AVS Forum banner

1201 - 1220 of 1453 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
320 Posts
Running 5,000 slide csv file with a drift value of 50. I could be wrong, but when I game on my x it switches to game mode when using allm. So even if ISF dark is set correctly it reverts to game mode no matter what. I have to manually change the mode for my PS4 and switch.
Just try a 10^3 with drift 50 and see what it does?? Just a suggestion, but if it runs without issue you can work up from there.

With Xbox, it switches to Game when you power up for the first time, but if you change to something else (eg ISF) it should remember it the next time you switch on. It does for me at least (I’️m connected directly to HDMI 1). For PS4 etc, you’️re stuck with game mode anyway, so I guess you need it calibrated.

When I get a chance later in the week I’️ll run a profile myself in Game Mode and see if my set does the same thing.
Thanks for your help man. I will totally concede that it could be user error. My laptop isn't plugged into Ethernet, and when I did ISF dark profile it was. Maybe I'm having packet loss or something, but that still wouldn't explain the consistent drift at 65 ire I'm seeing. I wonder if I'd be better off just loading a 1d lut into Game mode before I run the profile. I'm down to do another profile tonight with Ethernet plugged in to see if that changes anything.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
860 Posts
@liberator72

These are my measurings with jeti- i1pro2 highres and i1pro2 id3 profiles

The highres profile improves the readings by de 0,5 compared to the normal i1pro2 profile. If you can get this improvement for free why not.

For woled users it is undoubtedly now better to use your i1pro2 awp with normal i1pro2 profile.
Thanks for your feedback. But to clarify, there was a “slight” improvement in white measurement in Hi-Res, but I’m told there were fluctuations in luminance of colours, hence my statement it would best/safest not to use Hi-Res.

Once again, thanks for your time :)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
860 Posts
Thanks for your help man. I will totally concede that it could be user error. My laptop isn't plugged into Ethernet, and when I did ISF dark profile it was. Maybe I'm having packet loss or something, but that still wouldn't explain the consistent drift at 65 ire I'm seeing. I wonder if I'd be better off just loading a 1d lut into Game mode before I run the profile. I'm down to do another profile tonight with Ethernet plugged in to see if that changes anything.
Could be any number of factors. Looking at the file from the profile would shed some light. I’m not sure I’ll have time to look myself (not tonight anyway) but you could attach it in a zip file here and maybe someone will look at it.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
51 Posts
Unfortunately, the patch values for the colours with errors aren’t visible, so it’s hard to know where the errors are. I have a fairly good idea, but it is likely one of two things.

Volumetric matching does work with the i1Pro2/i1d3 combo, I’ve had great success with it myself, but there are limitations with both probes that need to be accounted for. Without knowing your exact setup, probe settings, software settings etc, there’s not much advice that can be given I’m afraid.
The errors with the patches.

My main doubt is it usable to make a profile.

Thanks in advance.
 

Attachments

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,081 Posts
The errors with the patches.

My main doubt is it usable to make a profile.

Thanks in advance.
u have to differentiate here between method and instruments.

The probe offset method does work consistently, and on WRGB I would choose in that order: volumetric, TCM, FCMM - the method itself has nothing to do with your specific probes and is not dependent on any specific probes or their specs, it doesn't know the probes involved, it only takes data and calculates an offset.

Your probes is a different story and do NOT affect the method (it always calculates the same), but the probes do affect accuracy in two ways:

(1) repeatability of spectro reads for the probe offset readings - that will affect the overall accuracy of your calibration independent of what your dE reports say or how pretty the charts are, b/c those algorithms cannot know if your spectro was off/inconsistent (for the offsets for the colorimeter)

(2) repeatability of the colorimeteror, either during the main profile or just in your probe offset validation run (both compared to how it read during probe offset matching)... hence why it's important to let the instruments warm up and stabilize

If you want to up your chances:

(a) use volumetric probe matching (needed for WRGB only)
(b) take multiple readings with the spectro (during probe offset readings) for each color and avg results - especially w/ a lower class spectro such as i1Pro 1/2 - I always do this even for very high repatable 4nm and now 2nm spectros - u only do this once per cal, so better be safe then worry ;-)
(c) use a colorimeter with high repeatability and if just doing a probe matching validation, take multiple readings for each color and avg results - then calculate your chart again from those reads
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
400 Posts
How outdated is this info regarding calibrating WRGB OLEDs from Sony?

