AVS Forum banner

1701 - 1720 of 13608 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
35 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by eghill1125  /t/1393853/fork-of-hcfr-started-whats-needed/1680#post_23134169


I have a question about the bt 1886 gamma. Here is a night calibration I did yesterday. I was hoping for around 2.32 or 2.33 gamma, so that looks good.

What I am wondering is the luminance chart. If we are trying to hit the bt 1886 gamma, does the luminance chart not work like it should. How would I raise the luminance without sacrificing my gamma of 2.33? Is there some other way to raise it besides using the 10 point white balance? That would change my gamma to not follow the curve.


Also another quick thing. How do we go for a lower gamma like 2.25 for a daylight setting? Is the only way changing gamma on TV. The night calibration one I used 2.4 on tv, so for day wanting 2.25 I would need to set tv gamma to 2.2 or 1.9 and see which one is closest?


Thanks for any answers...

Night Expert 2 3-26-13.zip 50k .zip file
the graph of luminance, using the BT 1886, does not work well! because it shows the reference luminance prefencias box! We are not interpreted bt 1886! bt if you take 1886 and put in refencia 2.33 that night is your gamma, luminance the graph you'd be good! if used bt 1886, we must not give importance to this chart luminance, at least until a future release.

Calibration is my night, my first calibration my TV is a LED ES7000!
Color Measures1.zip 32k .zip file

If you look at my gamma, putting bt 1886, I arrived as a reference reach 2.4!!

When adjusting the grayscale gamma 10p for, try to get as close to it bt gammay 1886!!

I do not understand, is that if you look my chart of the gamma, you will see that leaves a rather linear gamma curve! and I do not understand why!

What is not, because to put input bt 1886, I get that corresponds to a gamma 2.4!!

It means that if I make a calibration for the day, is also going to be 2.4?

I noticed your calibration and you get default bt 1886 2.33! and i get my default 2.4! That suits me, but do not understand why input is 2.4!

It is for my TV, I should do? Gamma in the TV menu is in 2.2

Thank you all.
 

Attachments

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,804 Posts
Discussion Starter #1,702

Quote:
Originally Posted by eghill1125  /t/1393853/fork-of-hcfr-started-whats-needed/1680#post_23134169


I have a question about the bt 1886 gamma. Here is a night calibration I did yesterday. I was hoping for around 2.32 or 2.33 gamma, so that looks good.

What I am wondering is the luminance chart. If we are trying to hit the bt 1886 gamma, does the luminance chart not work like it should. How would I raise the luminance without sacrificing my gamma of 2.33? Is there some other way to raise it besides using the 10 point white balance? That would change my gamma to not follow the curve.


Also another quick thing. How do we go for a lower gamma like 2.25 for a daylight setting? Is the only way changing gamma on TV. The night calibration one I used 2.4 on tv, so for day wanting 2.25 I would need to set tv gamma to 2.2 or 1.9 and see which one is closest?


Thanks for any answers...

I think you and Leondavid are confused by what BT.1886 means. This means the gamma is not constant when you change stimulus levels You can have a flat gamma = 2.2, 2.3, etc. OR you can match the BT.1886 function, but not both. When you check the BT.1886 box in references you will see that the target curve is not flat, that is your target, not 2.2. If you want a night mode BT.1886, drop the contrast to your night mode peak white setting and you will get another curve as your target.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
35 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by zoyd  /t/1393853/fork-of-hcfr-started-whats-needed/1680#post_23135624


I think you and Leondavid are confused by what BT.1886 means. This means the gamma is not constant when you change stimulus levels You can have a flat gamma = 2.2, 2.3, etc. OR you can match the BT.1886 function, but not both. When you check the BT.1886 box in references you will see that the target curve is not flat, that is your target, not 2.2. If you want a night mode BT.1886, drop the contrast to your night mode peak white setting and you will get another curve as your target.
Zoyd thanks! Now I look good, because maybe, having marked bt 1886, marking I gamma curve bt 1886 to follow! get a flat gamma reference!

And not because it goes to follow a flat curve, when I have marked bt 1886!!

