Hi,

Each calibration solution for manual calibration using the internal controls (the ones which are working; White Balance) it will give you the same end results, just with a different user interface.

You don't need to get a pattern generator to help you display multiple runs of 21-Point Grayscale patches, using a calibration disk with patterns of 10-11% windows you will be fine, after making the contrast/brightness/color clipping/sharpness setup you will move to grayscale measurements (2-point and then 20-point).

The difference of free vs. paid software is that paid software provides customer support also while with free software you can get support from others users via forum. Displaying simple RGB Balance/Gamma curve/dE Charts don't need deep color science, something is needed when you want to perform a display characterization via 3D LUT where the software has to calculate a correction of thousand color points etc.

eeColor is the cheapest (not super expensive) 3D LUT Box of the global market while it has the largest 3D LUT size also if you see there: https://www.avsforum.com/forum/139-di...l#post50752953

Have you measured the 2x LG glasses the TV is coming with and found differences between them?

Hi Rich,

If you measure only WRGB patches from CP3 and then from CM, using only your spectro i1PRO2, you have to see agreement there, can you see?

The issue with meter correction table can affect the results but not at such high differences like the ones you found. Have you selected the same gamma target to both software? Have you verified the created meter profiling correction table for each software to see that is valid?

CalMAN 5.x is doing a perceptual filtering of dE at low end/low luminance measured patches to the dE calculated numbers, this has been reported from 2012 (from Chad also) here: http://www.spectracal.com/forum/view...hp?f=92&t=4471

Huge dE94 differences between ChromaPure and CalMAN

Although not perfectly tracking. ChadB's initial measurements using Calman looked similar to mine using the I1Pro2 and I1D3 profiled by the I1Pro2.
I discussed this with Chad and we think that the duration of the pattern delay and reading time may be the cause.

When I get some free time, I'll run measurements against and see how well my meters match Chad's.

- Rich

Yes, enough difference that it's frustrating because when you calibrate you want to calibrate to a repeatable reference and this is pretty hard to do with the glasses as the variable.

The fact that your results are tracking pretty close to Chadb's is very good. There is really no way to get it to track 100% unless you profiled your meter to his Jeti and then did the comparison with the same meter, with the set at the same temperature, etc... The point is that as long as everything is balanced, very low deltaE, your results very close to his, your eye wouldn't be able to see the difference. Calibrating isn't an "exact science" because the sets we are calibrating are consumer sets that drift and vary over time.

If the difference is big (I will check this out also) then use one as reference and calibrating using this for the guy who will sit dead center.

ChadB completed calibrating my 65 B6. My prior attempts made improvements but did not satisfactorily adjust flesh tones and low-level detail.

I can say that all modes include HDR are much better. The B6 has clear limitations and that is where Chad’s experience is important and it was a pleasure watching him work and he answered my numerous questions, even though it slowed him down




The ISF dark room process:

• Reset all settings
• Set Basic Settings: OLED Light: 50, Contrast: 85, H/V Sharp:0, Brightness: 51, Color 48
• (Tint is set later)
• Set Advanced Settings: All off, Gamut: normal, Gamma 2.2, White Balance: Warm 2
• Calman: Set target gamma to 2.35 and black level: 0034 cdm.
• Calibrate Gamma using Luminance controls
• Calibrate 2 Point: Low: 0, -7,0 High: -10 ,0, -6
• Calibrate 20 points: all reading are taken in sweeps with adjustments not in real time.
• Touch up issues in 20 point (a few passes on several points)..
• Calibrate color: Chad demonstrated how adjusting the to green + 16 is best for flesh tones, it causes other problems. The compromise was green + 8. Additional errors are added to cyan but that is all that can be done in this panel.

Other observations:

• Clearing the display mode settings clears everything. However, the main copy settings does not copy all settings. To FULLY copy settings, you must:.

  1. Copy the Picture mode main settings to all inputs
  2. Select the white balance 2-Point settings and copy to all inputs
  3. Select the white balance 20-Point settings and copy to all inputs
  4. On the new input, set the gamma and other settings which are not copied

• To correct skin-tones on the B6, Tint is the only method available for correction.
• As expected, B6 CMS cannot be used.

- Rich

I vaguely remember trying to stick the glasses on my meter when I was calibrating my LM7600.
It came with like 12 pairs of glasses, so I gutted 2 of them.
I made two sets of "combined" lenses with halves of both left and right lenses covering my meter. One set was a vertical half (like the Dolby "DD" symbol) and the other was a horizontal half (like hamburger buns).
I was very precise and clean when cutting them to fit so no light or cut marks were visible to the eye.

I can't find my notepad where I wrote down results of this quick test, but the angle of the glasses (rotation) made a notable difference, which can be seen by just turning your head sideways too. I suspect the major difference in comparing glasses is due to this polarization (or whatever really happens so each eye only sees different parts of the same screen).

