited by bobof; 02-11-2019 at 01:40 AM.
bobof is offline  
post #1868 of 2284 Old 02-11-2019, 02:15 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Manni01's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 9,020
Mentioned: 313 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5365 Post(s)
Liked: 5427
Quote:
Originally Posted by bobof View Post
In the interest of balance, I think DisplayCAL LUTs are "often rougher" than LS and not as performant where they are working equally, which is why I persist - for me this looks just like a math / algorithm issue when displays have a certain characteristic. It is heartening to see that other folk get the same characteristic "random areas on an otherwise OK looking LUT" - this to me says if addressed it could be really high performing.

I don't pay as much attention to the low end GS anymore as I tend not to correct the GS before profiling and loading a LUT. For me the GS got much better and more predictable since doing this. I don't even adjust the WP any more, in case the extra level of colour temp adjustment adds something the LUT has to work around (I dislike the pivoting nature of the gain / bias colour temp controls - the unadjusted colour temp balance graphs look nicer - flat parallel lines). For what it is worth I think there are 2 inherent dangers in correcting the GS before profiling:
1) you can be targeting using the dE or zoom widgets, but end up with all your greyscale points in slightly different rotation around the greyscale neutral axis, which being pragmatic about things is quite likely to trip up an algorithm. The closer you can get to the actual values just being sent to the panels the better. The one exception I make is I think there is value in adjusting the panel gamma of the projector using autocal first.
2) even the Discus off screen has clear issues measuring colour accurately between JVC black and close to 10%, so there is a question of how valid the adjustments actually are for the GS that can be come up with. When I've played with fixing up the GS after the fact in the Radiance like @KarlKlammer is doing (you get 21pt GS you can adjust easily from the UI) what you realise is at the low values the adjustments that make reasonably large differences to the GS measurement are pretty tiny, so I think you have to temper your expectations a little about how good this can really be.

I do think a lot of the above that I wrote is just my personal preference and prejudice from having spent time fiddling with these units, it probably doesn't merit much in-depth discourse!
Remember that I don't have a Radiance, but use MadVR LUTs. This means that my LUTs can only correct content from MadVR.

So what usually do (and have done successfully for a long time) is get a baseline as close as possible with the JVC Autocal for my non-madVR source, and create a 3D LUT on top to get near reference results. Not perfect, I don't care about perfect, my projector drifts so perfect won't be perfect for more than a session. Just very good for 300-500 hours, before the next calibration.

I don't have the issue near black you report with the Discus. I use dark to bright sequence patterns though because the 2 hours dark cal window of the Discus is a bit short for a 5000point LUT (even with LS that handle the Discus faster than CM), and that works fine for me. I always wonder why 10% and below is worse once the LUT is applied, but it's not the biggest issue I have.

With this undersaturation issue, I've tried the other way around (that doesn't give me significantly better results with a non-undersaturated baseline) and used color profile off (no processing, no gamma calibration, no white point calibration). The RGB separation before the 3D LUT wasn't better, and the posterization issue on cyan was still present. Plus the gamut was smaller as the filter can't be enabled with profile off, as you know, so made no sense to use in this situation. In fact my SDR DCI-P3 calibration is only used by MadVR, so I could do whatever I want with it, but no processing makes no positive difference here.

I agree with you though that DisplayCAL LUT's are not overall necessarily better, just that they don't exhibit this posterization issue that Lioghtspace LUT have without using the LUT concatenation procedure here.

I have always been careful to say "here" or "in my experience". I'm not trying to bash Lighspace. I'm only expressing frustration at the way feedback is received (it's always incredibly painful, frustrating and alienating, no credit is ever given to my experience in calibration or my track record) and processed (nothing happens unless it's either minor, such as a missing gamut target, or a blatant error that would affect 100% of the users, such as the BT1886 implementation errors, and even that took me weeks to get nowhere, the issue was only corrected when the entire world told Ligh Illusion it was wrong). If it's only a problem for MadVR or JVC users, the answer is always the same: it's the user's fault or the display's fault, or the meter's fault, or whatever justifies doing nothing. Lightspace is working as intended. Why don't you apply five different convoluted manual steps and stop complaining?

I have never and will never make blanket statements about Lightspace. It is a very good LUT generator when it works. It even works for me in some situations (rec-709 when not undersaturated), and I agree that in that case the results tend to be excellent. I'm hoping it will work significantly better with my rs2000, as I have said, as my gamut won't be undersaturated in rec-709 or in P3 (touch wood). Still, I know that I won't have the choice to calibrate to P3 without the filter to save brightness, because my gamut will only cover 95% of P3, or BT2020.

I mainly regret the non-existant support/maintenance for MadVR and or JVC users. I don't think that Steve uses MadVR or or that anyone in house knows the software. For example he never simply generated a P3 LUT to confirm that the header was invalid once uploaded, instead he found suspicious that I was the only one to report the issue, as if that was suspicious...