X that if you look my calibration, I get a gamma reference flat, at 2.4

Thanks Zoyd
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
911 Posts
Zoyd,


I am able to follow the bt 1886 gamma graph fairly well and understand that is the curve for my black and white level too run at. Just wasn't sure then if we put any stock in the luminance chart at all? I am definitely showing that I am well below the curve on luminance even though the gamma curve is followed fairly well. I see no compromise between the 2 charts on my set. I can go by bt 1886 gamma and be done, or I can go by the luminance chart and be done. But either way, one or the other is completely off. So at this point I am just going by the gamma graph and forgetting luminance chart. I have no idea how to raise the middle of the luminance chart without killing the gamma curve.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
35 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by eghill1125  /t/1393853/fork-of-hcfr-started-whats-needed/1680#post_23136716


Zoyd,


I am able to follow the bt 1886 gamma graph fairly well and understand that is the curve for my black and white level too run at. Just wasn't sure then if we put any stock in the luminance chart at all? I am definitely showing that I am well below the curve on luminance even though the gamma curve is followed fairly well. I see no compromise between the 2 charts on my set. I can go by bt 1886 gamma and be done, or I can go by the luminance chart and be done. But either way, one or the other is completely off. So at this point I am just going by the gamma graph and forgetting luminance chart. I have no idea how to raise the middle of the luminance chart without killing the gamma curve.
I repeat, using bt 1886, the graph of luminance, never going to look good! is of no importance in the case of using bt 1886!

Only good if not used bt 1886!

It is a program error that does not show the luminance bt 1886 in the graph.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,415 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by eghill1125  /t/1393853/fork-of-hcfr-started-whats-needed/1680#post_23136716


So at this point I am just going by the gamma graph and forgetting luminance chart. I have no idea how to raise the middle of the luminance chart without killing the gamma curve.
You can't because the two are inextricably linked. The gamma graph is the derivative of the luminance curve, ie gamma is the accelerationvelocity of luminance. Just use the gamma graph and the Y targets in the datatable on the main screen and you are fine. The scale of the luminance chart is so zoomed out that it isnt very useful anyway.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,804 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,804 Posts
Discussion Starter #1,708
I updated the current version of the program to gray out the Reference Gamma box when BT.1886 is selected. Hopefully that will prevent some future confusions.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,804 Posts
Discussion Starter #1,709

Quote:
Originally Posted by Leondavid  /t/1393853/fork-of-hcfr-started-whats-needed/1680#post_23136880


I repeat, using bt 1886, the graph of luminance, never going to look good! is of no importance in the case of using bt 1886!

Only good if not used bt 1886!

It is a program error that does not show the luminance bt 1886 in the graph.

There is no program error, if you select BT.1886, that is the white curve. The yellow curve is the measurement and the blue curve is average measured gamma, not the target. If you have a flat gamma the average might lie on top of the measured, if you have a BT.1886 curve the average will never lie on top of the measured. The luminance curve is not very useful, use the gamma curve to evaluate your results.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
35 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by zoyd  /t/1393853/fork-of-hcfr-started-whats-needed/1680#post_23137389


There is no program error, if you select BT.1886, that is the white curve. The yellow curve is the measurement and the blue curve is average measured gamma, not the target. If you have a flat gamma the average might lie on top of the measured, if you have a BT.1886 curve the average will never lie on top of the measured. The luminance curve is not very useful, use the gamma curve to evaluate your results.
ok, thanks Zoyd! I will download the new version so you added recently!

And I will continue testing other calibrations, this world is all this true?

When I go to the gamma graph, which is the third, and as I approached I gammay ires in all, I left the flat gamma and 2.4!

And if I go to the Figure 2, which is the luminance, that's where I say get the error! because that interprets graphic in 2.22 am measuring default gamma and luminance for that gamma brand, not the way bt 1886!

Why I said, I graphic that does not give importance only to that of gamma.

Now I have to do, because I get a reference to follow a gamma curve! leave no wonder!

Seguire calibrating and watching to do.

Thanks for everything, as always!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
35 Posts
Zoyd in the end I could achieve! achieves a gamma curve of 2.25 with bt 1886! great!!

And after all, I saw generally well! for being my second calibration, not bad! the other was the one that started yesterday, but where the gamma was linear and was not what I wanted.

Now I'm going to take a nap, I was many hours with calibration, but worth it, I learned more and every day I like this world.

Still I can not believe the amount of hours you can take it, and you have to return several times to step back, to see that does not change anything!

When I got out of bed, upload photos and so give me your grades Zoyd!

Thanks as always, and had not been able to understand at all, if not for you.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
35 Posts
 http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/268/44266320.jpg/


Uploaded with ImageShack.us
http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/534/18149764.jpg/


Uploaded with ImageShack.us
http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/248/34489587.jpg/


Uploaded with ImageShack.us
http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/35/35308461.jpg/


Uploaded with ImageShack.us
http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/13/79598693.jpg/


Uploaded with ImageShack.us
http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/441/76858023.jpg/


Uploaded with ImageShack.us


Well, those were my results for my second calibration!

For night mode!

What if I owe them all, are the settings of the TV, ie, as was the TV set to reach these parameters.

I owe it to the next.

The only thing that is difficult to correct Zoyd, and it was from the first day that I started with my probe calibration was blue in the CIE! samsung is a problem or is there any better way to let that color?