I don't know if "combining" lenses or sticking to one or the other would be useful in determining what compromise is better, but I thought I'd just toss some ideas I had from years ago.

This is exactly what i'm talking about. Can you set up the meter to see exactly what the human eye is seeing? Seating position, glasses, etc, all variables.

Talk about putting glasses on the meter. I was so frustrated that I was tempted to take my meter to Lenscrafters at the Mall and have them fit a pair of glasses on my meter lol

Maybe next time i'll try toilet paper glasses or maybe nose glasses for my meter

See, I disagree here. I think calibrating with a black screen when not measuring is a bad idea. Only because of the image retention mechanics. A 80+ nits pattern up for a few seconds is enough to start visibly creating image retention. Run a 5-20% field and you can see the retained after image, which can last at least up to 10 seconds. This can build up quickly when doing sweeps or long series of measurements.
If you go to fast, the pixels don't have time to stabilize (increasing luminance until stable), but if you go too slow you get image retention (luminance increases again)
From what I've seen, luminance will increase for about 1-1.5 seconds, the remain stable for another 1-1.5 seconds, then start increasing again. But I'm mostly guessing here as my meter isn't that fast and I'm just making an assumption based on thousands of reads trying to draw similarities in the behavior from this data.

I've started another approach yesterday.
Over the past week I've taken measurements while watching content and playing games, and averaged each individual content alone, then averaged those averages to get an "average" picture level to put me in the ballpark for what kind of voltage the panel will realistically be in.
Closest match is a 70% full screen field.
I thought it was a little too high but decided to go through with my idea, because why not.

Here is my Reasoning on trying this:
Test patterns are not real content. Since image retention happens so quickly, compensation needs to be done to factor this behavior into a calibration.
What better way than simulating the average levels of the content the display is going to be used for? (mostly gaming and computer stuff for me, with alot of movies too).
This way you can dial in blacks that have been brightened from image retention.


Honestly, so far this has actually worked out VERY well, which completely surprised the hell out of me.
I've calibrated to a true 1886 gamma (i.e. 2.4 power), letting the screen stabilize to a 70% field before doing sweeps or individual measurements.
Due to image retention, blacks are going to be higher at lower average picture levels.
This turns out to be more like a 1886 curve with a 2.3-2.25 gamma curve.
This has worked out a lot better than using a black field (rgb balance shifts more when voltage increases, less when decreasing).

That's disrespectful to your meter. Get it a monocle!

A meter is far more accurate than our eyes. Perhaps we need a larger piece of the lens material so we can stick it about the same distance the glasses would be from our eyeballs.
Perhaps the shape would need to be adjusted to simulate how the polarized light spreads on the fovea/retina vs a meter's optics? We know the glasses filter incoming light, but how does it behave when leaving the glasses? Is it a smooth spread? Polarized? Does it do stuff like this (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diffraction_grating)?
I think the last one could be easily hidden since you have to keep the glasses so close to your eyes and effectively masked by our ultra-near field acuity.

Why can't we have some cake and to eat it too?
*waiting for The Matrix*

When you display a black field, you still have area of the screen which is displaying stuff...the multiple menus of LG with the calibration controls. Because we don't want to produce image retention, we don't display a full field xx% Grayscale patch when navigating the menus.

The procedure you are following it gives you some different measurements to your low end (because to the instant image retention) which that image retention will disappear if you measure some time later so you will have difference in measurements.

I never had a single problem doing a manual cal like that or taking any sweep. In real content pixels are changing their status 24 times per seconds, there no time for stabilization.

But you just said that was what you were doing. Or perhaps I just misinterpreted.
You can ignore my crazy process in my last post (it was a separate comment, not part of the preceding portion).

When I first started calibrating my E6 I was doing full 20-point grayscale sweeps then adjusting, and repeating until I was done. Gamma dialed to be 2.4.
Afterwards I watched Colors of Journey via MadVR's HDR>SDR gamut mapping using shaders. I set the video to repeat when done.
The darkest scenes are at the beginning--campfire, starry sky and leaving a mountain side road tunnel.
These looked good, but the second pass was different. The starry sky was a very dark grey now, and the tunnel was terrible with very noticeable changes in luminance while leaving it.

At this point I thought my meter was at fault, so to test this:
Made no adjustments and did a sweep, waited 2 minutes and swept again. Waited 2 more minutes, swept.
Each set was brighter than the previous (continuing this pattern beyond three times, all results were very close but also barely rising).
Checked for retention by looking at a 5% full screen field pattern, and I saw the after image of the window patterns.
Then I decided to measure everything manually while waiting 5 minutes between measurements (so tedious ).
Upon checking those scenes again the first pass was notably darker, and the second pass was lifted again, and brighter content was not as bright which made it even easier to notice the difference in lifted dark content in the second pass.
This is what started me going OCD on understanding my panel's behavior and trying my crazy ideas because why not.