I would also like to know if any of the issues reported (clearly not only by myself) are going to get improved in Lighspace or in Colourspace, at least by the time we are asked to make the decision to trade up or not.

If there is no improvement, I am unlikely to trade-up, because I don't see the point in purchasing a software that offers some support but no maintenance for JVC/MadVR users.

If Light Illusion doesn't want our business, tell the user that these are not supported. At least it will be clearer, and no one will complain (or buy) the software and feel like they become a nuisance rather than a customer.

This is especially frustrating when friends, who are using more mainstream displays or VPs, keep lauding how Steve's support is amazing, how reactive he is, and so on.

I don't doubt that it's the case for some, and they are lucky. It's just not my experience as a JVC/MadVR user.
bobof and omarank like this.

JVC Autocal Software V11 Calibration for 2019 Models (Google)
Batch Utility V4.02 May 16 2019 to automate measurements files for madVR with support for BD Folders

Last edited by Manni01; 02-11-2019 at 02:44 AM.
Manni01 is offline  
post #1869 of 2284 Old 02-11-2019, 02:41 AM
aka jfinnie
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: Norwich, UK
Posts: 2,893
Mentioned: 44 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2343 Post(s)
Liked: 1488
Quote:
Originally Posted by Manni01 View Post
Remember that I don't have a Radiance, but use MadVR LUTs. This means that my LUTs can only correct content from MadVR.
Spoiler!
I forget you have a different need / approach to me as you can only get the LUT for your HTPC content. Of course your approach makes complete sense in that context.

I agree with the sentiment and content above, I've always had fast support response but mixed tone/results with bug reports (which often are in some supporting bit of kit to be fair, like driver DLLs etc). Anyway, I'm generally a happy user of LS these days except for trying to get sensible LUTs out of this.

I think that using the concatenate LUT will probably work better if I further reduce the intermediate gamut in the process so that all the edge points measured are in gamut (I think just using the 255,0,0 0,255,0 and 0,0,255 point x,y to define the gamut leaves some points which still don't reach the gamut edge). But that is all quite painful, I'll have to go through it trying the find the "smallest" points at luminance levels I care about and then use those.

As a side note, on the new JVC, prepare for perhaps an even more exciting base gamut volume I guess as it will now have a filter loaded in both the green and red light path, but not blue... >Mind blown< !
Manni01 likes this.
bobof is offline  
post #1870 of 2284 Old 02-11-2019, 02:42 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Light Illusion's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 1,750
Mentioned: 24 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 733 Post(s)
Liked: 1074
Any display with a response as shown by Jamie's is well outside what is remotely accepted as a viable display for calibration.

Different calibration algorithms will generate different errors in their results.

Some errors may be more acceptable to some, other less so.

But, such displays are well outside our expected tolerance levels, and we can never guarantee any final calibration results on such poor displays.

If the user also uses internal controls to further distort the non-additive nature of such displays to try to gain increased gamut coverage (very poor RGB Separation), the likey outcome will become worse.

When we encounter such appalling displays we will always inform the user that the display is really not fit for purpose - as that is the reality.

I would immediately reject any display that was that bad.

In trying to adjust the LightSpace colour engine to better deal with such crappy displays will likely cause issues elsewhere...

Just look at how poor the display profile data is.
How any display manufacturer can propose that as being acceptable is beyond me.

Steve

Steve Shaw
LIGHT ILLUSION

Light Illusion is offline  
post #1871 of 2284 Old 02-11-2019, 02:50 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Manni01's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 9,020
Mentioned: 313 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5365 Post(s)
Liked: 5427
Quote:
Originally Posted by Light Illusion View Post
Any display with a response as shown by Jamie's is well outside what is remotely accepted as a viable display for calibration.

Different calibration algorithms will generate different errors in their results.

Some errors may be more acceptable to some, other less so.

But, such displays are well outside our expected tolerance levels, and we can never guarantee any final calibration results on such poor displays.

If the user also uses internal controls to further distort the non-additive nature of such displays to try to gain increased gamut coverage (very poor RGB Separation), the likey outcome will become worse.

When we encounter such appalling displays we will always inform the user that the display is really not fit for purpose - as that is the reality.

I would immediately reject any display that was that bad.

In trying to adjust the LightSpace colour engine to better deal with such crappy displays will likely cause issues elsewhere...

Just look at how poor the display profile data is.
How any display manufacturer can propose that as being acceptable is beyond me.

Steve
These displays are *not* used for grading Steve. They are consumer displays. And very polular ones. My license is a HC license, not a pro one.