"In creative environment, if you are trying to color-match against a professional monitor, measure x/y on that monitor
with a meter, type in those numbers in the White Point fields, and calibrate using that very same meter used for
measurement.
If you are calibrating to restore BRAVIA’s factory calibration, the best option would be to get a meter/probe calibrated
for CIE170-2:2015 (e.g. Konica Minolta CA-410’s CA-P427C and CA-P410C) and use x:0.3133, y:3302 for the target white
point.
If you have no access to such meters and are using CIE1931 colorimeter such as SpectraCal C6-HDR, the next best thing
you can do is to edit White Point boxes as x:0.3067, y:0.318. White OLED displays should be pretty close. For the LCD
models, it should be close as well, but won’t be as close as when using CIE170-2 meters. When you edit these boxes,
the “Colorspapce Target in Workflow Basic Options will change to “Custom”."

I'm seeing that .3133 .3302 point as pretty close to some conclusions about matching to D65...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
860 Posts
The errors with the patches.

My main doubt is it usable to make a profile.

Thanks in advance.
Okay. So the information @Iron Mike has provided is all absolutely correct and should be taken into account with any future attempts you make with volumetric matching.

But I can give you some tips based on my own experience after countless attempts of my own to get a consistently repeatable perfect match when using the i1Pro2/i1d3 meter combination. These are tips only, they don't guarantee the same results for you because a large part of it is ensuring meters are set up and positioned correctly, panel warmed correctly, settings etc.....

The i1d3 should be used with the WRGB OLED EDR selected. This is the opposite of the recommendation for when doing a FCMM correction.

On both the i1Pro2 and the i1d3, disable Avg Low Light Measurements in Probe options. Once a match has been verified you can enable it again on the i1d3 when profiling if you like.

Start with a 3x3x3 cube, and when you are confident you can get a good match with a small cube based match, begin to add extra lower luminance points around primary and secondary colours to the set.

Keep in mind the limitations of the probes. The i1d3 can read down to 0.1 nits, but the i1Pro2 only goes to 0.2 nits. So in your case you need to ensure that the darkest patch (with the exception of Black which is required) is comfortably above the i1Pro2 limitation threshold. This will mean the darkest patch in your set will be something like 0.0.55, which is low luminance Blue (approx 0.5 nits with an assumed 100 nits peak).

I found it beneficial to have the patches sequenced so that they rise in luminance value, beginning with the darkest and ending with peak white. It means some manual tweaking of patch order, but results were more consistent.

My final tweaked patchset contains just 47 points. I couldn't find any benefit whatsoever in measuring more points than that with the X-Rite probe combo. In fact, if you begin to measure significantly larger patchsets, the results get worse due to the slower speed of the meters causing panel drift between runs. Faster meters can measure more points.

It just takes practice to find that sweet spot. Try again with a smaller set and work from there
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,081 Posts
^^^
some interesting stuff in there... I'm not using the i1D3 anymore (and I've never used it on WRGB) but usually w/ any probe that is worth it's money, repeatability is a hardware attribute - even if it changes w/ specific probe settings, it should then be consistent using those settings

The i1d3 should be used with the WRGB OLED EDR selected. This is the opposite of the recommendation for when doing a FCMM correction.
why use any EDR at all when using spectro offsets ? unless the repeatability of the i1D3 improves on WRGB w/ this EDR (I highly doubt it, but have not tested it), there's no need for it - spectro offset will align the colorimeter, does not matter how far the i1D3 is off

On both the i1Pro2 and the i1d3, disable Avg Low Light Measurements in Probe options. Once a match has been verified you can enable it again on the i1d3 when profiling if you like.
I would never use different settings on the probe in main profile than what was done during probe offsets. You're introducing variables that (possibly) will affect behavior of either probe, which were not accounted for when the probe offsets were derived (under different configuration).

this whole thing is really much easier than it sounds sometimes here. measure w/ i1D3 the same patch 10 times w/ LS measure & log. look at the log, u'll see how repeatable the probe is. this repeatability should be consistent for the luminance range, but w/ lower priced probes you may not get the linearity in consistency as w/ higher specc'ed probes.

But, if you use volumetric probe matching and use the exact same probe settings in the main profile then that is your best bet of getting a proper profile. Also, on WRGB OLED u may wanna consider using BFI between each patch - and that exact same BFI setting should also be used for the probe matching process to ensure the last patch does not affect the next patch - this "afterglow" effect can also be seen on Plasma...

