Originally Posted by bobof
Indeed, if you don't mind, did you see my mention of you above? There are a couple of questions I wanted to ask you / hoped you might have your profile etc to share so I can see where the differences in our behaviour with seemingly the same process come from. Hoping that with more data I can chip away at understanding how it is all working or not; that our results are similar but different is interesting as we're clearly somewhere on a continuum perhaps from very broke, to a bit broke, to eventually not broke at all...
I saw that post and replied to it, but it looks like it got eaten in the ether.
I spent too much time last summer with this, I simply don't have the time to revisit this between my day job and my new rs2000 that has arrived and on which I'd rather concentrate.
I can tell you though that I was indeed using DCI-P3F with the RS500.
I'll post my feedback and measurements on this new unit in the JVC 2019 calibration thread, and when I get to create 3DLUTs with LS (which I will attempt *before* even running the JVC Autocal once, to rule out once and for all the idea that it could contribute to our issue), I'll report my results here, good or bad. I hope they will be better as the gamut cover is closer to target. In my experience LS produces excellent results when the display can reach the target color volume. My rec-709 baseline with the P3 filter reaches 100% of rec-709 color volume, and my LS 3D LUTs for that calibration (peak chroma) are flawless, without any need for concatenation.
The further away from the target color volume, the worse the results in my experience. In the case of the rs500 with 3000 hours on the clock, I had no choice but in the case of this brand new rs2000 I should have more choices. As I said, I'll post measurements and tips for JVC owners of the new models shortly.
One last point, which I think is important to make: I don't think this is a JVC issue at all. We do happen to be more technical users, and especially you,
and I are happy to do everything we can to eek the last ounce of performance out of them. We're not newbies, we're not technophobes, and we know our units, their limits and their capabilities inside out.
Sony projectors don't have the tools that JVCs projectors offer, and have even less gamut volume as they don't have a P3 filter (except the VW1x00ES line). So as far as the best consumer projectors are concerned, they are what they are. Even yours or mine are not unfit for purpose and they produce, especially once well-calibrated, a stellar picture, which can be achieved with LS in a very convoluted way, as well as with other calibration tools in a more straightforward way (especially if the meter used is natively supported).
Light Illusion, of their own admittance, simply have no experience of home calibration, and they see consumer displays unable to reach 100% of the target color volume as unfit for purpose. I wish this was stated clearly on their website on all the product pages, it would have saved me a lot of time, frustration, and possibly money. My understanding of using a 3D LUT is to achieve the best possible results within the limitations of the display, when not used for grading. That what I've always done, with great success, with all my JVCs.
Anyone who understands the basics of calibration knows that excellent results (and by this I don't mean only visually pleasing, I mean accurate) can be achieved from displays that only reach 90% of the target, as long as saturation and luminance track at all levels up to that point within the cube without causing visual artifacts. This is the whole idea behind using a 3D LUT. Given that there is little to no actual content towards the edge of the cube, this is not an issue with more than 90% of the actual content. Well, unless the 3D LUT produces visible artifact at the limit of the native gamut, such as posterization. This is the reason why UHD Premium only requires 90% of P3 cover. They know that most consumer displays would not qualify otherwise, and filmmakers don't mind because they know there is little to no content beyond 90% anyway. As long as 90% and below tracks properly, this limitation in the display is moot with 99% of the actual content, again with a good calibration. Heck, the actual target of the container (and of more and more of the actual content) is BT2020, and if we reach 70% of that we're lucky! I know this, you know this,
knows this, many others here know this and even Light Illusion knows this.
Bashing the manufacturer because they don't want to face their own responsibility is just one more attempt to pass the bucket.
I'm not sure why they entered the home cinema calibration market with this attitude, but it explains a lot.
I think we have voiced our position and made our point. I'll contribute later if I can when I have new information, I hope that Light Illusion will have a more positive attitude towards users who are only trying to do in a less convoluted way something that's entirely legitimate. Until then, I'm out too.