Plus mine wasn't like this when new. It covered 100% of rec-709 without the filter and 100% of P3 with the filter. It just happens that in some cases, for some reasons, the gamut can shrink a little as the projector ages (3000 hours on mine) and then we have to find ways around it because we can't send them back. Plus the consumer standard calls for a minimum of 90% of P3, not 100% of P3. As it happens, our displays are still within the UHD Premium specs.

I get good calibrations for rec-709 using Lightspace with the filter, because I cover 100% of rec-709 color volume that way. But of course that doesn't help entirely with P3. I'm not the only user in this situation, as you can see.

For me, an error that I don't see is far better than an error I can see. In this case, DisplayCAL might not get the greyscale perfect, but there is no posterization. I don't see the greyscale errors, I see the posterization everytime there are specific shades of cyan on screen (for example in The Shallows, when we see the lagoon at the beginning in an aerial shot).

Also errors at the edge of the gamut will only be seen when there is actual content there, which is not often the case. As long as the inside of the cube tracks well, the results can be excellent.

Of course I wouldn't use my undersaturated JVC for grading P3 content, especially in its current state. Still, I want to get the best of it as it ages and as it drifts. It still produces some of the best picture available at home on a large screen.

So why don't you state that you don't support the JVCs (or all displays that don't meet 100% of the target) or MadVR and give us a refund, or understand what our needs are and deliver the promised maintenance?

Remember that 100% of consumer displays don't meet 100% of BT2020, and that only MadVR (or the Radiance) allows to use a P3 calibration for consumer content. All consumer sources send BT2020, so all consumer displays should use a BT2020 calibration when not using MadVR or a Radiance with a consumer source. What do you do with that, given that at best a consumer display can only reach 65-70% of P3???????? You ask the consumer to send them all back?

My UB900, like all consumer sources, can only output Rec-709 or Bt2020. P3 isnt't an option. At the moment, I need two calibrations, one to BT2020 for this player (no 3D LUT), and one to P3 for MadVR, to limit posterization issues. It would be nice to be able to use the same calibration for both, with the 3D LUT improving the baseline when using MadVR content. But if you do that, the amount of posterization is simply impossible.

You need to improve the 3D LUT engine so that it *automatically* detects when one or more primaries are undersaturated and *automatically* produces the best possible results, avoiding *visible* errors such as posterization as much as possible. Telling your users it's unavoidable or that they shoudl reject their displays is *not* helpful.

This is exactly the kind of alienating support I was referring to.
KarlKlammer and omarank like this.

JVC Autocal Software V11 Calibration for 2019 Models (Google)
Batch Utility V4.02 May 16 2019 to automate measurements files for madVR with support for BD Folders

Last edited by Manni01; 02-11-2019 at 03:15 AM.
Manni01 is offline  
post #1872 of 2284 Old 02-11-2019, 03:09 AM
aka jfinnie
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: Norwich, UK
Posts: 2,893
Mentioned: 44 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2343 Post(s)
Liked: 1488
Quote:
Originally Posted by Light Illusion View Post
Any display with a response as shown by Jamie's is well outside what is remotely accepted as a viable display for calibration.

Different calibration algorithms will generate different errors in their results.

Some errors may be more acceptable to some, other less so.

But, such displays are well outside our expected tolerance levels, and we can never guarantee any final calibration results on such poor displays.

If the user also uses internal controls to further distort the non-additive nature of such displays to try to gain increased gamut coverage (very poor RGB Separation), the likey outcome will become worse.

When we encounter such appalling displays we will always inform the user that the display is really not fit for purpose - as that is the reality.

I would immediately reject any display that was that bad.

In trying to adjust the LightSpace colour engine to better deal with such crappy displays will likely cause issues elsewhere...

Just look at how poor the display profile data is.
How any display manufacturer can propose that as being acceptable is beyond me.
Well I guess I'll just need to buy a perfect display and 3D LUT correct it... Oh hang on a second... I don't really need LS any more :-p

I'm being slightly facetious but I'm sure the point isn't lost on you that we're buying a product for home theatre display calibration (HTL/P), we're using commonly used home theatre displays, and finding it doesn't seem to work. I say seem, I'm still open that I might just be doing something dumb. But if the dumb thing is that I tried to use it with these displays... Hrm. These may not be pro displays, and they may be taking shortcuts or behaving a bit oddly. But they are what we have, they're pretty popular in the market, and knowing upfront that it was very difficult to LUT with a particular solution would affect the buying process for sure (perhaps for the display, but more likely for LS, because there aren't many displays people actually want to / can buy for these home applications). Many of us are buying this just to correct the one display we have and use, so if it doesn't work the whole thing just doesn't work for us.

Most of the LUTS I can make actually look defective, not just "noisy" or "poor" for this display, it is only the fit space LUT for me that works (which I understand is really mostly a matrix LUT combined with a 1D greyscale adjustment) for this display without getting into the LUT concatenation process (which I'm going to re-do and re-try with a further reduced gamut as per previous post).