Btw, to further elaborate on differentiating between some items here:
probe positioning has NOTHING to do with and will NOT affect the probe match (although some here stating that it possibly affected their probe match). You could literally point the spectro at the wall, and you will get a perfect (but useless) probe match validation if u do the steps correctly. The ONLY thing probe positioning will affect is the accuracy of the calculated color in the main profile (colorimeter read + spectro offset), since the spectro offset is compromised (in this example) the final color accuracy of the profile will be as well. But that has nothing to do with the probe match. That match simply ensures that the applied offset determines the same color that the spectro has read, so if u point the spectro at the wall all offset adjusted colorimeter reads will be as dark and faint as the spectro reads were - but they will be a match if u do it correctly. (as the sw cannot know and does not care that the spectro was wrongly positioned)

probe positioning only affects color accuracy. to get a probe match u need to be doing the process correctly. And btw, never move the colorimeter after the probe match has been achieved. It needs to stay in place for the main profile and the cLUT validation afterwards...


- M
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,131 Posts
probe positioning only affects color accuracy. to get a probe match u need to be doing the process correctly. And btw, never move the colorimeter after the probe match has been achieved. It needs to stay in place for the main profile and the cLUT validation afterwards...
That's a very interesting post, thanks. May I ask why not to move the colorimeter? So (for example) the FCMM process should be done with the colorimeter in the center of the screen and the spectro off-centre? Or them both either side of centre but within the 10% area?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
860 Posts
^^^
some interesting stuff in there... I'm not using the i1D3 anymore (and I've never used it on WRGB) but usually w/ any probe that is worth it's money, repeatability is a hardware attribute - even if it changes w/ specific probe settings, it should then be consistent using those settings


why use any EDR at all when using spectro offsets ? unless the repeatability of the i1D3 improves on WRGB w/ this EDR (I highly doubt it, but have not tested it), there's no need for it - spectro offset will align the colorimeter, does not matter how far the i1D3 is off
The i1d3, while using Gen CMF, will report a Negative Z result while reading Wide Red. When you create the BPD and then validate the match after, you will find chromaticity is (mostly) well matched, but there will be significant errors in luminance throughout. Using the WOLED EDR compensates for this very well and you can get a perfect macth every time.



I would never use different settings on the probe in main profile than what was done during probe offsets. You're introducing variables that (possibly) will affect behavior of either probe, which were not accounted for when the probe offsets were derived (under different configuration).

this whole thing is really much easier than it sounds sometimes here. measure w/ i1D3 the same patch 10 times w/ LS measure & log. look at the log, u'll see how repeatable the probe is. this repeatability should be consistent for the luminance range, but w/ lower priced probes you may not get the linearity in consistency as w/ higher specc'ed probes.

But, if you use volumetric probe matching and use the exact same probe settings in the main profile then that is your best bet of getting a proper profile. Also, on WRGB OLED u may wanna consider using BFI between each patch - and that exact same BFI setting should also be used for the probe matching process to ensure the last patch does not affect the next patch - this "afterglow" effect can also be seen on Plasma...

Btw, to further elaborate on differentiating between some items here:
probe positioning has NOTHING to do with and will NOT affect the probe match (although some here stating that it possibly affected their probe match). You could literally point the spectro at the wall, and you will get a perfect (but useless) probe match validation if u do the steps correctly. The ONLY thing probe positioning will affect is the accuracy of the calculated color in the main profile (colorimeter read + spectro offset), since the spectro offset is compromised (in this example) the final color accuracy of the profile will be as well. But that has nothing to do with the probe match. That match simply ensures that the applied offset determines the same color that the spectro has read, so if u point the spectro at the wall all offset adjusted colorimeter reads will be as dark and faint as the spectro reads were - but they will be a match if u do it correctly. (as the sw cannot know and does not care that the spectro was wrongly positioned)

probe positioning only affects color accuracy. to get a probe match u need to be doing the process correctly. And btw, never move the colorimeter after the probe match has been achieved. It needs to stay in place for the main profile and the cLUT validation afterwards...


- M
The issues arise specifically with the i1Pro2 and it's limitations in low luminance readings. Not only do read times become significantly longer (as it is does with higher end Spectros too) it also becomes less accurate. I (and others found) that it was better and more consistent for the patches to read as quickly as possible in sequence. The longer the measurements took, the bigger the errors were. Disabling Average Low Light provide more consistent results, and could be verified by measuring further sets too. I personally never bother with Average Low Light on the i1d3 anyway, Intelligent Integration works well enough IMO.

With regards to probe positioning, it does actually affect the process with the i1Pro2. If you use it in its cradle in contact mode, it actually doesn't work well all the time. Mounting the i1Pro2 on a tripod and placing at least 300mm from the display works very well indeed. I probably should have explained that a bit better by saying that you should try and match FOV if at all possible. But to fair this has been mentioned before when the process was being discussed a while back so I thought it was already assumed.