Hoffman said it is preferable to have a better red and green, a blue! they?

Thanks for everything.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,804 Posts
Discussion Starter #1,714

Quote:
Originally Posted by LarryInRI  /t/1393853/fork-of-hcfr-started-whats-needed/1710#post_23141807


Leon,


Your calibration is great. Don't touch a thing. Blue is fine so leave it alone.


Terrific job.


Larry

I agree, A++, good job.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
35 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by LarryInRI  /t/1393853/fork-of-hcfr-started-whats-needed/1710#post_23141807


Leon,


Your calibration is great. Don't touch a thing. Blue is fine so leave it alone.


Terrific job.


Larry
Hi Larry, thanks for your words! probe the truth that when a movie on ps3 and some games, be silly with the image I was seeing.

Because much difference compared to a setup with and without probe patterns! It is amazing what losing one in your TV uncalibrated.

regards
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
35 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by zoyd  /t/1393853/fork-of-hcfr-started-whats-needed/1710#post_23141965


I agree, A++, good job.
Thanks Zoyd! You helped me a lot with his doubts and the latest revision of HCFR, everything got better!

This calibration I made using my ps3 as player!

Everything looks great, games, movies, amazing image.

And just now, finished a calibration for my xbox360, calibration of day.

And the results are similar to the ps3! Why not upload photos that is very similar, with gamma 2.24 and some change in the CMS and a little more backlight (normal because it is a day calibration) and the contrast is almost calibration compared to the ps3.

Zoyd, might in ps3 or xbox 360, both consoles are banding problems? Calibrations now after I did, but a lot less noticeable than before, but for me, it is the content I'm playing and because consoles have drama with that, I saw elsewhere.

I do not notice it before, but out there in a game, what I can tell, although probe those games where you could see some banding and now with the calibration, or what I'm noticing.

Zoyd thank you very much.

regards
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
607 Posts
 My´n calibration for Samsung PS64E8000 is almost perfect when it comes to graphs (looks also great).


Any idea how to improve red 75% saturation?


Great thing is that Samsung has removed peak white limit (~110cd/m2) when use Movie mode, you can get over 170cd/m2 if you want !


btw, thanks to LarryInRI for guide to Samsung CMS settings


First full CMS settings for me after three Panasonic mid serie plasmas, it was enjoy to make calibration with latest HCFR, thanks again zoyd
I used your matrix for i1DPro since it´s made with D8000
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
788 Posts
Tested/compared all the below along with a non-matrix corrected run on my 55ST50 using a iD3 and the three matrices came VERY close to each other. Really the only difference were within the HighEnd Red, and they really only varied + 2 within them. The non-corrected run had a very low red reading, it had me setting my HighEnd Red about 15% higher than the maxtrix corrected runs. The final settings ended up being:


Contrast: 84

Brightness: 52

Color: 46

Tint: 0

Sharpness: 0

ColorTemp: Warm2

RGB High R: 18

RGB High G: 2

RGB High B: 14

RGB Low R: 14

RGB Low G: 0

RGB Low B: 8

Gamma: 2.6


Originally Posted by zoyd


Code:

1.055150 0.008338 -0.013504

0.009191 1.028573 -0.008165

-0.013243 0.020807 0.977213


Quote:

Originally Posted by kjgarrison


Code:

1.038606808 -0.002502512 -0.011492028

0.010401065 0.994002567 -0.003384238

-0.006758658 0.008717773 0.977999919


Code:

From http://dispcalgui.hoech.net/colorimetercorrections/ using Panasonic Plasma

1.0383 -0.015199 -0.012862

0.030022 0.96707 -0.0048218

-0.00042114 0.0066268 0.95594




 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,804 Posts
Discussion Starter #1,720

Quote:
Originally Posted by Make73  /t/1393853/fork-of-hcfr-started-whats-needed/1710#post_23146618

My´n calibration for Samsung PS64E8000 is almost perfect when it comes to graphs (looks also great).


Any idea how to improve red 75% saturation?


Great thing is that Samsung has removed peak white limit (~110cd/m2) when use Movie mode, you can get over 170cd/m2 if you want !


btw, thanks to LarryInRI for guide to Samsung CMS settings


First full CMS settings for me after three Panasonic mid serie plasmas, it was enjoy to make calibration with latest HCFR, thanks again zoyd
I used your matrix for i1DPro since it´s made with D8000

You're welcome! Nice looking calibration, I would recommend you use cell light 20 and reduce contrast to get your desired peak white because that will give you brighter response during scenes with a lot of white content (hockey etc.). There is not much you can do about the red non-linearity except calibrate using 75% saturation patterns.
 
1701 - 1720 of 13608 Posts
Top