If it is helpful I can measure a small profile with the spectro instead (either the JETI1201 if I have 4 hrs! or the i1pro2) to check this isn't some catastrophe with the colorimeter or matrix correction - is that a possible explanation? (I guess unlikely though since you've show the profile errors as mapped to the self relative gamut extents, which effectively - if I understand right - "undo" the matrix correction of the meter anyway).

Anyway, as I say if there is anything I can provide or do which might help get better results I am all ears.
Manni01 likes this.
bobof is offline  
post #1873 of 2284 Old 02-11-2019, 03:13 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Manni01's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 9,020
Mentioned: 313 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5365 Post(s)
Liked: 5427
Quote:
Originally Posted by bobof View Post
Well I guess I'll just need to buy a perfect display and 3D LUT correct it... Oh hang on a second... I don't really need LS any more :-p

I'm being slightly facetious but I'm sure the point isn't lost on you that we're buying a product for home theatre display calibration (HTL/P), we're using commonly used home theatre displays, and finding it doesn't seem to work. I say seem, I'm still open that I might just be doing something dumb. But if the dumb thing is that I tried to use it with these displays... Hrm. These may not be pro displays, and they may be taking shortcuts or behaving a bit oddly. But they are what we have, they're pretty popular in the market, and knowing upfront that it was very difficult to LUT with a particular solution would affect the buying process for sure (perhaps for the display, but more likely for LS, because there aren't many displays people actually want to / can buy for these home applications). Many of us are buying this just to correct the one display we have and use, so if it doesn't work the whole thing just doesn't work for us.

Most of the LUTS I can make actually look defective, not just "noisy" or "poor" for this display, it is only the fit space LUT for me that works (which I understand is really mostly a matrix LUT combined with a 1D greyscale adjustment) for this display without getting into the LUT concatenation process (which I'm going to re-do and re-try with a further reduced gamut as per previous post).

If it is helpful I can measure a small profile with the spectro instead (either the JETI1201 if I have 4 hrs! or the i1pro2) to check this isn't some catastrophe with the colorimeter or matrix correction - is that a possible explanation? (I guess unlikely though since you've show the profile errors as mapped to the self relative gamut extents, which effectively - if I understand right - "undo" the matrix correction of the meter anyway).

Anyway, as I say if there is anything I can provide or do which might help get better results I am all ears.
Forget about the i1pro2, I tried this to rule out Discus errors and the limited accuracy below 20% white makes a profile with the i1pro2 pointless. It should really only be used to train the Discus.

Don't know about the Jeti, but I suspect similar pointless results. You would need a K10a to get better results than with the Discus.

JVC Autocal Software V11 Calibration for 2019 Models (Google)
Batch Utility V4.02 May 16 2019 to automate measurements files for madVR with support for BD Folders
Manni01 is offline  
post #1874 of 2284 Old 02-11-2019, 03:24 AM
aka jfinnie
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: Norwich, UK
Posts: 2,893
Mentioned: 44 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2343 Post(s)
Liked: 1488
Quote:
Originally Posted by Manni01 View Post
Remember that 100% of consumer displays don't meet 100% of BT2020, and that only MadVR (or the Radiance) allows to use a P3 calibration for consumer content. All consumer sources send BT2020, so all consumer displays should use a BT2020 calibration when not using MadVR or a Radiance with a consumer source. What do you do with that, given that at best a consumer display can only reach 65-70% of P3???????? You ask the consumer to send them all back?
.
For what it is worth, I don't think it is as clear cut as this. Engineering intuition (plus having looked at someone else's LUT for a different display tech) make me think that just having an undersaturated gamut isn't the only trigger here, that the issue is more nuanced; I think it is an an interaction between the particular native gamut characteristics, assumptions in the LUT engine math and the under saturation all coming together.

Doesn't make it any less annoying to those of us experiencing it, but I don't think all understaturated displays will behave this way.
bobof is offline  
post #1875 of 2284 Old 02-11-2019, 03:26 AM
Advanced Member
 
Anger.miki's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2018
Posts: 589
Mentioned: 18 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 347 Post(s)
Liked: 361
Okay, attached you'll find my latest Kuro profile. I just did a WP RGB high balance and used TV native gamut, nothing more. Right now I don't have time to try but if you have it, create a LUT with bt.2020 and/or DCI P3 D65 with 2.35 gamma. If LS LUT engine is faulty you'll see the same issue also here as my TV doesn't cover even 90% of P3 or 75% of bt.2020.
Attached Files
File Type: zip 21p Kuro Discus_i1pro2 DVDO.zip (340.9 KB, 2 views)

TVs: Pioneer PDP-LX5090H, LG OLED55C8PLA | SintoAmp: Pioneer VSX-921 | BD Player: Panasonic DMP-BDT260EG | External LUT box: Entertainment Experience eeColor | Softwares: Light Illusion Lightspace HTP, Portrait Displays CalMAN Home Enthusiast 2018 R3, HCFR, DisplayCAL | Probes: x-rite i1 Pro 2 - i1 Display Pro OEM B-02, basICColor DISCUS | Test Pattern Generator: DVDO AVLab TPG
Anger.miki is offline  
post #1876 of 2284 Old 02-11-2019, 03:28 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Light Illusion's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 1,750
Mentioned: 24 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 733 Post(s)
Liked: 1074
The under gamut is not the issue.

