AVS Forum banner

681 - 700 of 833 Posts

·
aka jfinnie
Joined
·
4,215 Posts
Yeah, I also use the 1% size pattern trick to aim the i1pro (and the Discus), but the two tripods (I have them, with quick release and I use TeamViewer or Remote Desktop too) isn't an option for me. I had to do it with the JVC Autocal at the time and I'm glad I don't have to do it anymore (both because of the Spyder X and because I'm not using the JVC Autocal anymore). My seats are where the tripod should be, and yes, for me I'd rather pay for a K10A than keep faffing around with one meter facing the screen and one facing the PJ. I'd get reliable contrast measurements, laser aiming, excellent low light accuracy, increased speed, no dark initialisation, etc. I've been resisting for as long as I could, but I'm getting to a stage where I'm more and more tempted, especially since I'm now using profile off with the filter, which provides great results but needs larger LUTs than when using presets (with the known downsides). If, as I suspect, measuring with the diffuser facing the PJ is the only way to use the i1d3 on LCOS reliably, then it's not an option for me. I could have done that then (as I said I used to do this with the C5 and the i1pro), but I went for the Discus instead. I'm not going to do it now :)
Yup, very similar sized rooms. My couch is equally in the wrong place for this to be much "fun". Luckily in my case the two tripod legs work out just right and nestle into the crevice between the couch base and couch back nicely.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
472 Posts
Following up on this from yesterday. I accept that there was something maybe "lost in translation" but I must say that at the time I did feel like I was being called out as being dishonest even though it now clear to me that was obviously not intended.

So, I have sent the files as requested to ebr9999, but I have also done myself what he wants to do, which was to take the FCMM profile from LightSpace and invert the correction from it to provide uncorrected profile data (with the help of Anger.miki). That uncorrected profile data has then been imported to ColourSpace where FCVM has been applied to it using the same original BPD files.

Note. The FCVM profile has 1 extra point within it as I removed Black from the Patch Sequence to speed up Jeti read times (it can take 2 minutes to read black). LightSpace does not add this point automatically, whereas ColourSpace adds Black if it is missing upon saving a profile.

First, the original FCMM profile compared to a Jeti Profile


Then, that EXACT same profile data, but with FCVM applied and compared to the EXACT same Jeti Profile


Once again, the original post was intended to be used as a "rough guide" as to the benefits for i1d3 users. This can be considered as "real world usage" benefits to i1d3 users
Many thanks, Leon for having shared your measurements data, and I agree, I can see a lot of benefit into your I1D3 accuracy.

Here my analysis:
I have first given a look to your FCMM correction. If you correct target using FCMM, chroma is obviously perfect, but that I1D3 FCMM correction (matched on W), has the following Luma Error on RGB: 4.34%,-2.23%,-0.03%.
I have given a look to my one, and typically I see only around 2% on R. I would expect even better outcomes in my case.

Anyhow,
I have computed for each measured patch dx, dy, dxy, and %Y relative to FCMM and FCVM. Then I have computed the relevant difference between FCVM and FCMM for dxy and %Y. I have them coloured according to NIST requirements. Keep in mind that they are very strict, and, for example, Klein use more relaxed requirements (0.002 and 3% on RGB)
The first thing you note is that there is no dispute about Luma. As somehow expected FCVM is much better than FCMM.
Looking at primaries you may not be so impressed:

but miracles are not possible. dY%'s are correct and dx and dy are kept.
What has impressed me are secondaries:

Beyond dY%, now also chromas appear pretty good.
I have then tried to isolate critical patches (where I think a little devil may destroy everything). I have selected the patches whose FCMM chroma correction is better than 0.001:

The only noticeable patch (105,23,13) shows some misalignment (essentially a worse dy), but surely in the overall balance not so important.


PS: Also the excel file is attached. The selector I usually use when checking those kind of file are there for your use.
 

Attachments

·
Registered
Joined
·
860 Posts
@liberator72 Thank you for sharing your results, your posts were perceived as intended the first time. And apologies for adding to the noise by asking you to confirm something that I had missed in your initial post.

