LightSpace 3D LUT Home Cinema Calibration Software - Page 85 - AVS Forum | Home Theater Discussions And Reviews
Forum Jump: 
 1217Likes
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #2521 of 2558 Old 12-31-2019, 12:48 PM
aka jfinnie
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: Norwich, UK
Posts: 3,733
Mentioned: 70 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2998 Post(s)
Liked: 2099
I'm not sure those tiny negative values are worth worrying about to be honest.

Looks fine to me now and I don't think you need to use colour sub space. The display, though wildly off hue vs REC709 appears to be linearish and doesn't have any gamut compression at the edges.

You can tell this by using a custom filter (see screenshot); set it to, for instance, "G==1 && B==0" to look at the gamut in the yellow > green direction. You want to check that the x,y values are always changing more or less as you'd expect as you get away from the primary towards the secondary. Particularly bad (at least for the LS engine) is if you have instances where you are moving away from the gamut edge in patch value, but the measured values aren't actually changing. If you see that it means some colour management is happening mapping the native response to a larger gamut, and in that case you have to try and find a smaller set of patches to measure to avoid upsetting the engine (and that is where the colour subspace stuff kicks in).

Anyway, I haven't checked all the edges - I'll leave that as an exercise for the reader. I did check the green one as that looks like it would be the most likely to be managed to try and map 709 and it looks fine, so I don't think you need to bother with the subspace. I did generate what looked like a fine LUT from your edge profile, you could try that, or maybe do a small cube profile and then generate a LUT as a test.
Attached Thumbnails
Click image for larger version

Name:	Screenshot 2019-12-31 at 19.29.56.png
Views:	28
Size:	706.2 KB
ID:	2661926  
mrtickleuk likes this.
bobof is online now  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #2522 of 2558 Old 12-31-2019, 12:52 PM
Member
 
anevard's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Montreal, Canada
Posts: 101
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 17 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by Anger.miki View Post
Sorry if you already exposed your workflow before but I’m guilty of not having read all your previous posts. That said, if your calibrating a WOLED there’s nothing you can actually do that might work for all readings, except changing panel technology or colorimeter. You might want to give volumetric probe matching a try or manually edit all you negative Z.
On a PJ, older JVC X35, waiting for my X790. Santa is a bit late.

Just trying to get the workflow cleaned up before the new PJ arrives. Meter is matrix profiled to i1PRO2.

Thanks for the thoughts.

Andrew
anevard is offline  
post #2523 of 2558 Old 12-31-2019, 01:10 PM
aka jfinnie
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: Norwich, UK
Posts: 3,733
Mentioned: 70 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2998 Post(s)
Liked: 2099
Quote:
Originally Posted by Anger.miki View Post
Sorry if you already exposed your workflow before but I’m guilty of not having read all your previous posts. That said, if your calibrating a WOLED there’s nothing you can actually do that might work for all readings, except changing panel technology or colorimeter. You might want to give volumetric probe matching a try or manually edit all you negative Z.
Do you really think it is necessary to do anything about the negative Z values at all? Their magnitude is vanishingly small.
bobof is online now  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #2524 of 2558 Old 12-31-2019, 05:05 PM
Advanced Member
 
Anger.miki's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2018
Posts: 754
Mentioned: 36 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 470 Post(s)
Liked: 528
Yes, but still wrong and... negative! Lol

T.U.C. Master | TVs: Pioneer PDP-LX5090H, LG OLED55C8PLA | AV Receiver: Pioneer VSX-921 | BD Player: Panasonic DMP-BDT260EG | External LUT box: Entertainment Experience eeColor | Softwares: Light Illusion Lightspace HTP, CM Enthusiast, HCFR, DisplayCAL | Probes: Klein K10-A, Jeti spectraval 1501, X-Rite i1 Pro 2 OEM, X-Rite i1 Display Pro OEM Rev. B-02, basICColor DISCUS | Test Pattern Generator: DVDO AVLab TPG
Anger.miki is online now  
post #2525 of 2558 Old 01-01-2020, 04:06 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Light Illusion's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 1,925
Mentioned: 33 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 832 Post(s)
Liked: 1281
Any negative (or zero) Z value means the probe is reading incorrectly.
There is just no way any display technology can produce such values.
But, as for how inaccurate the readings are is impossible to say, without using a 'better' probe as a comparison.
(I would question your 'probe match' though.)

