AVS Forum banner

1721 - 1740 of 2618 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
290 Posts
That's a lot of 20-point adjustments. Was that ISF calibrated or did you do it yourself with a meter? Does that aim for a 2.35 or 2.4 overall gamma once it flattens out?
I did it myself with a meter. I'm sure it's not as good as a pro, but it looks much better than OOTB settings. Shadow detail is a lot better, and things don't look too dim like they did before. I used the attached excel sheet, and shot for around 2.2 gamma at 5 IRE (it turned out a touch higher). Then, I shot for 2.4 gamma for all other levels. Average came out to 2.36, and I like it a lot so far. I aimed for about 126 nits max white.

You could probably just use the adjustments I did at 5, 10, 15 and 20 IREs and get a better picture. I looked like the BT curve was actually too dark in the mid-IREs, so I had to boost luminance there a bit. At least that's what the meter said.
 

Attachments

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,562 Posts
I did it myself with a meter. I'm sure it's not as good as a pro, but it looks much better than OOTB settings. Shadow detail is a lot better, and things don't look too dim like they did before. I used the attached excel sheet, and shot for around 2.2 gamma at 5 IRE (it turned out a touch higher). Then, I shot for 2.4 gamma for all other levels. Average came out to 2.36, and I like it a lot so far. I aimed for about 126 nits max white.

You could probably just use the adjustments I did at 5, 10, 15 and 20 IREs and get a better picture. I looked like the BT curve was actually too dark in the mid-IREs, so I had to boost luminance there a bit. At least that's what the meter said.
I see your OLED light setting is just 30. That seems really, really low. It's working for ya though?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
290 Posts
I see your OLED light setting is just 30. That seems really, really low. It's working for ya though?
It is compared to some people's settings, but it works out to about 126 nits for a 100% white window. I normally watch in low light, mostly with no light, so I like it. I could maybe push OLED light to 35, but even that isn't always comfortable to my eyes. I think I may be a bit more sensitive to bright screens in dark rooms than other people. It seems to be mostly preference. I've seen some people using settings of 40, 60 or even 100:eek:

I just plugged your 0 to 100 IRE luminance adjustments into my tv for 1886, and it does look better. Did not mess with the rgb settings. Definitely looks like something between 2.2 and 2.4 gamma, with better near black detail.
Cool. Do some more viewing and see how it goes. With my panel at least, I've always felt that the preset BT.1886/2.4 curve was just a hair too dark, while 2.2 was overblown in a dark room. From my measurements, it looks like my preset curve was actually higher than 2.4 gamma in places, so now that it's flatter, it looks better. The little boost at 5 IRE really helps with shadows.

The main thing the color adjustments did for me was remove the greenish tint I was seeing in the grayscale. I'm not sure how much variation there is between panels and models, so they may not all be affected by that.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
214 Posts
I did it myself with a meter. I'm sure it's not as good as a pro, but it looks much better than OOTB settings. Shadow detail is a lot better, and things don't look too dim like they did before. I used the attached excel sheet, and shot for around 2.2 gamma at 5 IRE (it turned out a touch higher). Then, I shot for 2.4 gamma for all other levels. Average came out to 2.36, and I like it a lot so far. I aimed for about 126 nits max white.

You could probably just use the adjustments I did at 5, 10, 15 and 20 IREs and get a better picture. I looked like the BT curve was actually too dark in the mid-IREs, so I had to boost luminance there a bit. At least that's what the meter said.
I'll post whatever my settings end up being in the next week or 2. I'm sure we'll have similar results save for differences in our panels. Sorry if you've said earlier, did you start out doing 2-point white balance at either the 5/100IRE that was suggested in this thread or the standard 30/80 IRE? I'm in the same boat as you, I really like 120 nits for my displays, but I may push the OLED slightly brighter and see what I can tolerate. I'm kind of anal, I probably wouldn't allow myself to go brighter than 137 nits (40 ftl) just because that's been the max guidance I've seen in calibration guides for yearssss.

Wxman, what were your settings before using In.vincible's settings? I would suggest putting some sort of grayscale ramp pattern up on your TV and seeing how smooth the gradiation is. I'm sure you know, but using someone else's settings verbatim may not actually be what's "right" for your TV.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,875 Posts
I'll post whatever my settings end up being in the next week or 2. I'm sure we'll have similar results save for differences in our panels. Sorry if you've said earlier, did you start out doing 2-point white balance at either the 5/100IRE that was suggested in this thread or the standard 30/80 IRE? I'm in the same boat as you, I really like 120 nits for my displays, but I may push the OLED slightly brighter and see what I can tolerate. I'm kind of anal, I probably wouldn't allow myself to go brighter than 137 nits (40 ftl) just because that's been the max guidance I've seen in calibration guides for yearssss.