I have done a quick test with the Discus and I measure a standard anisometric 10x10x10 in 28 minutes vs your 20 minutes (in my slowest SDR calibration with a peak white of 50nits). If this translated to LCOS, this means that the i1d3 would be about 30% faster, while being less accurate than the Discus in low light. I assume that the K10a would be about 50% faster (15 minutes?) while being more accurate in low light than the Discus.

The main question for me is how accurate would the i1d3 be with a 21points LUT, when reading 5% stim RGBW on LCOS. When I evaluated the i1d3 a few years back, it was not only unable to read black reliably (like the Discus is under certain conditions), which makes it impossible to use for BT1886 or contrast measurements, but it was unable to read 5% white off the screen with my JVC projector at the time.

In the low end, with your "turbo" settings, how low do you expect the i1d3 to read reliably? Is it able to read the darkest patches of a 21pts LUT reliably with these settings? What is your peak white? What is your 5% white Y?

Currently, with the Discus, it takes around 2.5 hours to run a 17pts LUT for HDR tonemapped content (120 peak nits, 5% white around 0.17nits) without low light averaging, and a lot longer with my calibration for SDR content (currently 54nits peak white, 5% white around 0.05nits after calibration using BT1886, would be lower with power 2.4), up to five hours with low light averaging enabled. I currently use an optimised patch sequence of under 4,000 points that runs under 2 hours for my HDR calibration with the Discus profiled to the i1pro2 (I haven't had a chance to try FCVM yet but on LCOS FCCM already worked very well, so I'm not expecting huge improvements) and provides excellent results with CS.

If your results translated to a 30% speed increase here, it would allow me to read 5,000 patches in a bit more than 1.5 hours with the i1d3, which makes a 21pts LUT just about doable at around 3 hours, but only if the results are usable, especially in the low end.

Have you tried measuring a 21pts LUT with your turbo settings, and is your i1d3 reliable reading the darkest patches? Have you tried a calibration with a peak white as low as 50nits (which is the standard for SDR with projectors in a dedicated room) and patches going down as low at 0.05nits for white?

Thank you again for sharing all your results, I don't own an i1d3 currently but your results with turbo settings make me think about getting one to run large LUTs faster than I can with my Discus.

I'd love to not have to upgrade to a K10a, but despite the significant speed improvements that you report with your "turbo" settings in your setup (I assume targeting 100nits in SDR), I'm not sure that an i1d3 would work reliably here with 21pts LUTs, especially with my SDR calibration (50nits peak white, 0.05nits for 5% white).

That's the reason why I had to go with the Discus rather than the i1d3, and I'm concerned that this limitation might still stand given the limited ability of the i1d3 in low light.

Thoughts?
Okay so this is absolutely not being directed towards you as it is clear you actually read and understood what I said. But the rest of what has been said today and over the past couple days is getting pretty boring and is completely unwarranted.

I never once said the i1d3 can be turned into a Klein with some cooked up settings. I have repeatedly said that it is just tweaking of the normal settings that are available to anyone with an i1d3 Rev.B meter. They are there, right in the settings menu for all to see. They have always been there. Anyone can do what they want with them and if they work, then great it can make you i1d3 much faster and in fact can make it comparable to a Klein over the 1000 points that I showed. It doesn't magically make the i1d3 able to read any lower than it already could. It doesn't make it any more accurate than it already is. It doesn't make it any more repeatable than it already is. It doesn't do anything other than shorten the read time from whatever Integration time you usually set it at (generic default advice is 0.75 or 750ms) to 0.25 or 250ms. That is quite a bit of gain when measuring over a substantial amount of patch points (note, when used in conjunction with AIO Mode). Then, to ensure that the low light readings it is capable of measuring are stable, just set a threshold for where Intelligent Integration kicks in. Whether that be 2 nits, 5 nits or whatever.