Things like using a stabablistion patch between patches (regardless of how long it was displayed) didn't work well. The best results were with relatively small patchsets sorted in order of rising luminance values worked best. Up to 4^3 sized sets work, but I personally did not find any significant improvement in measuring 64 patches over 47.

But yes, 100% agree that the colorimeter should not be moved at all after matching. You should match, profile, and validate without moving the probe. You should also ensure that you absolutely do not adjust luminance either. e.g. Do not create a match for a 100 nit calibration, and then use that same match for 150 or 200 nit day mode.

The thing is the process itself is, as you say, relatively simple and straightforward when you are using higher end meters. Even Steve said back when it was first introduced in LightSpace that it wouldn't be guaranteed to work well on lower end consumer meters. In fact, I may be wrong but IIRC, it wasn't even going to be enabled in LS HTL to begin with because of this. As it happens, it was, and it takes a little bit extra experimenting to get it to work right. But when it works, it works very well. I am fortunate now to have a higher end Spectro and I have new higher end colorimeter coming today too, so for me it will just be plug and play from now on, so to speak. But for people using the X-Rite probe combo, unfortunately it isn't quite as straightforward.

I hope that makes sense. :)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,576 Posts
I've found if I take my Jeti with the extender attached so I could move the device around the panel in contact mode to read with a very small FOV, even in the center area of the panel I can see slightly different readings as I moved the Jeti around so if you want the most accurate readings when you probe match, you need to have the spectro and your meter pointing at the same exact spot which requires a process of your choosing to accomplish this.
 
  • Like
Reactions: liberator72

·
Registered
Joined
·
860 Posts
I've found if I take my Jeti with the extender attached so I could move the device around the panel in contact mode to read with a very small FOV, even in the center area of the panel I can see slightly different readings as I moved the Jeti around so if you want the most accurate readings when you probe match, you need to have the spectro and your meter pointing at the same exact spot which requires a process of your choosing to accomplish this.
I did the exact same thing when I still had the i1Pro2. Furthermore, if you use the options for the patch window in LS and move the 10% patch around different areas of the panel, the top third of my panel reads a full 10 nits brighter at the top than it does in the middle and the bottom (@100 nits). However, if you display a full screen patch, although xy gives different readings over the entire panel, luminance is actually rather stable.
 
  • Like
Reactions: jrref

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
305 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
860 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,081 Posts
That's a very interesting post, thanks. May I ask why not to move the colorimeter?
u don't move the colorimeter (after probe match has been achieved) so that the colorimeter reads out the exact same pixels on the screen (for main profile and validation) as it did during probe match. This is the best strict approach.

tbh though, screen uniformity in the center even on end consumer panels is very high, so it shouldn't matter too much if you re-positioned the probe manually somewhat to where it was before.

the point is though, there's never a need to move the colorimeter after probe match if u...

(a) use a colorimeter that has internal memory and can save the probe match matrix, e.g. K10 (then u can also use multiple cal sw in one cal session)... or
(b) only use one sw for probe match / cal / validation

if u're using multiple cal sw (CM|LS|etc) and can't save the offset matrix internally,. then u need to do multiple probe matches (one for each sw) which is strictly speaking not correct, as you want to read out the exact same spot during cLUT validation (e.g. in CM) that was used for main profile and probe match (e.g. in LS).

Once you get this, you now understand that (technically speaking) you're making a decision where you place your probe that will then affect the cal and all validation reports (no matter how "pretty" they are). Now for display cal this is easy as there's only one choice: the center :) (which is where the most important part of every frame is, content wise)

but, if the center of the screen had dead pixels or less uniformity than the rest of the screen (this is usually NOT the case) u'd move the probe off-center for the cal...

btw, one workaround to use w/ multiple sw during cal (if ur probe does not have internal memory) is to keep the colorimeter in place (after probe match in LS) and re-create the same probe match in CM using their manual input matrix tool (they had something like this) and use the probe match reads from LS... this is only interesting for display tech where FCMM is feasible... the only problem was that the CM internal matrix tool was calculating wrong numbers (what a surprise) the last time I tested this with Ted like 8 years ago... maybe portrait toilets have fixed it... ?

So (for example) the FCMM process should be done with the colorimeter in the center of the screen and the spectro off-centre? Or them both either side of centre but within the 10% area?
I never use both meters at the same time during probe match for a variety of reasons, if I was I'd only do it w/ two CRI probes (to then auto-store matrix internally), but main problem is reading out same part of the screen w/o introducing a horizontal angle.