It is exasperating the problem, which is the horrendous volumetric tracking.

Either on their own will be manageable

Together is the issue.

Steve

Steve Shaw
LIGHT ILLUSION

Light Illusion is offline  
post #1877 of 2284 Old 02-11-2019, 03:32 AM
aka jfinnie
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: Norwich, UK
Posts: 2,893
Mentioned: 44 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2343 Post(s)
Liked: 1488
Quote:
Originally Posted by Manni01 View Post
Forget about the i1pro2, I tried this to rule out Discus errors and the limited accuracy below 20% white makes a profile with the i1pro2 pointless. It should really only be used to train the Discus.

Don't know about the Jeti, but I suspect similar pointless results. You would need a K10a to get better results than with the Discus.
I can just discount the issues that might happen at the bottom end, I'm not looking at those at the moment (unless they're a cause of the LUT issues). This was just a suggestion to be able to get a profile which hasn't been through colorimeter correction / tristimulus metering to see if there was something that process is adding which means my workflow is defective. I guess Steve could load up such a spectro profile into his tool and tell me it is still very much a broken display, or that now it looks OK and you're meter technique is / was broken.

The JETI1201 has a top end of 70,000cd/m2 I recall (!) so I could just stick it right at the lens with the diffuser on which would further eliminate the screen - it really would just be a profile of the light coming out of the PJ at that point. I'm picking up a taller tripod this evening which should make that easier - current tripod has to be balanced on a sofa to get it to the lens.

I think I'll take the pain this evening and generate a 10^3 profile with the JETI at the lens, then I think I've removed any concerns over profile measurement etc.

Edit: Of course, the colorimeter / spectro corrected profile I already have worked "OK" in DisplayCAL, but I think it is still an interesting test in the interest of elimination as I don't know exactly what combination of circumstance leads to this.

Last edited by bobof; 02-11-2019 at 03:36 AM.
bobof is offline  
post #1878 of 2284 Old 02-11-2019, 03:34 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Manni01's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 9,020
Mentioned: 313 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5365 Post(s)
Liked: 5427
Quote:
Originally Posted by bobof View Post
For what it is worth, I don't think it is as clear cut as this. Engineering intuition (plus having looked at someone else's LUT for a different display tech) make me think that just having an undersaturated gamut isn't the only trigger here, that the issue is more nuanced; I think it is an an interaction between the particular native gamut characteristics, assumptions in the LUT engine math and the under saturation all coming together.

Doesn't make it any less annoying to those of us experiencing it, but I don't think all understaturated displays will behave this way.
I use undersaturation as a shortcut, if you prefer we can say color volume not meeting the target.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Light Illusion View Post
The under gamut is not the issue.

It is exasperating the problem, which is the horrendous volumetric tracking.

Either on their own will be manageable

Together is the issue.

Steve
Sure, and how does it make it more acceptable that Lightspace fails to give good results in this situation, unlike other solutions or unlike Lightspace itself if going through the convoluted LUT concatenation process?

The issue *is* manageable. You're only asking the user in this situation to go through 10 different manual steps (even worse for the MadVR user who also has to manually apply a videoscale filter because you won't let them save the setting), when it's not an uncommon situation with HDR calibration.
bobof and omarank like this.

JVC Autocal Software V11 Calibration for 2019 Models (Google)
Batch Utility V4.02 May 16 2019 to automate measurements files for madVR with support for BD Folders
Manni01 is offline  
post #1879 of 2284 Old 02-11-2019, 03:39 AM
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 46
Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 25 Post(s)
Liked: 26
Quote:
Originally Posted by Anger.miki View Post
Hi omarank,
I'd like to know what Sony TV model you own. I opened your bcs and I have seen that measured max luminance is 81 nits and measured black level is 0.0000 which is not what I'd would expect from a LCD, is it maybe a CRT? In the profile name I read "Sony GameMode...", does it mean you have used a gaming picture mode?

Then, I played a bit with it and created a fit space LUT (as you said, it is the best option for you) pass black filter applied for eecolor:
...