In LightSpace there is a Measure and Log feature (not available yet in CS, but it was one of the first things I requested on WIBNI list during Alpha testing) where you can measure and record whatever you want and check for repeatability of measurements in a CSV log file. On my WOLED panel, with my i1d3, in my environment with my setup, setting Intelligent Int at 2 nit means it will take reads until they are repeatable (up to the meters maximum Integration time) and then move on to the next patch. Very simple.

With my setup, everything measured above 1.5 nits is fine, repeatable and stable with the shortened Integration time of 250ms, whereas below 1.5 nits it is not as repeatable. So to be safe, I set it at 2 nits. Again, very simple.

That is all there is to it and I absolutely for the life of me cannot understand how some people cannot see that, and then go off on some wild mission to twist what was said into something it isn't. I have no interest in justifying my purchase of the i1d3, if anything I would want to justify my purchase of the Klein and say that the i1d3 is rubbish and all should ditch theirs and get a Pro meter so that I'd feel my expensive purchase was not made in vain. My initial first post and subsequent reply to another user was made due to the fact that many/most here use the i1d3 and that the new FCVM probe match method in ColourSpace works very, very well and happened to mention that if you tweak your i1d3 settings you can make it much faster without losing any of its accuracy. It really is that simple, but maybe too simple for some to understand :rolleyes:

One final thing on that subject is that they are not "my" turbo settings. This was all discussed a long time ago in the LightSpace thread where people were trying to get things to work faster. Several tried it and it worked for most/all of them IIRC. It is OLD NEWS!

Anyway, sorry for the rant. And again, not directed towards you as it is clear you understood what I said, or at least attempted to and didn't try and twist anything.

To answer some of your questions.

Yes, I have used the i1d3 to do a 21p cube several times for some tests and experiments I was doing a while back just for fun. If I recall, it takes about 30-35 minutes longer than the Klein when using the i1d3 settings above. It was before the Start/End time box and patch counter etc was added in ColourSpace so I timed it roughly and I am sure (with my hazy recollection) it was 30 (ish) minutes longer over 9261 points. Not bad at all I thought!!!

It cannot, and will not ever read the darkest patches any more reliably than it already does no matter what settings yo use. It is hardware. You cannot change the physical characteristics of it. It does not matter if you set Integration at 0.25 or 6.0. It measures what it measures at all times. It will take measurements based on the time you set your Integration value at and with an Intelligent Int value set, it will slow down and "Intelligently" take reads until it is stable and move on as explained above. The key is to set the correct Integration time in the first place. The faster the better obviously, but it needs to be good reads so you can either make repeatable measurements and check for consistency, or use LightSpace Measure and Log function.

I have never calibrated a Projector and do not foresee myself ever having to. I have one SDR picture mode at 80 nits (night viewing when I am tired), one at 100 nits (general normal dark room viewing) and one at 120 nits (day mode). I have done all three of these multiple times with the i1d3 before I got my Klein and achieved great results when using either a 17p or a 21p cube.

In your case, measuring off screen for a projector, I doubt (although I do not know) if you would be able to reduce the Integration time that low, so no, I do not think (nor do I know) if you would see any benefit from using an i1d3 in the way I have described. But this is why I said repeatedly that users would have to test for themselves with their own setup in their own environment, and there are very, very simple ways to do this as I have said above.

If you can justify the cost of a Klein (or CR probe) then absolutely, get one. It is fantastic and I do not regret for one moment buying mine. But I absolutely love the (two) i1d3 probes I have and they are more than worth their money (IMO) and are excellent little probes. Whether the i1d3 would be of any benefit to you, I really could not honestly give an opinion.

Sorry for the late reply, I have been at work all day, but I really hope this clarifies everything fully so as to prevent any more of totally unwarranted, obnoxious and somewhat offensive posts over the past few days.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
9,823 Posts
@liberator72: That's perfect, thanks for taking the time to answer my question, and I regret as much as you do the obnoxious tangent taken by some. Your posts were perfectly clear from the start.