Steve

Steve Shaw
LIGHT ILLUSION

Light Illusion is offline  
post #2526 of 2558 Old 01-01-2020, 04:38 AM
aka jfinnie
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: Norwich, UK
Posts: 3,733
Mentioned: 70 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2998 Post(s)
Liked: 2099
Are you sure? I was trying to educate myself on the subject and found this:
https://ninedegreesbelow.com/photogr...istimulus.html
Quote:
To summarize: The actual 1931 CIE XYZ human color space can be used to create a matrix camera profile that describes any given camera sensor's response to light, as determined by profiling the camera. But an accurate camera profile requires using negative XYZ tristimulus values. If the CIE had moved the XYZ color space farther into the positive numbers, then today's camera input matrices wouldn't require negative tristimulus values.
bobof is online now  
post #2527 of 2558 Old 01-01-2020, 05:47 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Light Illusion's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 1,925
Mentioned: 33 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 832 Post(s)
Liked: 1281
Yes, I am sure.
And the link actually agrees with that, as it says using just RGB primaries not all colours can be matched.
To have a zero Z value means having a colour that is totally pure, and lacking 100% of blue light.
No display can do that, without having exceptionally narrow RGB colour bandwidths.
And to have a negative value would mean going outside the maximum RGB triangle, as defined by a Null colour space.
(RGB = 1,0,1)


Steve Shaw
LIGHT ILLUSION

Light Illusion is offline  
post #2528 of 2558 Old 01-01-2020, 06:25 AM
aka jfinnie
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: Norwich, UK
Posts: 3,733
Mentioned: 70 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2998 Post(s)
Liked: 2099
Quote:
Originally Posted by Light Illusion View Post
Yes, I am sure.
And the link actually agrees with that, as it says using just RGB primaries not all colours can be matched.
To have a zero Z value means having a colour that is totally pure, and lacking 100% of blue light.
No display can do that, without having exceptionally narrow RGB colour bandwidths.
And to have a negative value would mean going outside the maximum RGB triangle, as defined by a Null colour space.
(RGB = 1,0,1)

Thanks Steve, always so much to learn as always in this hobby .

Is it possible to see where those negative values are coming from? Are they likely because an EDR is being used that isn't actually a great match for the display you're looking at? Is that a possible side effect of the EDR system used in the i1d3?
bobof is online now  
post #2529 of 2558 Old 01-01-2020, 06:37 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Light Illusion's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 1,925
Mentioned: 33 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 832 Post(s)
Liked: 1281
All tristimulus probes use RGB filters to attempt to match the HVS.
No such filters are ever a perfect match, and so some kind of 'measurement manipulation' is used to attempt to better match to the display, and how the HVS sees it.
Such manipulation is in itself never perfect.
And adding a 'probe match' on top of an existing 'match' (EDR) is not a good idea.
And obviously, a 10nm Spectro is not going to work well on any narrow bandwidth display technology...

Steve
bobof and omarank like this.

Steve Shaw
LIGHT ILLUSION

Light Illusion is offline  
post #2530 of 2558 Old 01-01-2020, 09:09 AM
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Posts: 47
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 40 Post(s)
Liked: 9
Hi y’all - not sure if this is the right thread to post this question. I am new to TV calibration so please bear with me.

I’m having an issue trying to synchronize a Lightspace ZRO quick profile (Primary Colors) with Ted’s calibration disc on my home TV. Lightspace is taking longer to run through the 81 patch sequence which is causing pattern drift between what the software is measuring and what is actually on the screen.

For example: The calibration disc 1-sec DIP mode chapter is taking exactly 1 min 21 sec (as advertised) but the Lightspace quick profile takes over 1 min 30 sec, even though it states it will take 1 min 21 sec. I’ve tried other timings and it always runs slower. I’m running Lightspace ZRO on a Macbook Pro, Windows 10 boot camp.

Hope that makes sense, and thanks in advance!

EDIT: I’m using the i1 Display Pro Retail probe.

EDIT 2: Thanks to Ted I was able to “unlock” my retail probe to use with Lightspace, but under “Options->Active Probe” there is NONE and no option to select my probe. Not sure if that’s a contributing factor.

EDIT 3: I stumbled across instructions to download EDLs to fix this timing issue (which I did) but I have no idea how to use these files. Lots of internet searching doesn’t yield anything useful unfortunately.
Dan Loomis is offline  
post #2531 of 2558 Old 01-01-2020, 09:16 AM
Member
 
anevard's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Montreal, Canada
Posts: 101
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 17 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by Light Illusion View Post
Any negative (or zero) Z value means the probe is reading incorrectly.
There is just no way any display technology can produce such values.
But, as for how inaccurate the readings are is impossible to say, without using a 'better' probe as a comparison.
(I would question your 'probe match' though.)