I don't see what's wrong with this procedure other than the image retention raising my measurements and chasing them in a circle trying to control them.
I've done what I could to rule out sources of error (not meter, not meter temperature).
Watching real content is always going to have some degree of image retention present at all times. If the content is "slow", then you can see the after images on field patterns much easier. I forgot to mention but depending on Contrast setting, ABL can increase the time until retention happens.

I still think it's worth considering real world usage to some degree. In my opinion it does not make sense to define gamma in and for a synthetic environment where it will never be at with real content. I mean, real content is not going to be a black screen.

And by stabilization, I was referring to voltage to each pixel (The part that's controlling it's refresh rate and the sub pixels). I might be using the wrong word to describe what I mean. Basically how performance changes due to power delivery (think computers. Unstable voltage can cause artifacts, miscalculations, and even crashes/freezes/BSODs/etc.). I don't trust the power supply in any commercial display to be of decent quality, just passable. Same goes for any power supply that comes in a Dell/HP/etc. This comparison is not accurate at all, but I think you see the kind of point I'm trying to make here.

If I understand you correctly, you are taking very quick measurements (before mine even does one ), and I don't think you would notice the pixels still getting brighter before they stabilize and shortly after start to increase again to absolute peak output that real content will not ever get near (requires a static signal and takes too long).
I still don't know why continuous, real-time measurements vs measure>wait 5 seconds at black screen>measure>repeat, both done for 30 seconds, create different results. The latter is always higher than the continuous measurements. I've been completely stumped regarding this, but I think stability is somehow related.

Then again, if I had a higher quality meter my observations might be completely different. Has anyone REALLY examined how compatible meters like the i1d3 are with this technology? Does meter behavior change as luminance/spectral characteristics shift? What about Panel glass and/or the polarized 3D screen filter?

Iron Mike has implied that a Judd-Voss derived white point is needed for most (all?) OLEDs. We know what Sony OLEDs are. As far as I know we don't have one agreed upon for LG OLEDs, but perhaps having one could improve measurement "stability" by closer matching glass/oled composition characteristics?

Right or wrong, I really wish I wasn't so OCD about all of this.
Ignorance is bliss, as they say.

With brightness 51 you have lost your pure black o.O.... If you go to full dark room and let your eyes adapt, you'll see that the screen is not pure black anymore

@ConnecTEDDD thank you for the post, but for now to me all that much sounds like chinese, since i've never ever touched any calibration device, this week (If god wants) i'll start calibrating my OLED, i dont care about spent the entire day trying to get it right, i'll do all i can each day until i get the smallest DeltaE values i can archieve with just the Chromapure 3 i1D3 PRO profiled

I'm gonna make all my calibrations at night... I dont want me to happen the brightness issue like you guys, since i dont care at the level of the OLED light, i always use about 80 at day and night, call me crazy xD

Not true at all. Maybe 51 loses black on your set, but that isn't a rule. I especially wouldn't question it, as this was from a pro calibration.
Generally everyone ends up around 50-52, so I only suggest people to double check if they are way outside of that. Even then I wouldn't rule numbers beyond that out, there are always outliers when manufacturing is involved.


Even with 3sigma capability (doubt it's manufactured to that) there's 0.3% people out there that would be different.

yeah well, this 2 guys are also "pro calibrators" and they totally destroy the black level on this TV, not to say that they even left HDR on Bright on the Xbox One and they do not notice...

That's anecdotal evidence from 1 calibration...... further iterates the point that it's different from display to display.
Have you read all the findings from all the pages of this thread? Where are you getting this claim from of 51 ruins true blacks on all tvs? I hope its not from just this 1 video.
It's fine to question 'pro calibrators,' as you say, but at least have some empirical data to back up claims.


Coming in and saying a definitive statement that brightness 51 ruins true blacks is dangerous for first time readers that may not read the forum in entirety. I wouldn't bother replying if it wasn't for this is how misinformation gets started. In a scientific study that statement should be consistently repeatable across all sets. However, it is certainly not repeatable so statement cannot be deemed valid. In fact there's probably some sets that come from the factory with raised blacks that need to be 48,49, etc. for true black. Again goes back to manufacturing tolerances.....


My set just so happens to also be set to 51 and I know it isn't changing true black. It is very easy to check for with Ted's Disk in an all dark room. If want further examples just read this forum, I could find a lot more evidence to the contrary than your 1 video review.


(I agree that there are issues with that 'calibration,' just go find Harlekin and talk to him about it, and recent Home Theater Geeks in general)

This video is a great example to show that having reference meters and expensive software don't make you calibrator, if you don't know/understand what you are doing.