Just to clarify my own query, I never thought that any setting or matrix would change the physical limitations of the meter. It's just that the last time I evaluated an i1d3, it didn't meet my requirements regarding low light measurements, and quite a few things have changed since (new meter revision, AIO mode, optimised settings for speed etc) so I was just interested in finding out if I should give it another try. It looks like I should (even if only for my HDR content calibration which is 120nits and the one I care about the most), though the odds that it will meet my specific needs for my SDR calibration remain limited.

I'm definitely considering the K10A (and have been for years), but I'm not there yet. :)

Thanks again for sharing your results and for taking the time to answer my question to the best of your ability and for your suggestions. It's very useful and I am grateful.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
860 Posts
@liberator72: That's perfect, thanks for taking the time to answer my question, and I regret as much as you do the obnoxious tangent taken by some. Your posts were perfectly clear from the start.

Just to clarify, I never thought that any setting or matrix would change the physical limitations of the meter. It's just that the last time I evaluated an i1d3, it didn't meet my requirements, and quite a few things have changed since (new meter revision, AIO mode, etc) so I was just interested in finding out if I should give it another try. It looks I should, though the odds that it will meet my specific needs remain limited.

I'm definitely considering the K10A (and have been for years), but I'm not there yet. :)

Thanks again for sharing your results and for taking the time to answer my question to the best of your ability. It's very useful and I am grateful.
Yes, I fully realise that you did not think at all that anything I said meant the physical limitations of the meter could be changed, as it seems you are fully capable of reading, understanding and writing the English language using full sentences and complete words. But I am sure you understand why I had to make that absolutely clear as it appears some people here cannot.

In my absolute honest opinion, for the price of an i1d3 Rev.B, it should probably be considered as an essential piece of equipment in any persons toolkit, be they pro's or hobbyists. Even if you only ever use it once in a blue moon, it is extremely handy to be able to pull it out and know it just works.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
9,823 Posts
Yes, I fully realise that you did not think at all that anything I said meant the physical limitations of the meter could be changed, as it seems you are fully capable of reading, understanding and writing the English language using full sentences and complete words. But I am sure you understand why I had to make that absolutely clear as it appears some people here cannot.

In my absolute honest opinion, for the price of an i1d3 Rev.B, it should probably be considered as an essential piece of equipment in any persons toolkit, be they pro's or hobbyists. Even if you only ever use it once in a blue moon, it is extremely handy to be able to pull it out and know it just works.
No worries, I absolutely understand. :)

I'm not snobbish about the tools I use, I had to buy Spyders 4, 5 and X which are horrible meters but were extremely useful with the JVC Autocal (when I used that method) to get the best possible baseline, even if I would do my main calibration with a Discus trained to the i1pro2. I will consider keeping the i1d3 if I can make use of it.

I'll post back my findings when I've had a chance to run some tests with one.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
860 Posts
Many thanks, Leon for having shared your measurements data, and I agree, I can see a lot of benefit into your I1D3 accuracy.

Here my analysis:
I have first given a look to your FCMM correction. If you correct target using FCMM, chroma is obviously perfect, but that I1D3 FCMM correction (matched on W), has the following Luma Error on RGB: 4.34%,-2.23%,-0.03%.
I have given a look to my one, and typically I see only around 2% on R. I would expect even better outcomes in my case.
One thing that should be noted about this for full disclosure.

Usually, when performing a probe match you obviously validate the match. Previously, when using FCMM with the i1d3 on a WOLED, you can sometimes fight like hell to get a NIST valid match, and sometimes you never will on a WOLED in Wide gamut. xy is usually always correct with RGBW, and Y is always within NIST for GBW, whereas Red can struggle with Y. Sometimes I can get it NIST valid but usually, as you state above, it averages around 2%.

But...The correction used above was done very quickly with FCVM and as you can see, RGB are all perfectly well within NIST. However, when that correction data is used with the traditional FCMM method, the errors are much larger than they usually are.

What I'm trying to say is, with FCMM on WOLED, it can be a struggle with the i1d3 to get a good (NIST valid) probe match on WOLED, whereas with FCVM it easy, straightforward and works.