Steve
Thanks for your input Steve.

I am heading to NYC for a few days. Afterwards I will re-run the match and some profiles with both the i1PRO2 and the i1D3. What I do find interesting is that these 0 and -0 values were significantly reduced when I changed a few of the settings in LS, and are now only popping up in reds below 1 Nit. I am not experienced enough to see if there are other strange data-points, but would really appreciate any insight if there are some.

It is my understanding that Intelligent Integration should not be used with a Rev A i1D3, but it seems to help. Is there a reason why it shouldn't be used?

The real question is how can I maximize the equipment and software I have in order to optimize the consumer PJ and LUT box etc. so they will produce the best image possible?

Happy New Year.

Andrew
anevard is offline  
post #2532 of 2558 Old 01-01-2020, 10:24 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Light Illusion's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 1,925
Mentioned: 33 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 832 Post(s)
Liked: 1281
Sorry, where does it say Intelligent Integration' should not be used with any specific i1D3?
I can be used with ANY i1D3...
https://www.lightillusion.com/i1_display_pro.html

But, as I say, having negative Z values does mean the probe is not reading correctly.
As to why? no idea...
Could be anything, including bad readings from the i1Pro2 used for the probe match.
And you need to make sure you are not using and EDR within the i1D3.
https://www.lightillusion.com/probe_use.html

Steve

Steve Shaw
LIGHT ILLUSION

Light Illusion is offline  
post #2533 of 2558 Old 01-01-2020, 10:28 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Light Illusion's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 1,925
Mentioned: 33 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 832 Post(s)
Liked: 1281
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan Loomis View Post
Hi y’all - not sure if this is the right thread to post this question. I am new to TV calibration so please bear with me.

I’m having an issue trying to synchronize a Lightspace ZRO quick profile (Primary Colors) with Ted’s calibration disc on my home TV. Lightspace is taking longer to run through the 81 patch sequence which is causing pattern drift between what the software is measuring and what is actually on the screen.

For example: The calibration disc 1-sec DIP mode chapter is taking exactly 1 min 21 sec (as advertised) but the Lightspace quick profile takes over 1 min 30 sec, even though it states it will take 1 min 21 sec. I’ve tried other timings and it always runs slower. I’m running Lightspace ZRO on a Macbook Pro, Windows 10 boot camp.

Hope that makes sense, and thanks in advance!

EDIT: I’m using the i1 Display Pro Retail probe.

EDIT 2: Thanks to Ted I was able to “unlock” my retail probe to use with Lightspace, but under “Options->Active Probe” there is NONE and no option to select my probe. Not sure if that’s a contributing factor.

EDIT 3: I stumbled across instructions to download EDLs to fix this timing issue (which I did) but I have no idea how to use these files. Lots of internet searching doesn’t yield anything useful unfortunately.
All the info you need is in the user guides.
For example, see: https://www.lightillusion.com/profil...time_per_frame

The edls are of no use to you at all, as you do not have an editing system.

Steve

Steve Shaw
LIGHT ILLUSION

Light Illusion is offline  
post #2534 of 2558 Old 01-01-2020, 01:06 PM
Member
 
anevard's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Montreal, Canada
Posts: 101
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 17 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by Light Illusion View Post
Sorry, where does it say Intelligent Integration' should not be used with any specific i1D3?
I can be used with ANY i1D3...
https://www.lightillusion.com/i1_display_pro.html
I did use it, but as per Ted's website.



Quote:
Originally Posted by Light Illusion View Post
And you need to make sure you are not using and EDR within the i1D3.
https://www.lightillusion.com/probe_use.html
I might be doing something wrong here. I was advised to use Generic CMF when measuring i1D3 for probe matching and Projector when profiling. Should these settings be different?

Thanks,

Andrew
Attached Thumbnails
Click image for larger version

Name:	IITed.JPG
Views:	139
Size:	56.7 KB
ID:	2662334  
anevard is offline  
post #2535 of 2558 Old 01-01-2020, 01:19 PM
aka jfinnie
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: Norwich, UK
Posts: 3,733
Mentioned: 70 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2998 Post(s)
Liked: 2099
Quote:
Originally Posted by anevard View Post
I might be doing something wrong here. I was advised to use Generic CMF when measuring i1D3 for probe matching and Projector when profiling. Should these settings be different?
Yes, that would be wrong.
If you don't have a spectro to profile against, you would do your measures in the closest match for your display, which would be projector.

