[chrisreeves]

I'm about to pull the trigger on a Lumagen Radiance 3D Mini for my JVC 4910/X500R projector - I'm buying it primarily for the 3D LUT calibration.

My question is - will the more expensive Radiance 2020, with its 7X7X7 729 point LUT give visible improvements to the color accuracy over the more limited 5X5X5 LUT of the Mini 3D?

Also, there is a less expensive device that doesn't do the scaling, noise reduction and other Lumagen features, but which DOES does generate a much more detailed more detailed 65X65X65 LUT - and it's only $699! This is the eecolor 3D LUT box - but I don't see it mentioned much here.

https://www.displaycalibrationtools...ox-65-cube-3d-lut-color-correction-processor/

Any feedback appreciated

EDIT: Here is an interesting article comparing differences:

http://www.lightillusion.com/home_cinema_calibration.html#luts

Still, I don't know how much, if any, visible difference this makes when watching films

 

[rboster]

Chris: (IMHO) I would have a mod move your thread to the video processors forum. I would bet you would attract a more focused audience

 

[zombie10k]

this won't be popular opinion in the calibration thread, but it's feels like overkill from my perspective. I have the mini 3D and a Lumagen 2041 and have done full cal's on both the 4910/X500 and the 57/x700.

The 4910 tracks very well to the point where I don't think there is some obvious difference unless you nit-pick in a direct A/B. the eecolor is only HDMI 1.3 so no 3D while it's being used. This may or may not make a difference depending if you care about 3D.

I'm keeping the mini 3D since I use it mainly for pattern generation during greyscale /gamma cal, but will likely pass along the 2041 to someone who is interested in it.

 

[chrisreeves]

Chris: (IMHO) I would have a mod move your thread to the video processors forum. I would bet you would attract a more focused audience

Well the reason I put it here was to hopefully get the opinions of regular projector owners rather than the extreme "tweaky end" population of calibration geeks who spend their waking hours reading test results. But maybe you're right and it should be moved for better discussion.

All I want is to have a picture as natural and film-like as my Joe Kane DLP's - I own both 720P and 1080P versions - and both of them give far more natural, pleasing and relaxing images (even though I've never calibrated either of them) than my 2014 JVC RS4910 - despite the fact that they have much less contrast.

The JVC's image just doesn't look as natural to my eye - despite the fact that I'm using AVS's recommended settings for color temperature and gamma, and despite the fact that I have all digital "enhancements" turned off - including e-shift. AVS's settings, and turning off the digital gee-whiz enhancements have certainly helped image quality - I'm hoping a 3D LUT is the final piece of the puzzle.

 

[chrisreeves]

this won't be popular opinion in the calibration thread, but it's feels like overkill from my perspective. I have the mini 3D and a Lumagen 2041 and have done full cal's on both the 4910/X500 and the 57/x700.

The 4910 tracks very well to the point where I don't think there is some obvious difference unless you nit-pick in a direct A/B.

Thanks for the feedback Zombie - when you say "overkill" do you mean that using ANY Lumagen for color calibration is overkill, or that you feel the 2041 compared to the Mini 3D is overkill?

 

[rboster]

Well the reason I put it here was to hopefully get the opinions of regular projector owners rather than the extreme "tweaky end" population of calibration geeks who spend their waking hours reading test results. But maybe you're right and it should be moved for better discussion.

All I want is to have a picture as natural and film-like as my Joe Kane DLP's - I own both 720P and 1080P versions - and both of them give far more natural, pleasing and relaxing images (even though I've never calibrated either of them) than my 2014 JVC RS4910 - despite the fact that they have much less contrast.

The JVC's image just doesn't look as natural to my eye - despite the fact that I'm using AVS's recommended settings for color temperature and gamma, and despite the fact that I have all digital "enhancements" turned off - including e-shift. AVS's settings, and turning off the digital gee-whiz enhancements have certainly helped image quality - I'm hoping a 3D LUT is the final piece of the puzzle.

Makes sense. Jason is a terrific resource, so I'm sure he can give some perspective. I went from a Planar to the JVC 700 and love the image the JVC puts out. So, it's hard not seeing my next projector not being a JVC (even with the recent issues/repairs).

 

[chrisreeves]

Makes sense. Jason is a terrific resource, so I'm sure he can give some perspective. I went from a Planar to the JVC 700 and love the image the JVC puts out. So, it's hard not seeing my next projector not being a JVC (even with the recent issues/repairs).

You are right - the JVC's do give a fantastic image. When I say my DLP's are "far more pleasing" I'm exaggerating.

And yes the JVC is far superior (no exaggeration) in black level and shadow detail reproduction at extreme low light levels.

 

[Kelvin1965S]

Well the reason I put it here was to hopefully get the opinions of regular projector owners rather than the extreme "tweaky end" population of calibration geeks who spend their waking hours reading test results. But maybe you're right and it should be moved for better discussion.

All I want is to have a picture as natural and film-like as my Joe Kane DLP's - I own both 720P and 1080P versions - and both of them give far more natural, pleasing and relaxing images (even though I've never calibrated either of them) than my 2014 JVC RS4910 - despite the fact that they have much less contrast.

The JVC's image just doesn't look as natural to my eye - despite the fact that I'm using AVS's recommended settings for color temperature and gamma, and despite the fact that I have all digital "enhancements" turned off - including e-shift. AVS's settings, and turning off the digital gee-whiz enhancements have certainly helped image quality - I'm hoping a 3D LUT is the final piece of the puzzle.