Like I wrote in another dedicated thread to probe match, the only time I did not get probe match verification on Plasma or OLED was if the process took to long (screen drift), but w/ BFI option nowadays u may even counteract that
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,081 Posts
The i1d3, while using Gen CMF, will report a Negative Z result while reading Wide Red. When you create the BPD and then validate the match after, you will find chromaticity is (mostly) well matched, but there will be significant errors in luminance throughout. Using the WOLED EDR compensates for this very well and you can get a perfect macth every time.
that makes sense. if the probe requires a specific EDR to be functional on a given display tech then u'd use that EDR for all reads on that display tech during the cal session.

The issues arise specifically with the i1Pro2 and it's limitations in low luminance readings. Not only do read times become significantly longer (as it is does with higher end Spectros too) it also becomes less accurate. I (and others found) that it was better and more consistent for the patches to read as quickly as possible in sequence. The longer the measurements took, the bigger the errors were. Disabling Average Low Light provide more consistent results, and could be verified by measuring further sets too. I personally never bother with Average Low Light on the i1d3 anyway, Intelligent Integration works well enough IMO.
that makes sense, I personally would prob not include below 15% in the volumetric probe match as the i1Pro 2 may now introduce more error than the i1D3 has w/o offset :D:rolleyes:
my point was though, that u shouldn't turn off avg low light for probe match but turn it on for the main profile or cLUT val - that introduces a different behavior, hence different reads, hence ur probe offsets are less accurate.

With regards to probe positioning, it does actually affect the process with the i1Pro2. If you use it in its cradle in contact mode, it actually doesn't work well all the time. Mounting the i1Pro2 on a tripod and placing at least 300mm from the display works very well indeed. I probably should have explained that a bit better by saying that you should try and match FOV if at all possible. But to fair this has been mentioned before when the process was being discussed a while back so I thought it was already assumed.
interesting, I cannot confirm this behavior.

I still have an i1Pro2 here that I use only for mobile stuff (not display cal), but if time ever permits I'll test this again. I did use the i1Pro 1/2 for display cal a few years ago. Both also in contact mode or mounted on tripod. I did not see a difference in repeatability. again, it's a hardware characteristic. Now given, I only used i1Pro 1/2 in contact mode on LCDs or RPTV - zero issues - but all FCMM so quick work.
Maybe, possibly, Plasma and WOLED can produce enough heat to affect the probe in contact mode to be less repeatable. this is the only explanation I can think of right now to explain ur experience.

The problem u run into when placing any meter off screen that does not have laser guides or viewing optics, is that you will very, very easily misplace it - and then affect accuracy. 30cm is not too far for a 10% patch for the i1Pro's viewing angle, though. But again, this can be a massive opportunity for user error.

You should also ensure that you absolutely do not adjust luminance either. e.g. Do not create a match for a 100 nit calibration, and then use that same match for 150 or 200 nit day mode.
who in the f would ever do that ?!? :eek::eek::eek:

The thing is the process itself is, as you say, relatively simple and straightforward when you are using higher end meters. Even Steve said back when it was first introduced in LightSpace that it wouldn't be guaranteed to work well on lower end consumer meters. In fact, I may be wrong but IIRC, it wasn't even going to be enabled in LS HTL to begin with because of this. As it happens, it was, and it takes a little bit extra experimenting to get it to work right. But when it works, it works very well. I am fortunate now to have a higher end Spectro and I have new higher end colorimeter coming today too, so for me it will just be plug and play from now on, so to speak. But for people using the X-Rite probe combo, unfortunately it isn't quite as straightforward.
like I said, ONLY thing needed, hence the MAIN attribute for a colorimeter is repeatability - it is the main dependency of the probe match process. Then low light, then speed. for spectro, u could live w/ less repeatability, if u avg multiple read results, cause u only use it once to create offsets. I still do the averaging even now w/ the super high-end CRI spectros, but they have internal setting for that.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
305 Posts
No 300mm, which is 30cm or approx 12”
I have been using my i1D3 with a tripod, with the i1's probe physically touching the C9's screen. Should I have the probe 12 inches away from the TV?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
860 Posts
I have been using my i1D3 with a tripod, with the i1's probe physically touching the C9's screen. Should I have the probe 12 inches away from the TV?
No it’s fine to keep the i1d3 in contact mode on a WOLED. With it in contact it’s reading a 24mm spot size.

What I’m referring to is matching field of view with a Spectro. The i1Pro2 at 300mm reads about 41mm spot size IIRC. I also move the i1d3 away to read the same size spot so that when creating a volumetric probe match they are reading the exact same spot. If you’re not probe matching, it doesn’t really apply.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,081 Posts

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
305 Posts
1201 - 1220 of 1453 Posts
Top