If you have a spectro to profile against, you set the i1d3 to Generic CMF for profiling, and leave it set to Generic CMF with the correct reference / active probe data sets when you profile. The Active should be the i1d3 probe matching set, and the Reference the i1pro spectro probe matching set.

It is completely invalid to do the probe matching and measure the i1d3 using Generic CMF and then change the probe from Generic CMF to Projector for profiling (if you use the measurements you took in Generic CMF as your active probe data).

It's likely that is causing you some undesireable results if that is what you are doing...
bobof is online now  
post #2536 of 2558 Old 01-01-2020, 01:26 PM
Member
 
anevard's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Montreal, Canada
Posts: 101
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 17 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by bobof View Post
Yes, that would be wrong.
<SNIP>
It's likely that is causing you some undesireable results if that is what you are doing...
Start again ......
anevard is offline  
post #2537 of 2558 Old 01-01-2020, 02:25 PM
Member
 
anevard's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Montreal, Canada
Posts: 101
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 17 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Well, here is an Edge profile using Generic CMF, all other settings the same. Quite different results. No 0s but still some negative #s . Again in the reds but this time above 1 NIT.

Thoughts?



Andrew
Attached Thumbnails
Click image for larger version

Name:	Edge Generic Jan 01, 2020 NEG Nums.JPG
Views:	133
Size:	115.1 KB
ID:	2662376  
Attached Files
File Type: zip Generic Jan 1, 2020.zip (10.4 KB, 1 views)
anevard is offline  
post #2538 of 2558 Old 01-01-2020, 05:22 PM
Advanced Member
 
BlackJoker's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2015
Posts: 550
Mentioned: 41 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 380 Post(s)
Liked: 433
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan Loomis View Post
Hi y’all - not sure if this is the right thread to post this question. I am new to TV calibration so please bear with me.



I’m having an issue trying to synchronize a Lightspace ZRO quick profile (Primary Colors) with Ted’s calibration disc on my home TV. Lightspace is taking longer to run through the 81 patch sequence which is causing pattern drift between what the software is measuring and what is actually on the screen.



For example: The calibration disc 1-sec DIP mode chapter is taking exactly 1 min 21 sec (as advertised) but the Lightspace quick profile takes over 1 min 30 sec, even though it states it will take 1 min 21 sec. I’ve tried other timings and it always runs slower. I’m running Lightspace ZRO on a Macbook Pro, Windows 10 boot camp.



Hope that makes sense, and thanks in advance!



EDIT: I’m using the i1 Display Pro Retail probe.



EDIT 2: Thanks to Ted I was able to “unlock” my retail probe to use with Lightspace, but under “Options->Active Probe” there is NONE and no option to select my probe. Not sure if that’s a contributing factor.



EDIT 3: I stumbled across instructions to download EDLs to fix this timing issue (which I did) but I have no idea how to use these files. Lots of internet searching doesn’t yield anything useful unfortunately.


Hi Dan,

the 1 sec DIP mode only works with the Klein K10-A Meter because it reads much faster than your id3.

That you see ”NONE” under active probe is totally normal. This option is only necessary for meter profiling you can ignore that.

TV: LG OLED 65C8 Sources: Apple TV 4K, OPPO UDP-203 Video Processor: TruVue eeColor
Probe: Klein K10-A, i1 Display Pro OEM Rev.B (2018), i1Pro2 OEM Rev.E Software: Lightspace HTP, Calman 2019 Ultimate
BlackJoker is offline  
post #2539 of 2558 Old 01-02-2020, 05:01 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
mrtickleuk's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2016
Location: Birmingham, UK - you know, the original one!
Posts: 7,790
Mentioned: 192 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5397 Post(s)
Liked: 7795
Quote:
Originally Posted by Light Illusion View Post
All tristimulus probes use RGB filters to attempt to match the HVS.
No such filters are ever a perfect match, and so some kind of 'measurement manipulation' is used to attempt to better match to the display, and how the HVS sees it.
Such manipulation is in itself never perfect.
And adding a 'probe match' on top of an existing 'match' (EDR) is not a good idea.
And obviously, a 10nm Spectro is not going to work well on any narrow bandwidth display technology...

Steve
Thanks for this post. My continuing "shall I buy an X-Rite i1 Basic Pro 2" decision swings back towards "no, there's no point"!