Nothing to really be ashamed of, IMHO. Green is probably the critical color.
It's an LED TV. I shared a random profile that I got handy. During this profiling, Game Mode was used as it was the only mode that preserved Chroma 4:4:4 and as I was also doing some work on the TV using it like a monitor, I had to settle at around 80 nits, as 100 nits seemed too bright on this display for that purpose. Not sure about 0 black level. All I remember is that the black level was really low. It could be my i1D3 struggled at that low black level and gave invalid readings which LS made 0.

I am not trying to contradict that this display is bad. The point is that even when it is bad, I am getting a pretty decent LUT using Argyll/Display CAL (you can generate it too using ls2ti3 method). Among the LS LUTs, only the FitSpace LUT is decent and the rest are terrible when we visualize them. IIRC, FitSpace LUT measured the worst when I did the verification. MapSpace measured the best, then Argyll followed by FitSpace. Visually too, Argyll LUT was rather better than the FitSpace LUT. You can load both the LUTs in madVR and see what I mean. Incidentally, the three other displays that I have calibrated (a Dell monitor and two laptop displays) also have smaller than Rec709 gamut. And in all three cases, I could not get a satisfactory LUT from LS which was better than Argyll LUT. In my experience, I have often found that FitSpace LUT looks better than MapSpace in the 3D Cube view but has lesser accuracy than MapSpace. Anway, soon I will be upgrading my TV and for sure it will have larger than Rec709 gamut. I hope that I would be able to get a good/watchable LUT from LS then.

As Manni pointed out, LS LUTs show problems when the display gamut is smaller than the target and that the display is blamed for such problems when other software can handle such displays pretty nicely. I just shared this example to show my similar experience.
Manni01 and bobof like this.
omarank is offline  
post #1880 of 2284 Old 02-11-2019, 04:29 AM
Advanced Member
 
Anger.miki's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2018
Posts: 589
Mentioned: 18 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 347 Post(s)
Liked: 361
Ok, thanks. Probably there's a "dimming" settings on your Sony that should be switched off?

Back to the main issue: so what you are asking for is to have less color accuracy in favor of less artifact, right? After a manual calibration, how's the color accuracy? Any visible artifact?

I'm sorry if I sound dumb, but I'm just trying to focus the problem better.

TVs: Pioneer PDP-LX5090H, LG OLED55C8PLA | SintoAmp: Pioneer VSX-921 | BD Player: Panasonic DMP-BDT260EG | External LUT box: Entertainment Experience eeColor | Softwares: Light Illusion Lightspace HTP, Portrait Displays CalMAN Home Enthusiast 2018 R3, HCFR, DisplayCAL | Probes: x-rite i1 Pro 2 - i1 Display Pro OEM B-02, basICColor DISCUS | Test Pattern Generator: DVDO AVLab TPG
Anger.miki is offline  
post #1881 of 2284 Old 02-11-2019, 04:49 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Manni01's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 9,020
Mentioned: 313 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5365 Post(s)
Liked: 5427
Quote:
Originally Posted by omarank View Post
It's an LED TV. I shared a random profile that I got handy. During this profiling, Game Mode was used as it was the only mode that preserved Chroma 4:4:4 and as I was also doing some work on the TV using it like a monitor, I had to settle at around 80 nits, as 100 nits seemed too bright on this display for that purpose. Not sure about 0 black level. All I remember is that the black level was really low. It could be my i1D3 struggled at that low black level and gave invalid readings which LS made 0.
Yes the i1d3 is really poor at reading black. It's not even able to read 5% white accurately in SDR with a JVC in low lamp. I tried a couple and sent them back when it became clear it wasn't a specific unit that was defective. Purchased the Discus and never looked back (I do have an i1pro2 to profile it though, otherwise the i1d3 is a better overall option as the Discus isn't as accurate on its own, at least not on LCOS). Once profile, it's much better than the i1d3 near black.

The i1d3 will either return 0 or a fixed value depending on the software when the reading is too low. In that case it's better to enter a black level manually (estimated or measured with a more accurate meter with these settings) if the software allows it, or to avoid BT1886 as the targets will be wrong (too high) in that case in the low end, leading most probably to crushed blacks. A classic power gamma should be fine as targets are fixed and don't take black into account.
Anger.miki likes this.

JVC Autocal Software V11 Calibration for 2019 Models (Google)
Batch Utility V4.02 May 16 2019 to automate measurements files for madVR with support for BD Folders

Last edited by Manni01; 02-11-2019 at 04:55 AM.
Manni01 is offline  
post #1882 of 2284 Old 02-11-2019, 06:49 AM
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 46
Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 25 Post(s)
Liked: 26
Quote:
Originally Posted by Anger.miki View Post
Ok, thanks. Probably there's a "dimming" settings on your Sony that should be switched off?

Back to the main issue: so what you are asking for is to have less color accuracy in favor of less artifact, right? After a manual calibration, how's the color accuracy? Any visible artifact?