They have incorrect settings of the pattern generator (mixed colorspaces) so during meter profiling the patch generator hasn't generate WRGB patches but a White and some Green ones (because of YCbCr/RGB difference)...no-one from them ever noticed this problem so they created an totally inaccurate meter correction table, for that reason Red and Blue primaries measured later so off (blue very under-saturated and Red with very wrong hue etc.). This is the reason you always have to check the accuracy of the created meter profiling to see if it's valid, and to know also we are using a 4-color matrix meter profiling which requires to read/display W,R,G,B patches from both meters.

is there anyone in the San Francisco Bay Area that is expert with OLED calibration? Apologies if this is in the wrong thread. I was thinking of going DIY calibration route but there is a high learning curve when it comes to calibration.

Main issue I have is lack of shadow detail / crushed blacks. Would like to have multiple presets calibrated depending on source feed and time of day.

If don't get a response in here, try the ISF calibrators Sticky thread. Just mention you're looking for calibration for an LG Oled and your general location. You'll get help:

https://www.avsforum.com/forum/139-di...post-here.html

DeltaE CIE94 will work? or there's a better DeltaE to meassure for B6?

Yeah I noticed that too.
I've had people (HT enthusiasts) suggesting I should watch that video, implying that we could learn a thing or two from two master calibrators.

After watching that video a bit, skipping back and forth. I just had to smile and play along...although my first reaction was "Da f...??" Anyways, I guess it's better than nothing, to raise awareness of the importance of calibrating

For some reason that video gotten some "authority". Was it on the frontpage of avsforum or something?

Ps. I'm generally positive to these videos and Scott makes a good job. We may have some objections now and then, and probably people into high end audio or other stuff would have objections whenever Scott talks about these things. One has to differentiate between blogging/vlogging/entertainment and peer reviewed scientific papers.

Calibration software and industry default is currently dE2000, when the color errors are below 1.0 then both dE calculations are reporting nearly the same number of error (dE94 - dE2000).

In an effort to save you some money... Er, wait, I'm starting off on the wrong foot here...

Have you tried various techniques in THIS thread? You can get all the shadow detail you want from a few methods in that thread if Buzzards' quick n dirty method is not to your liking.
Just remember every panel is different, and don't let anyone see you wearing toilet roll goggles if you gotta set black in a non-cave environment.



I'm not trying to dissuade you from a calibration, but if improving shadows is your only desire then it's not needed.

I like how HCFR works by default in this regard. DeltaE calculation is set to "Recommended" option, it will use CIE76 (u.v.) for grayscale, and CIE2000 for Colors.
I don't know the real differences between 76uv and 2000, but from what I understand the former is a little bit more sensitive to RGB changes.
2000 is a great option regardless (i.e. most perceptual-difference weighted formula as far as I know).

If you really want to learn the differences I think Tom Huffman has a paper about it on Chromapure's page. If not, I'm sure Ted "Links-a-lot" Apsiotis knows right where some papers on it are


(Seriously, Ted's like the most under-appreciated member on the forum with all of the links to info he can link too.)

So then i must not follow that part on the Chromapure 3 guide and use Delta2000, right?

Also... Reading the HDR Oled 2016 grayscale guide, it says to put the TV at a max of 540nits, why? i mean, why should i get less nits if my tv can output about 650?

For image retention i always use this for about 10/20secs then it's gone

God, i feel like i'm on kids school again xD

Looks like my order is gonna be sended today! hopefully i can start to calibrate my tv by friday !

PS: Read my post must hurt your eyes, sorry for my bad english xDD

PS2: @JNayAV on this forum there's a ton of post talking of the same

Generally CIE76 uv will report color errors only (not luminance errors, like gamma in Grayscale). If you select CIE76 uv and 'Absolute Y w/Gamma' then it will calculate using CIE76 Luv and it will include gamma errors in calculation.

The 540 nits part as not worded well. It's saying to put control point 668 to 540 nits. THIS IS NOT PEAK OUTPUT, and is more like 75%.
If you're using Masciola's HDR disc you can check a 1000 not 100% white pattern for true peak.

And try watching that video in a window for 3 minutes, not full screen, then look at a full screen 5% black full screen field (AVSHD 709 disc is free and has them). You will see what's really happening when you think that is "fixing" image retention.
This is a voltage problem and not sub-pixel shutter problem.

Then i should follow the guide up to 668, where i just correct the RGB and nothing more?

I'm still trying to understand how EOTF correction works on HDR, since you cannot touch luminance as like on SDR @[email protected]

There's too much files on masciona hdr patterns, but from all those, on Oled B6 i dont know which ones should i use :S, the first thing i want to calibrate is the HDR, then SDR, but since i see lots of movies and play games on HDR, my priority is HDR right now