_______________
Denon AVR-X4200W, Arcam Alpha 8P; 5.1.4 setup: Mission 702e, M7C1i, 77DS, 731. Rel T5 Sub. Monitor Audio CT165 4 Tops | LG OLED55C8PLA TV | Samsung UBD-K8500 UHD Blu-Ray

HDMI 2.0 4K modes | Dolby & DTS core+outer audio tracks on (UHD) Blu-Rays | Hello to Jason Isaacs
mrtickleuk is offline  
post #2540 of 2558 Old 01-02-2020, 07:16 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: New York
Posts: 5,790
Mentioned: 206 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4754 Post(s)
Liked: 5732
Quote:
Originally Posted by mrtickleuk View Post
Thanks for this post. My continuing "shall I buy an X-Rite i1 Basic Pro 2" decision swings back towards "no, there's no point"!
I was "playing" with the meter profiling/matching process again the other day. We are all on a constant quest for accuracy and this initial process seems to be somewhat flawed and I use this term loosely.

For example, the 4 color matrix method is not linear when using a non-additive display like an OLED, but we use it.
The new LS volumetric probe matching may also have some deficiencies, I haven't tried it yet but just seeing what some are saying but maybe it has to do with configuration?
We can use an EDR that someone's built but we have no idea if the panel that the EDR was built with has the same distribution that our panel has.
We say a 10 nm spectro device doesn't "work well" but how much better is using it than say using an EDR? How much worst is it than using a reference device like a Jeti?

I make some of these comments specifically as it applies to OLEDs since there are so many variables. Is there any new data to show accuracy comparisons using some of the methods I described above with an OLED? Miki, I know you have used a couple along with a reference device. Did you ever create a spreadsheet showing the differences? I know we've talked about this a while back on other threads but since LS is trying to improve the process and some are creating spreadsheets showing some results it may be interesting to see what the accuracy differences actually are across all the methods.

John
Sony 55A1E, A9F
Marantz 7012, Ohm Walsh Speakers
Klein K10-A, Jeti 1501, Murideo Six-G Gen2
Calman Ultimate, LS Pro, ISF Level III Certified

Last edited by jrref; 01-02-2020 at 07:20 AM.
jrref is offline  
post #2541 of 2558 Old 01-02-2020, 07:22 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Light Illusion's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 1,925
Mentioned: 33 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 832 Post(s)
Liked: 1281
On a WOLED with CR probes the results of Volumetric Matching have been proven by FSI.
They now use this approach on all their WOLED dispays.

https://www.lightillusion.com/forums...um=8&topic=613

Steve
chunon, jrref and BlackJoker like this.

Steve Shaw
LIGHT ILLUSION

Light Illusion is offline  
post #2542 of 2558 Old 01-02-2020, 08:01 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
mrtickleuk's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2016
Location: Birmingham, UK - you know, the original one!
Posts: 7,790
Mentioned: 192 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5397 Post(s)
Liked: 7795
Quote:
Originally Posted by jrref View Post
I was "playing" with the meter profiling/matching process again the other day. We are all on a constant quest for accuracy and this initial process seems to be somewhat flawed and I use this term loosely.

For example, the 4 color matrix method is not linear when using a non-additive display like an OLED, but we use it.
The new LS volumetric probe matching may also have some deficiencies, I haven't tried it yet but just seeing what some are saying but maybe it has to do with configuration?
We can use an EDR that someone's built but we have no idea if the panel that the EDR was built with has the same distribution that our panel has.
We say a 10 nm spectro device doesn't "work well" but how much better is using it than say using an EDR? How much worse is it than using a reference device like a Jeti?
That last question is a very very expensive question to answer. And it's the question I want the answer to, before spending my hard-earned money.

I'm not like many people in this thread, I'm only an enthusiast, not really in the market for professional licences etc. I'm not on some "journey" which ends up with my buying a Klien or a Jeti, for example! I'll only ever calibrate my own TV and a few friends and family at a push (but currently instead of asking me for a calibration, they need to be persuaded that any improvement whatsoever over factory defaults is possible and noticeable ).

That said, if we were to rank in some way (from worst to best) such as
  1. using no EDR
  2. using an EDR (created on the same model-year panel but not the same exact panel)
  3. using a Four-Colour Matrix Method profile created with an affordable spectro
  4. using a Four-Colour Matrix Method profile created with a professional-grade spectro
  5. using a Multi-point Volumetric Probe Matching profile created with an affordable spectro and Lightspace
  6. using a Multi-point Volumetric Probe Matching profile created with a professional-grade spectro and Lightspace

I am only confident in my ranking of the first, and the last, in that list. Corrections very welcome!