I'm sorry if I sound dumb, but I'm just trying to focus the problem better.
Dimming was turned off.

I would put it this way: highest color accuracy that can be achieved while having the least artifacts. The TV is a Sony KDL W800B. It does not have a CMS, only Gamma and 2p White Balance settings are there in the Menu. The last time I checked I could see posterization with Ted's patterns. Visually, artifacts could be seen in clothings and some textures with the Map Space LUT.
omarank is offline  
post #1883 of 2284 Old 02-11-2019, 06:56 AM
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 46
Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 25 Post(s)
Liked: 26
Quote:
Originally Posted by Manni01 View Post
Yes the i1d3 is really poor at reading black. It's not even able to read 5% white accurately in SDR with a JVC in low lamp. I tried a couple and sent them back when it became clear it wasn't a specific unit that was defective. Purchased the Discus and never looked back (I do have an i1pro2 to profile it though, otherwise the i1d3 is a better overall option as the Discus isn't as accurate on its own, at least not on LCOS). Once profile, it's much better than the i1d3 near black.

The i1d3 will either return 0 or a fixed value depending on the software when the reading is too low. In that case it's better to enter a black level manually (estimated or measured with a more accurate meter with these settings) if the software allows it, or to avoid BT1886 as the targets will be wrong (too high) in that case in the low end, leading most probably to crushed blacks. A classic power gamma should be fine as targets are fixed and don't take black into account.
Right. I am not a fan of BT1886. Always use power gamma. I have an i1Pro2 as well, but certainly nothing can be done about i1D3's problems with low light measurements. Discus is interesting, but as you are aware Argyll does not support it.
Manni01 likes this.
omarank is offline  
post #1884 of 2284 Old 02-11-2019, 07:24 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Manni01's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 9,020
Mentioned: 313 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5365 Post(s)
Liked: 5427
Quote:
Originally Posted by Anger.miki View Post
Ok, thanks. Probably there's a "dimming" settings on your Sony that should be switched off?

Back to the main issue: so what you are asking for is to have less color accuracy in favor of less artifact, right? After a manual calibration, how's the color accuracy? Any visible artifact?

I'm sorry if I sound dumb, but I'm just trying to focus the problem better.
What we're asking is for those of us who have displays that don't reach 100% of the target color volume, to have LS to give us an *option* to *automatically* detect this situation and *automatically* apply the LUT concatenation procedure, which as far as I'm concerned is the only way to get a good compromise.

Failing this, to give us the option to *manually* select an option that applies the LUT concatenation procedure, i.e. *automatically* calculates the custom gamut and *automatically* concatenates the LUTs.

Failing this, to improve/fix the Map Space option (or provide a new option) so that it delivers the same results as the LUT concatenation method. Unlike what Steve claims, this isn't the case at the moment, at least here.

Any of these solutions would be better than what we have to do.

Again, it's not only "imperfect" displays.

It's projectors that reach 100% of P3 with a filter, but that might reach 95% without the filter and get 15-25% more brightness that way. In HDR, that would produce a better picture than a "more perfect" calibration with 25% less brightness, given that there is little to no content between 95% and 100% of P3. When you only have 100nits or less to tonemap HDR, 25% more brightness is a big deal!

It's displays that reach a bit less than the target color volume, but are not bad displays.

It's every single consumer display if you want to get a BT2020 calibration, which is the standard expected by all consumer sources, because exactly zero consumer display reaches 100% of BT2020.

It's not as if Lightspace isn't able to provide a better compromise (i.e. one with less *visible* errors), it's just that Light Illusion doesn't want to make it *easier* for the user to get this better compromise, and instead prefers to declare the display as being unfit.

Fine, then specify that you don't support any display that doesn't cover 100% of the target volume, and let's see what it does to the sales
omarank likes this.

JVC Autocal Software V11 Calibration for 2019 Models (Google)
Batch Utility V4.02 May 16 2019 to automate measurements files for madVR with support for BD Folders

Last edited by Manni01; 02-11-2019 at 08:33 AM.
Manni01 is offline  
post #1885 of 2284 Old 02-11-2019, 08:26 AM
Advanced Member
 
Anger.miki's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2018
Posts: 589
Mentioned: 18 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 347 Post(s)
Liked: 361
Does my kuro cover 100% of bt.2020 color volume?

TVs: Pioneer PDP-LX5090H, LG OLED55C8PLA | SintoAmp: Pioneer VSX-921 | BD Player: Panasonic DMP-BDT260EG | External LUT box: Entertainment Experience eeColor | Softwares: Light Illusion Lightspace HTP, Portrait Displays CalMAN Home Enthusiast 2018 R3, HCFR, DisplayCAL | Probes: x-rite i1 Pro 2 - i1 Display Pro OEM B-02, basICColor DISCUS | Test Pattern Generator: DVDO AVLab TPG
Anger.miki is offline  
post #1886 of 2284 Old 02-11-2019, 08:30 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Manni01's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 9,020
Mentioned: 313 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5365 Post(s)
Liked: 5427
Quote:
Originally Posted by Anger.miki View Post
Does my kuro cover 100% of bt.2020 color volume?
Of course not. AFAIK no consumer display currently covers more than at best 70% of BT2020.