If I get the time in the near future and if other have an interest in me doing it, I will perform the FCMM in LightSpace so as to get that match as good as I possibly can, and with that BPD data, use it for FCVM too. As Enrico says above, it could potentially lead to even further benefits!
 

·
aka jfinnie
Joined
·
4,215 Posts
@liberator72: That's perfect, thanks for taking the time to answer my question, and I regret as much as you do the obnoxious tangent taken by some. Your posts were perfectly clear from the start.

Just to clarify my own query, I never thought that any setting or matrix would change the physical limitations of the meter. It's just that the last time I evaluated an i1d3, it didn't meet my requirements regarding low light measurements, and quite a few things have changed since (new meter revision, AIO mode, optimised settings for speed etc) so I was just interested in finding out if I should give it another try. It looks like I should (even if only for my HDR content calibration which is 120nits and the one I care about the most), though the odds that it will meet my specific needs for my SDR calibration remain limited.

I'm definitely considering the K10A (and have been for years), but I'm not there yet. :)

Thanks again for sharing your results and for taking the time to answer my question to the best of your ability and for your suggestions. It's very useful and I am grateful.
For what it is worth the sample of i1d3 rev B units I've had through my hands (2x retail, 1x OEM with 2000 nits capability) have been slightly less sensitive than both of the i1d3 Rev As I've seen (one retail, one OEM). from screen the Rev As were relatively happy returning a (junk for chroma) reading down to 0.003 nits, but the Rev B units struggle to get down to there. However I still have only in the end kept my most recent OEM rev B as for reading from lens having some confidence of the top end is more valuable than a still mediocre or unnavailable dark reading from screen at the bottom, and this current i1d3 seems to have filters that were most aligned to CIE observer for my projector vs the Jeti 1201 I had.

Reading "JVC dark" from screen on an i1d3 certainly hasn't got any better, so don't waste time / money on it if you have an expectation to get a result that is worth anything there. :)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,569 Posts
One thing that should be noted about this for full disclosure.

Usually, when performing a probe match you obviously validate the match. Previously, when using FCMM with the i1d3 on a WOLED, you can sometimes fight like hell to get a NIST valid match, and sometimes you never will on a WOLED in Wide gamut. xy is usually always correct with RGBW, and Y is always within NIST for GBW, whereas Red can struggle with Y. Sometimes I can get it NIST valid but usually, as you state above, it averages around 2%.

But...The correction used above was done very quickly with FCVM and as you can see, RGB are all perfectly well within NIST. However, when that correction data is used with the traditional FCMM method, the errors are much larger than they usually are.

What I'm trying to say is, with FCMM on WOLED, it can be a struggle with the i1d3 to get a good (NIST valid) probe match on WOLED, whereas with FCVM it easy, straightforward and works.

If I get the time in the near future and if other have an interest in me doing it, I will perform the FCMM in LightSpace so as to get that match as good as I possibly can, and with that BPD data, use it for FCVM too. As Enrico says above, it could potentially lead to even further benefits!
Even with my Klein, without FCVM i was getting a consistent elevation in Red. With FCVM, no problem works fast and great!
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
9,823 Posts
For what it is worth the sample of i1d3 rev B units I've had through my hands (2x retail, 1x OEM with 2000 nits capability) have been slightly less sensitive than both of the i1d3 Rev As I've seen (one retail, one OEM). from screen the Rev As were relatively happy returning a (junk for chroma) reading down to 0.003 nits, but the Rev B units struggle to get down to there. However I still have only in the end kept my most recent OEM rev B as for reading from lens having some confidence of the top end is more valuable than a still mediocre or unnavailable dark reading from screen at the bottom, and this current i1d3 seems to have filters that were most aligned to CIE observer for my projector vs the Jeti 1201 I had.

Reading "JVC dark" from screen on an i1d3 certainly hasn't got any better, so don't waste time / money on it if you have an expectation to get a result that is worth anything there. :)
Thanks, but at the time I had only an SDR calibration with around 100,000:1 native on/off or so (iris fully closed) vs around 50,000:1 now (iris -11), both around 50nits peak white.