If I had confidence that (3) was substantially better than (2), I might buy an X-Rite i1 Basic Pro 2, as a hobbyist, and the only realistic improvement I'll ever be able to make from where I am now. But it's not cheap, and every time cold water is poured on it, I get the impression that I shouldn't bother. Which is fine of course.
jrref likes this.

_______________
Denon AVR-X4200W, Arcam Alpha 8P; 5.1.4 setup: Mission 702e, M7C1i, 77DS, 731. Rel T5 Sub. Monitor Audio CT165 4 Tops | LG OLED55C8PLA TV | Samsung UBD-K8500 UHD Blu-Ray

HDMI 2.0 4K modes | Dolby & DTS core+outer audio tracks on (UHD) Blu-Rays | Hello to Jason Isaacs

Last edited by mrtickleuk; 01-02-2020 at 08:09 AM.
mrtickleuk is offline  
post #2543 of 2558 Old 01-02-2020, 08:12 AM
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Posts: 47
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 40 Post(s)
Liked: 9
Quote:
Originally Posted by BlackJoker View Post
Hi Dan,

the 1 sec DIP mode only works with the Klein K10-A Meter because it reads much faster than your id3.

That you see ”NONE” under active probe is totally normal. This option is only necessary for meter profiling you can ignore that.
Yep - that part I understand. What is confounding me is the drift b/w the automatic pattern generation via my calibration DVD and the Lightspace onscreen workflow. I just used 1 sec DIP as an example. The Lightspace software always takes longer than the published timings which screws up the timing b/w the two. I still don't understand why. :-(
Dan Loomis is offline  
post #2544 of 2558 Old 01-02-2020, 08:47 AM
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
D-Nice's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Columbia, SC
Posts: 17,108
Mentioned: 136 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2116 Post(s)
Liked: 3984
Quote:
Originally Posted by mrtickleuk View Post
That last question is a very very expensive question to answer. And it's the question I want the answer to, before spending my hard-earned money.

I'm not like many people in this thread, I'm only an enthusiast, not really in the market for professional licences etc. I'm not on some "journey" which ends up with my buying a Klien or a Jeti, for example! I'll only ever calibrate my own TV and a few friends and family at a push (but currently instead of asking me for a calibration, they need to be persuaded that any improvement whatsoever over factory defaults is possible and noticeable ).

That said, if we were to rank in some way (from worst to best) such as
  1. using no EDR
  2. using an EDR (created on the same model-year panel but not the same exact panel)
  3. using a Four-Colour Matrix Method profile created with an affordable spectro
  4. using a Four-Colour Matrix Method profile created with a professional-grade spectro
  5. using a Multi-point Volumetric Probe Matching profile created with an affordable spectro and Lightspace
  6. using a Multi-point Volumetric Probe Matching profile created with a professional-grade spectro and Lightspace

I am only confident in my ranking of the first, and the last, in that list. Corrections very welcome!

If I had confidence that (3) was substantially better than (2), I might buy an X-Rite i1 Basic Pro 2, as a hobbyist, and the only realistic improvement I'll ever be able to make from where I am now. But it's not cheap, and every time cold water is poured on it, I get the impression that I shouldn't bother. Which is fine of course.
I could do such evaluations here since I have the PR670, i1pro2, i1pro and iD3 Pro along with multiple OLEDs. The issue is time. It’s time expensive to do such evaluation. Nice Consultant task though.
mrtickleuk likes this.
D-Nice is offline  
post #2545 of 2558 Old 01-14-2020, 01:15 PM
Member
 
OMARDRIS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Germany
Posts: 130
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 85 Post(s)
Liked: 153
Quote:
Originally Posted by mrtickleuk View Post
If I had confidence that (3) was substantially better than (2), I might buy an X-Rite i1 Basic Pro 2, as a hobbyist, and the only realistic improvement I'll ever be able to make from where I am now.
Hi,
I did a simple test today with a normal Samsung LCD monitor with CCFL backlighting, but of course it's not representative and was more fun.

1. with DisplayCal and the Jeti Spectraval 1501 I determined the Colorimeter-Correction Spectral-Samples (CCSS) of the monitor and converted them with CCSS2EDR into the EDR format. This worked and LightSpace is luckily not a closed black box, so you can use a new EDR file.
2. with LightSpace I did normal probe matching with Jeti and EODIS3.

Then I made the following measurements - only grayscale - with LightSpace:
0. Jeti (reference)
1. EODIS3 - generic
2. EODIS3 - CCFL
3. EODIS3 - Samsung.edr (self created)
4. EODIS3- generic with LS-Probematching (Jeti - EODIS3)

The order of correspondence with the grayscale measurement of the Jeti (reference):
4. = best - is very similar to the reference.
3. = second best - differences are visible in the graph
2. = worse than 3.
1. = significant deviation.