Wxman, what were your settings before using In.vincible's settings? I would suggest putting some sort of grayscale ramp pattern up on your TV and seeing how smooth the gradiation is. I'm sure you know, but using someone else's settings verbatim may not actually be what's "right" for your TV.
I was using the 2 point ramp reduction with 1886. Starting at +10 at 5%, and ending at +2 at 25%. I then plugged in In.vincible's settings for 0 to 100 IRE, and the overall picture looked better to me. The mid levels seem to look better than stopping at 25%.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,961 Posts
I see your OLED light setting is just 30. That seems really, really low. It's working for ya though?
In a pitch black room, I don't find it low at all, but I had LASIK in 2006 so may be more sensitive than others.

So, I think the reverse vignette on my new G6 is going to prevent me from boosting luminance too much in the low IRE ranges. I would rather have crushed details (that I'm not aware are missing) versus brighter screen edges (the latter being a bit too reminiscent of bunk edgelit screens).
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
588 Posts
my oled light is around 28-35 in a dark room 35 is almost to bright .i believe at 20-25 is where my zt60 maxed out on brightness .so i assume 25-35 oled light is like 30-40 ft lamberts
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,562 Posts
I was using the 2 point ramp reduction with 1886. Starting at +10 at 5%, and ending at +2 at 25%. I then plugged in In.vincible's settings for 0 to 100 IRE, and the overall picture looked better to me. The mid levels seem to look better than stopping at 25%.
Hmmm - you've got me intersted in trying those now too. Im pretty content with how my set looks right now but Im all for squeezing out more performance if possible. ;)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
290 Posts
I'll post whatever my settings end up being in the next week or 2. I'm sure we'll have similar results save for differences in our panels. Sorry if you've said earlier, did you start out doing 2-point white balance at either the 5/100IRE that was suggested in this thread or the standard 30/80 IRE? I'm in the same boat as you, I really like 120 nits for my displays, but I may push the OLED slightly brighter and see what I can tolerate. I'm kind of anal, I probably wouldn't allow myself to go brighter than 137 nits (40 ftl) just because that's been the max guidance I've seen in calibration guides for yearssss.

Wxman, what were your settings before using In.vincible's settings? I would suggest putting some sort of grayscale ramp pattern up on your TV and seeing how smooth the gradiation is. I'm sure you know, but using someone else's settings verbatim may not actually be what's "right" for your TV.
See this post here:
http://www.avsforum.com/forum/139-display-calibration/2644073-official-b-c-e-g6p-oled-calibration-thread-34.html#post51381113
(ignore the part about the 2.2 gamma. I ended up using BT as a starting point)

In short, I did the 2-pt first, but only at the high end. I left 2-pt low all at zero because it needed -25 on the green, which screws the gamma. Then, I went through the 20-pt and set all my RGB values. Finally, I ran back through the 20-pt and set gamma.

As for OLED light, I think I was measuring around 120 nits at 28, but I figured just round it up to 30. I watch in my living room with all the lights out, so it's not a bat cave, but it's pretty dark. Really bright scenes start to bother my eyes at anything much higher than 30.

I was using the 2 point ramp reduction with 1886. Starting at +10 at 5%, and ending at +2 at 25%. I then plugged in In.vincible's settings for 0 to 100 IRE, and the overall picture looked better to me. The mid levels seem to look better than stopping at 25%.
I think my gamma out of the box was a bit whacked. It was something like the first graph below to begin with, and then I tweaked it to get the second graph.

The one issue I can think of with just using my luminance settings is they may not be 100% accurate on other panels since I cut a decent amount of green in the 20-pt RGB. The luminance settings are probably affected by that, and might have been slightly different without the green cuts. Anyway, in the end, it boils down to what looks good. So if it looks like an improvement, awesome.:cool:
 

Attachments

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,875 Posts
See this post here:
http://www.avsforum.com/forum/139-display-calibration/2644073-official-b-c-e-g6p-oled-calibration-thread-34.html#post51381113
(ignore the part about the 2.2 gamma. I ended up using BT as a starting point)

In short, I did the 2-pt first, but only at the high end. I left 2-pt low all at zero because it needed -25 on the green, which screws the gamma. Then, I went through the 20-pt and set all my RGB values. Finally, I ran back through the 20-pt and set gamma.

As for OLED light, I think I was measuring around 120 nits at 28, but I figured just round it up to 30. I watch in my living room with all the lights out, so it's not a bat cave, but it's pretty dark. Really bright scenes start to bother my eyes at anything much higher than 30.



I think my gamma out of the box was a bit whacked. It was something like the first graph below to begin with, and then I tweaked it to get the second graph.

The one issue I can think of with just using my luminance settings is they may not be 100% accurate on other panels since I cut a decent amount of green in the 20-pt RGB. The luminance settings are probably affected by that, and might have been slightly different without the green cuts. Anyway, in the end, it boils down to what looks good. So if it looks like an improvement, awesome.:cool:
OOTB, gamma rarely if ever is correct. So I doubt my 2.2, 1886 or 2.4 is correct to begin with. I can switch between my previous tweaked 1886 setting and then your settings, and your's is a little better. I don't want to confuse people thinking that the tweak is somehow a silver bullet that makes a night and day difference.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
214 Posts
See this post here:
http://www.avsforum.com/forum/139-display-calibration/2644073-official-b-c-e-g6p-oled-calibration-thread-34.html#post51381113
(ignore the part about the 2.2 gamma. I ended up using BT as a starting point)

In short, I did the 2-pt first, but only at the high end. I left 2-pt low all at zero because it needed -25 on the green, which screws the gamma. Then, I went through the 20-pt and set all my RGB values. Finally, I ran back through the 20-pt and set gamma.