Now my main calibration is my SDR DCI-P3 calibration to tonemap HDR (with madVR/Envy) and has 120 peak white (iris fully open, with 30,000:1 native on/off). My "JVC Dark" isn't the same :)

As I said in a previous post, I'm not hopeful regarding my SDR calibration, but I don't really care about it that much. If I can improve my results at least with my HDR calibration, that's worth the trouble.

Who knows, I might even eat my words and go for a dual tripod combo if the speed improvements are worth it vs the Discus. :)

I'm doing the test anyway, I'll post my results when I'm done if they are positive.
 

·
aka jfinnie
Joined
·
4,215 Posts
Thanks, but at the time I had only an SDR calibration with around 100,000:1 native on/off or so (iris fully closed) vs around 50,000:1 now (iris -11), both around 50nits peak white.

Now my main calibration is my SDR DCI-P3 calibration to tonemap HDR (with madVR/Envy) and has 120 peak white (iris fully open, with 30,000:1 native on/off). My "JVC Dark" isn't the same :)

As I said in a previous post, I'm not hopeful regarding my SDR calibration, but I don't really care about it that much. If I can improve my results at least with my HDR calibration, that's worth the trouble.

Who knows, I might even eat my words and go for a dual tripod combo if the speed improvements are worth it vs the Discus. :)

I'm doing the test anyway, I'll post my results when I'm done if they are positive.
It might just about work for you then at 0.004 nits with either the rev A or B. Note with the JVC black when I've tried from screen with the intelligent integration it will sometimes settle for a stable yet incorrect false reading with some meter options (a factor of 3-5 larger than the 0.004nits). Be interesting to know how you get on with it.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
472 Posts
One thing that should be noted about this for full disclosure.

Usually, when performing a probe match you obviously validate the match. Previously, when using FCMM with the i1d3 on a WOLED, you can sometimes fight like hell to get a NIST valid match, and sometimes you never will on a WOLED in Wide gamut. xy is usually always correct with RGBW, and Y is always within NIST for GBW, whereas Red can struggle with Y. Sometimes I can get it NIST valid but usually, as you state above, it averages around 2%.

But...The correction used above was done very quickly with FCVM and as you can see, RGB are all perfectly well within NIST. However, when that correction data is used with the traditional FCMM method, the errors are much larger than they usually are.

What I'm trying to say is, with FCMM on WOLED, it can be a struggle with the i1d3 to get a good (NIST valid) probe match on WOLED, whereas with FCVM it easy, straightforward and works.

If I get the time in the near future and if other have an interest in me doing it, I will perform the FCMM in LightSpace so as to get that match as good as I possibly can, and with that BPD data, use it for FCVM too. As Enrico says above, it could potentially lead to even further benefits!
Better using CS capability to save both native and FCVM corrected readings. Then FCMM can be easily done in excel. You save time and have cleaner conparison. Avoid LS for that; it is still clipping negative Z in probe matching, and its probe matching is inferior to CS one (pre-roll, stabilisation).
I am out for 2 weeks, but when I am back, I will do that.
 
  • Like
Reactions: liberator72

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,569 Posts
Better using CS capability to save both native and FCVM corrected readings. Then FCMM can be easily done in excel. You save time and have cleaner conparison. Avoid LS for that; it is still clipping negative Z in probe matching, and its probe matching is inferior to CS one (pre-roll, stabilisation).
I am out for 2 weeks, but when I am back, I will do that.
When you do the probe matching in CS how large of a pre-roll do you use? Anything special?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
860 Posts
Avoid LS for that; it is still clipping negative Z in probe matching, and its probe matching
I thought that had changed in a recent LS update? But okay that’s cool if you’d like to do it as it frees my time for other things. Thanks.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11 Posts
don't worry, I've read the posts. my answers stand exactly as such. There's no need to re-post if I said it already three times, three different ways. There's a few other folks following in here, they deserve proper info.

u however can believe whatever u want, though.