So I'll stick with LS-Probematching.
Peter
dwaleke, jrref, bobof and 1 others like this.

S/W: LightSpace PRO, Calman 5, HCFR, Colorfacts
V/P: Lumagen Radiance Pro, DVDO AVlab TPG
Meters: JETI Spectraval 1501, Klein K-10A, I1Pro2, I1D3, Spyder 5 & X

Last edited by OMARDRIS; 01-15-2020 at 04:35 AM.
OMARDRIS is offline  
post #2546 of 2558 Old 01-14-2020, 02:16 PM
aka jfinnie
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: Norwich, UK
Posts: 3,733
Mentioned: 70 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2998 Post(s)
Liked: 2099
Quote:
Originally Posted by OMARDRIS View Post
Hi,
I did a simple test today with a normal Samsung LCD monitor with CCFL backlighting, but of course it's not representative and was more fun.

1. with DisplayCal and the Jeti Spectraval 1501 I determined the Colorimeter-Correction Spectral-Samples (CCSS) of the monitor and converted them with CCSS2EDR into the EDR format. This worked and LightSpace is luckily not a closed black box, so you can use a new EDR file.
2. with LightSpace I did normal sample matching with Jeti and EODIS3.

Then I made the following measurements - only grayscale - with LightSpace:
0. Jeti (reference)
1. EODIS3 - generic
2. EODIS3 - CCFL
3. EODIS3 - Samsung.edr (self created)
4. EODIS3- generic with LS-Probematching (Jeti - EODIS3)

The order of correspondence with the grayscale measurement of the Jeti (reference):
4. = best - is very similar to the reference.
3. = second best - differences are visible in the graph
2. = worse than 3.
1. = significant deviation.

So I'll stick with LS-Probematching.
Peter
It's an interesting result, thanks for sharing it

It seems initially odd for the spectral based matching to your specific display from 3) to give a worse result than 4) (which I assume was just FCMM and not volumetric matching - you're not specific about that). I guess off the top of my head I can think of a few reasons:
1) old i1d3 with spectral sensitivities data which was once representative but now isn't due to meter ageing
2) the rumoured batch loading of average spectral sensitivities at the factory isn't a good match for your particular meter
3) the patches used for generation of the EDR were somehow "off".
4) the utility doesn't work right

1) Is quite interesting. If you had a known good workflow for generating EDRs then comparing the two would allow you to investigate the deviation between the spectral sensitivities data and your meter as it stands today.

It would be perhaps more enlightening if you validated with more than just a grayscale. Out of interest, was the display calibrated to have a flat D65 greyscale before doing the test.

Any charts you can share of the results?
bobof is online now  
post #2547 of 2558 Old 01-15-2020, 04:01 AM
Advanced Member
 
Anger.miki's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2018
Posts: 754
Mentioned: 36 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 470 Post(s)
Liked: 528
Quote:
Originally Posted by mrtickleuk View Post
That last question is a very very expensive question to answer. And it's the question I want the answer to, before spending my hard-earned money.

I'm not like many people in this thread, I'm only an enthusiast, not really in the market for professional licences etc. I'm not on some "journey" which ends up with my buying a Klein or a Jeti, for example! I'll only ever calibrate my own TV and a few friends and family at a push (but currently instead of asking me for a calibration, they need to be persuaded that any improvement whatsoever over factory defaults is possible and noticeable ).

That said, if we were to rank in some way (from worst to best) such as
  1. using no EDR
  2. using an EDR (created on the same model-year panel but not the same exact panel)
  3. using a Four-Colour Matrix Method profile created with an affordable spectro
  4. using a Four-Colour Matrix Method profile created with a professional-grade spectro
  5. using a Multi-point Volumetric Probe Matching profile created with an affordable spectro and Lightspace
  6. using a Multi-point Volumetric Probe Matching profile created with a professional-grade spectro and Lightspace

I am only confident in my ranking of the first, and the last, in that list. Corrections very welcome!

If I had confidence that (3) was substantially better than (2), I might buy an X-Rite i1 Basic Pro 2, as a hobbyist, and the only realistic improvement I'll ever be able to make from where I am now. But it's not cheap, and every time cold water is poured on it, I get the impression that I shouldn't bother. Which is fine of course.
I guess THIS may satisfy part of your curiosity.