JVC Autocal Software V11 Calibration for 2019 Models (Google)
Batch Utility V4.02 May 16 2019 to automate measurements files for madVR with support for BD Folders

Last edited by Manni01; 02-11-2019 at 08:50 AM.
Manni01 is offline  
post #1887 of 2284 Old 02-11-2019, 08:47 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: Mississauga, ON, Canada
Posts: 6,462
Mentioned: 121 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4508 Post(s)
Liked: 1685
Quote:
Originally Posted by Manni01 View Post
Yes the i1d3 is really poor at reading black. It's not even able to read 5% white accurately in SDR with a JVC in low lamp. I tried a couple and sent them back when it became clear it wasn't a specific unit that was defective. Purchased the Discus and never looked back (I do have an i1pro2 to profile it though, otherwise the i1d3 is a better overall option as the Discus isn't as accurate on its own, at least not on LCOS). Once profile, it's much better than the i1d3 near black.

The i1d3 will either return 0 or a fixed value depending on the software when the reading is too low. In that case it's better to enter a black level manually (estimated or measured with a more accurate meter with these settings) if the software allows it, or to avoid BT1886 as the targets will be wrong (too high) in that case in the low end, leading most probably to crushed blacks. A classic power gamma should be fine as targets are fixed and don't take black into account.
My i1D3 (Rev A-02) produces "usable" readings down to about 2% (0.006 nits). I don't have a professional grade meter to check the accuracy, but it follows the expected gamma 2.2 closely. The Spyder5 facing lens produced a "smoother" curve (dotted line), but that may be simply because autocal was run using the Spyder5.
Attached Thumbnails
Click image for larger version

Name:	NearBlack_53nits_Cmp_Spyder5.jpg
Views:	16
Size:	143.4 KB
ID:	2524170  
Dominic Chan is online now  
post #1888 of 2284 Old 02-11-2019, 08:49 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Manni01's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 9,020
Mentioned: 313 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5365 Post(s)
Liked: 5427
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dominic Chan View Post
My i1D3 (Rev A-02) produces "usable" readings down to about 2% (0.006 nits). I don't have a professional grade meter to check the accuracy, but it follows the expected gamma 2.2 closely. The Spyder5 facing lens produced a "smoother" curve (dotted line), but that may be simply because autocal was run using the Spyder5.
Maybe the REV-A02 is better. Mayber your 2% is brighter than my 5% at the time. Who knows?

I only know that it's 100% unable to be used for BT1886 facing the screen with a JVC in low lamp.

It simply can't read black the way the Discus can (under specific conditions).

JVC Autocal Software V11 Calibration for 2019 Models (Google)
Batch Utility V4.02 May 16 2019 to automate measurements files for madVR with support for BD Folders
Manni01 is offline  
post #1889 of 2284 Old 02-11-2019, 08:55 AM
Advanced Member
 
Anger.miki's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2018
Posts: 589
Mentioned: 18 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 347 Post(s)
Liked: 361
You should be able to read the real black level of a LCD/LED anyway (0,1 nits+)

TVs: Pioneer PDP-LX5090H, LG OLED55C8PLA | SintoAmp: Pioneer VSX-921 | BD Player: Panasonic DMP-BDT260EG | External LUT box: Entertainment Experience eeColor | Softwares: Light Illusion Lightspace HTP, Portrait Displays CalMAN Home Enthusiast 2018 R3, HCFR, DisplayCAL | Probes: x-rite i1 Pro 2 - i1 Display Pro OEM B-02, basICColor DISCUS | Test Pattern Generator: DVDO AVLab TPG
Anger.miki is offline  
post #1890 of 2284 Old 02-11-2019, 09:10 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Manni01's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 9,020
Mentioned: 313 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5365 Post(s)
Liked: 5427
Quote:
Originally Posted by Anger.miki View Post
You should be able to read the real black level of a LCD/LED anyway (0,1 nits+)
Sure, but for some reason LS returned 0, so I was only trying to explain why that could be. As I said, with the i1d3, I either got 0 or a fixed bogus value (dpending on software) when the level was too low to be read. I'm not saying that there isn't another issue with the meter or with LS that causes 0 to be returned when it clearly should not.

JVC Autocal Software V11 Calibration for 2019 Models (Google)
Batch Utility V4.02 May 16 2019 to automate measurements files for madVR with support for BD Folders
Manni01 is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Reply Display Calibration

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off