As for OLED light, I think I was measuring around 120 nits at 28, but I figured just round it up to 30. I watch in my living room with all the lights out, so it's not a bat cave, but it's pretty dark. Really bright scenes start to bother my eyes at anything much higher than 30.



I think my gamma out of the box was a bit whacked. It was something like the first graph below to begin with, and then I tweaked it to get the second graph.

The one issue I can think of with just using my luminance settings is they may not be 100% accurate on other panels since I cut a decent amount of green in the 20-pt RGB. The luminance settings are probably affected by that, and might have been slightly different without the green cuts. Anyway, in the end, it boils down to what looks good. So if it looks like an improvement, awesome.:cool:
Instead of reducing green, did you try boosting blue and red first? You should only adjust green as a last resort after changing blue and red first since that will mess with luminance. (sorry if you already knew this).
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
290 Posts
OOTB, gamma rarely if ever is correct. So I doubt my 2.2, 1886 or 2.4 is correct to begin with. I can switch between my previous tweaked 1886 setting and then your settings, and your's is a little better. I don't want to confuse people thinking that the tweak is somehow a silver bullet that makes a night and day difference.
Cool. I'm glad it's helpful. I know what you mean about gamma, too. Mine was pretty lumpy-looking OOTB.

Instead of reducing green, did you try boosting blue and red first? You should only adjust green as a last resort after changing blue and red first since that will mess with luminance. (sorry if you already knew this).
At first I increased both red and blue in the 2-pt low, which seemed to do the trick, but then I noticed it made zero black glow. In the past, I haven't touched green, but this TV just seemed to have such an abundance of it, it was necessary. As I went through the 20-pt, I did raise blue and red some, otherwise I would've had to cut green even more. I wasn't too worried about it, since I knew I'd be fixing gamma with the luminance anyway. The OLEDs are pretty challenging, at least for someone like me who is just an enthusiast. I had much easier time with my past Samsungs.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,916 Posts
Discussion Starter #1,735
Ok cool, so at least I've been forewarned that there may be some oddities when I'm trying to calibrate (enthusiast level myself).
GS is fairly straight forward. The only way for excellent results with color is via 3D LUTs. The internal CMS is wonky.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
290 Posts
Now there is some talk over in the calibration thread that using the i1d3 in raw mode may not be accurate compared to something like a JETI. Probably true to some extent, but it seems better than nothing.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,916 Posts
Discussion Starter #1,737
Now there is some talk over in the calibration thread that using the i1d3 in raw mode may not be accurate compared to something like a JETI. Probably true to some extent, but it seems better than nothing.
The JETI is a reference spectro. Although the D3 variants are approved for THX and ISF professional use they must first be profiled from a spectro. Even thousand dollar i1Pro and i1Pro2 spectrophotometers are quite accurate. The bottom line is that without profiling, you don't know if the reads are accurate or not. Profiles included in software are helpful but won't be totally accurate.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
290 Posts
The JETI is a reference spectro. Although the D3 variants are approved for THX and ISF professional use they must first be profiled from a spectro. Even thousand dollar i1Pro and i1Pro2 spectrophotometers are quite accurate. The bottom line is that without profiling, you don't know if the reads are accurate or not. Profiles included in software are helpful but won't be totally accurate.
True. This question is, though, is the using the i1 in non-refresh mode (no corrections) going to lead to a more accurate calibration than the OOTB settings? My eyes say yes, but I can't know for sure.

The guy who compared different versions of the i1 to JETI readings showed some differences, but gamma looked the same for all meters. So, it would seem that the i1d3 is good for setting accurate gamma, at least.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,916 Posts
Discussion Starter #1,739
True. This question is, though, is the using the i1 in non-refresh mode (no corrections) going to lead to a more accurate calibration than the OOTB settings? My eyes say yes, but I can't know for sure.

The guy who compared different versions of the i1 to JETI readings showed some differences, but gamma looked the same for all meters. So, it would seem that the i1d3 is good for setting accurate gamma, at least.
WB and Gamma in general should be close enough a D3. It's the color spectrum that it needs help with. I still use an i1Pro for creating profiles. I compared it to a JETI a few months ago and it was VERY close. However, if I was still calibrating professionally I'd obtain a reference Spectroradiometer.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
214 Posts
So I got my set delivered yesterday and briefly messed around with a pluge pattern (Spears and Munsil (without the equal energy border), has a checkerboard pattern as well with 16 and 17 black squares). How noticeable is the black glow when adjusting brightness? I only observed briefly, but I didn't see a pure black, and then a near black with a glow, it just jumped right to a dark gray at brightness 56.

I also experimented with 5% luminance, even pushing it to +50 I didn't notice any change in 17 nor the 2% blackness bar. What am I doing wrong?
 
1721 - 1740 of 2618 Posts
Top