My contribution is that an FCCM created with affordable or pro spectro would give the same numerical result, while visually they will differ. Instead, MVPM (Volumetric approach) will have also different numbers, especially in the low light zone.
mrtickleuk likes this.

T.U.C. Master | TVs: Pioneer PDP-LX5090H, LG OLED55C8PLA | AV Receiver: Pioneer VSX-921 | BD Player: Panasonic DMP-BDT260EG | External LUT box: Entertainment Experience eeColor | Softwares: Light Illusion Lightspace HTP, CM Enthusiast, HCFR, DisplayCAL | Probes: Klein K10-A, Jeti spectraval 1501, X-Rite i1 Pro 2 OEM, X-Rite i1 Display Pro OEM Rev. B-02, basICColor DISCUS | Test Pattern Generator: DVDO AVLab TPG
Anger.miki is online now  
post #2548 of 2558 Old 01-15-2020, 06:20 AM
Member
 
OMARDRIS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Germany
Posts: 130
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 85 Post(s)
Liked: 153
Quote:
Originally Posted by bobof View Post
It would be perhaps more enlightening if you validated with more than just a grayscale.
Hi,
that was only a small test without any claim to scientific knowledge. And yes, the probe matching in LS was only FCCM.
I was simply interested in whether the generation of EDR files basically works and whether LightSpace can process the generated files. The answer to both questions is yes.
The ArgyllCMS users use a database with CCSS and CCMX files for numerous displays. I can't say anything about the quality of this data, but I like the idea.
The software for converting the CCSS file into EDR format works correctly, because a re-conversion into CCSS format delivers exactly the same spectral values.
So the question remains how good the quality of the CCSS file generated by DisplayCal/ArgyllCMS is and whether Xrite still uses a special snake oil when generating its own EDR files.
The problem simply remains that the EODIS3 are not calibrated individually in the factory and cannot be corrected afterwards. But you also have to consider the low price.
Therefore, an individual probe matching with a spectro and the used display will always be the best solution. And is it great that LightSpace now offers two methods to get even complicated displays under control.
Peter
bobof likes this.

S/W: LightSpace PRO, Calman 5, HCFR, Colorfacts
V/P: Lumagen Radiance Pro, DVDO AVlab TPG
Meters: JETI Spectraval 1501, Klein K-10A, I1Pro2, I1D3, Spyder 5 & X
OMARDRIS is offline  
post #2549 of 2558 Old 01-15-2020, 06:49 AM
aka jfinnie
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: Norwich, UK
Posts: 3,733
Mentioned: 70 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2998 Post(s)
Liked: 2099
Quote:
Originally Posted by OMARDRIS View Post
The problem simply remains that the EODIS3 are not calibrated individually in the factory and cannot be corrected afterwards. But you also have to consider the low price.
I've seen conflicting opinions on this. I guess you'd have to have deep inside knowledge of what level of individual calibration (or not) happens in the factory. There may be some batch correction plus some additional quick offsets perhaps, who knows. Or if it is quick enough there may be a full calibration of each unit.

I think also consideration needs to be given as to whether your unit may have drifted from its factory state and would have performed better at the factory. I recently bought a new i1d3 OEM rev B and was very surprised how close the projector EDR was. Of course, perhaps I just won some meter lotto there for my combination of meter + display. Out of interest, how old was the i1d3?
bobof is online now  
post #2550 of 2558 Old 01-15-2020, 09:11 AM
Member
 
OMARDRIS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Germany
Posts: 130
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 85 Post(s)
Liked: 153
My EODIS3 is 3 years old and not worse or better than the many I1 Display Pro I have profiled for other users over the past years.
And this was not about my EODIS3, but only about the possibility to use self-created EDR files in LightSpace.
And I found out that it works and also that there is a clear correction in the right direction. But that a direct probe-matching in LightSpace is even a bit better is not surprising to me.
This was a quick and dirty test with an old PC monitor I made for fun and I can imagine that someone who uses LightSpace but doesn't want to buy or rent a spectro could benefit from the method if someone sends him an EDR file for his display.
But I won't start a trade with EDR files, but rather think of mutual help.
The original question of "mrtickleuk" was if it is worthwhile for the home user to buy a spectro.
Maybe you just try it yourself. The programs are all "open source".
Peter
mrtickleuk likes this.

S/W: LightSpace PRO, Calman 5, HCFR, Colorfacts
V/P: Lumagen Radiance Pro, DVDO AVlab TPG
Meters: JETI Spectraval 1501, Klein K-10A, I1Pro2, I1D3, Spyder 5 & X
OMARDRIS 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