u contradict urself. Next, I only know calibrators that always want the best result in each cal session, so that even w/ fast drift dE stays as low as possible.

it's not a "LUT engine" and patch sets and grid sequences aren't "LUTs" either, which is what u posted various times today... (?)

understand the minimum of this: all of these things are connected, and weakest link in the chain ultimately limits the final result. no matter how much the other parts in the chain overcompensate, it won't change any of this.

as I explained before: none of the colorimeters are accurate, so ur entire hierarchy is pointless. understand this:

(1) re accuracy: it doesn't matter which colorimeter u use
(2) u need proper ref offset data for all of the meters w/ the best offset variant (that is available in ur solution)
(3) re speed: if that is of concern, K10A is ur choice
(4) re repeatability: that is the most important aspect, and (1), (2) and (3) do NOT affect or change that.... K10A followed by CR100 are king here, which is why Pros have these (besides low light and speed).

if u do not have (4), then (2) is way less effective. which is exactly what I explained before.

some folks here claim they can bring the i1D3 close to K10A levels re (4). I ask for stats, they have none.

What they post are synthetic calculations that do not reflect the real world, it only shows that the offset variant works on a static data set - a one time data capture.

but in the real world where real calibrators live, the i1D3 will not provide the same data repeatably as the K10A does (unless u severely sacrifice speed and re-read multiple times), hence what was captured in the probe offsets is obviously not the same reads u will do w/ the i1D3 during a long profile (hence the offsets are off, and therefore the math will be off)..... read this again, understand this.

doing synthetic calcs on static data sets only proves the math of the offsets variant is somewhat accurate. it does NOT in any way shape or form prove repeatability, which is why I've been asking multiple times for data that proves this, until it was clear it's clown business statements.

like I said: u and nobody else can have it both ways. but w/ extra work and smart patch sets u can scrape a lot of useful data from the i1D3.
100% agreed.

I've been following the conversation and am not amused about the misleading information being posted here. Mike, you have the patience of a saint. Please stay on course :)

Manni01 said:
how low it can read reliably on LCOS when facing the screen with optimised speed settings in Colourspace
You are not asking the questions you should be asking. But I digress, the speed settings in CS are not relevant when it comes to the i1Display Pro's ability to read low light. That is rather consistent. "Reliability" (your words) on this instrument can only be achieved by increasing the measurements, as Mike already explained ad nauseam.

We own Klein+Jeti and CRI combos (100/250) and do calibrate LCOS once in a while. Nothing too wild if you know the ABCs, as you say. Reading your posts, you don't.

I also do not believe that you advise other professionals in regards to color work.

P
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,081 Posts
100% agreed.

I've been following the conversation and am not amused about the misleading information being posted here. Mike, you have the patience of a saint. Please stay on course :)
Pete !!!

u know what they say, no good deed goes unpunished. :rolleyes:

I'll hit u up offline soon.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11 Posts
to the CS testing team,

are there any improvements in CS with regards to LUT calculation or the implementation of the AWP (alternative white point) ?

I'll hit u up offline soon.
Please do, eager to test another AWP. Also, did not notice any accuracy improvements in Chromasurf.
 

·
aka jfinnie
Joined
·
4,215 Posts
But I digress, the speed settings in CS are not relevant when it comes to the i1Display Pro's ability to read low light. That is rather consistent.
This is not correct; the integration time setting directly affects the ability of the i1d3 via the Xrite API to return a "valid" reading at very low light levels (well, "something" derived from the sensor output at least, noise may dominate). If the integration time is set too fast there is a window of light levels where the meter returns either no reading, or perhaps more worryingly, some bogus data with never-changing colorimetry data across multiple re-reads.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,081 Posts
Please do, eager to test another AWP. Also, did not notice any accuracy improvements in Chromasurf.
ChromaSurf only shows three (3) digits (by default), improvements start at 4th digit in all cases we've encountered.

Also Pete, a friendly heads up, some folks get very jumpy here re discussing even marginal related stuff. I'll update.
 
681 - 700 of 833 Posts
Top