Originally Posted by GGA
Shouldn't that be 4:4:2? Not trying to nitpick. I can get confused easily.
Hope someone can post a 200-800-4000 file, which I gather might work with my 1.3 gain 140" 2.35 screen.
Love your research.
Thanks. See Javs reply above, 4:4:4 is preferable with the Panny as its chroma upscaling is excellent (I think only MadVr or a Radiance Pro could do better). If your cable is weak, then yes you have to use 4:2:2, otherwise I recommend 4:4:4 if your cables can take the bandwidth, at least with the Panny. With a less capable player, I probably wouldn't bother. Note that this is more visible with DVD/Bluray. With UHD Bluray, Chroma is already 1080p, so the difference is less drastic.
By the way, the first number in the gamma curve file name isn't relevant. I give it for reference only, so people know at which peakY I created the curve, but it has little to no effect on the actual performance in another setup. My 140-1100-4000 is near identical to my 200-1100-4000, both in low lamp (140nits) and high lamp (200nits). I wouldn't be able to tell which is which in a blind test, and both work equally well in both setups. This is because these curves are relative S-curves, they are not absolute like a standard PQ Gamma curve.
So it's the second number that matters most. You want a xxx-800-4000 curve
Originally Posted by asharma
Using Manni's 200-1200-4000 wow!!! Dead pool never looked so pehenomenal!! I really couldn't even watch it in gamma d but this new curve is amazing...finally a proper red suit!! I think this will be my goto curve...nice blacks!! Very accurate color! I did pump contrast up a bit for a bit of pop and I can see I'm clipping some clouds but a stunning hdr picture now!!! Who said hdr was lousy on this series of JVC's???
very accepatable now!! Thanks Manni!
You're welcome, and glad that one worked for you! You might want to try the 200-1100-4000 I realease today, it should be very similar with a tiny bit more saturation as the target is a bit lower. That's why I settled on a 1100nits target here. [edit: late night brain fart spotted by an eagle eyed reader, the latest 1100nits should look a bit less saturated, not more than the 1200nits you are using. It would be a bit brighter though.
Originally Posted by R Harkness
Manni, do your settings require the use of JVC's autocal feature, or could they be employed by a competent calibrator with his own tools?
A competent calibrator WILL use the JVC Autocal.
At the moment, nothing beats it for an HDR calibration.
It generates an excellent baseline, and then a competent calibrator will do a touch up with better tools (like using reference meters, a Spyder is most certainly not accurate enough on its own) to bring it to near reference, for example set 100% white to D65, use the CMS with moderation, and generate a custom gamma curve for HDR. There is no way around the JVC Autocal right now unless you have a Radiance Pro. A good calibrator will also create custom gamuts for the JVC Autocal to compensate for any errors in their specific Spyder to improve the results further, for example maximise the gamut size.
I would go as far as saying that a calibrator who calibrates a JVC without using the JVC Autocal software isn't a competent JVC calibrator, especially for HDR, but that's my opinion. The Radiance Pro and its shaping LUT (when it's fully functional) will be the only way to improve things further, primarily because it should allow to get an accurate HDR calibration AND get the DI back, but in my opinion it's still a good idea to get the best possible baseline with the JVC Autocal before creating a 3D LUT, even if only to save time.
For example, if I don't use the JVC Autocal, I need to create a 3D LUT that takes 2 hours (with my Discus trained to my i1pro2, a Klein K10a would be at least four times faster) to get reference results. With a JVC Autocal baseline, it will only take 10mn because I can run a Lightning LUT in Calman (100 points) instead of a full 17x17x17 LUT (5000points) to produce as good and even sometimes better results.