Reading this post am I correct in assuming that you haven't actually calibrated the X500 usng it's own controls yet? Mine developed quite a droop on the gamma after only 60-70 hours which coincided with my Mini3D going on the fritz. Using some 'recommended settings' may well be selling the X500 short as mine looks a lot better properly calibrated rather than just the basic settings when I first set it up.

As a stop gap to sorting out my Mini3D I ended up investigating the JVC autocal using a lowly Spyder 4 Pro sensor (I use an i13 Pro with Chromapure usually). The autocal and a manual calibration actually gave a very good result, with a flat gamma at 2.3, less than 2dE greyscale and the colour gamut at 75% less than 2dE only using the lightness controls in the X500's CMS (I read that using the saturation controls badly impacts on linearity).

So having done the above, I got a great measured result and a cracking picture and now I have received a 2041 which I was able to trade my faulty Mini3D in against (Lumagen certainly look after customers and give great support). I haven't had chance to do much more than sort out my 2.35:1 set up with it (shrink method for viewing menus and trailers) but I hope to get chance to run the 729 point CMS calibration using my Lumagen/Chromapure set up. So I will be able to give some input as to further improving (or not) the X500 image quality at least with 729 points.

Back when I bought my Mini3D (about 4 years ago IIRC) it only came with 8 point CMS. It was a later (free) upgrade to 125 point with the autocal. At the time I compared 8 point (at 75%) to 125 point and couldn't really say which was 'better' just that I knew the 125 point measured more accurately. So for me it was more about knowing that the 125 point was the more accurate rather than being particularly drawn to a 'better' image.

In the meantime I've done a lot more calibration, so perhaps I've become more attuned to the differences, but we'll see...

 

[zombie10k]

Thanks for the feedback Zombie - when you say "overkill" do you mean that using ANY Lumagen for color calibration is overkill, or that you feel the 2041 compared to the Mini 3D is overkill?

I have 4 different projectors right now that I use for different content, i'm as obsessive as anyone on the forum. I even calibrate in 3D mode behind the glasses which is something rarely discussed or performed by others. I don't know how others watch 3D with crap color not corrected for the glasses, it would drive me insane.

I just think we get to a point of diminishing returns with these extensive gazillion point color space calibrations, especially when the 4910/X500 has a very good out of the box baseline.

The mini-3D is valuable for greyscale, gamma adjustments and also the 125 point cal. unless you are getting a great deal, I can't see the extra expenditure on the higher end model. I've had both for a while and have done countless A/B comparisons, more than I'd like to admit.

I've seen over a dozen 4910/X500's and they all had very good out of the box color space that passed a full color check with good dE's. The area to focus on is a good D65 cal and a gamma tune. I just don't see the point of obsessing over tweaking color space to the nth degree to improve delta's below 3 dE.

 

[chrisreeves]

Reading this post am I correct in assuming that you haven't actually calibrated the X500 usng it's own controls yet? Mine developed quite a droop on the gamma after only 60-70 hours which coincided with my Mini3D going on the fritz. Using some 'recommended settings' may well be selling the X500 short as mine looks a lot better properly calibrated rather than just the basic settings when I first set it up.

You are correct! I own an i1 Pro meter actually - purchased for a video editing project. I only recently learned it could be used to calibrate projectors. I planned to buy Calman and use the Autocal feature - but then I learned that the 2014 JVC's aren't working properly with that.

So that's when I decided to go whole hog on a 3D LUT.

Honestly I have never calibrated a projector manually. I've always heard it's an art form - tweak one variable and another one goes out of wack. And you're back-and-forth, back-and-forth etc.

But maybe I should get over my fear.

I never tried the JVC's internal auto-cal feature because people say it only calibrates back to factory settings, which can be inaccurate anyway - also I'd need a Spyder instead of my i1. But if it's worth doing I can buy a Spyder.

 

[zombie10k]

All I want is to have a picture as natural and film-like as my Joe Kane DLP's - I own both 720P and 1080P versions - and both of them give far more natural, pleasing and relaxing images (even though I've never calibrated either of them) than my 2014 JVC RS4910 - despite the fact that they have much less contrast.

The JVC's image just doesn't look as natural to my eye - despite the fact that I'm using AVS's recommended settings for color temperature and gamma, and despite the fact that I have all digital "enhancements" turned off - including e-shift. AVS's settings, and turning off the digital gee-whiz enhancements have certainly helped image quality - I'm hoping a 3D LUT is the final piece of the puzzle.

after re-reading this, I realize you are comparing the JVC vs. a .95 DLP. I have a .95 DC4 Planar which likely has a very similar image to your Samsung and also own JVC's as well.

When I A/B with a split source, each projector does have it's own unique look, even with both projectors calibrated.

Is this the A800 or the A900? it's a shame Samsung didn't stay in this market.

 

[Kelvin1965S]

You are correct! I own an i1 Pro meter actually - purchased for a video editing project. I only recently learned it could be used to calibrate projectors. I planned to buy Calman and use the Autocal feature - but then I learned that the 2014 JVC's aren't working properly with that.

So that's when I decided to go whole hog on a 3D LUT.

Honestly I have never calibrated a projector manually. I've always heard it's an art form - tweak one variable and another one goes out of wack. And you're back-and-forth, back-and-forth etc.

But maybe I should get over my fear.

I never tried the JVC's internal auto-cal feature because people say it only calibrates back to factory settings, which can be inaccurate anyway - also I'd need a Spyder instead of my i1. But if it's worth doing I can buy a Spyder.

The JVC autocal doesn't calibrate back to 'factory settings'; it calibrates to the meter that you use, so it can give pretty decent results depending on how good your Spyder4 is.

My Spyder4 left the colour gamut slightly undersaturated doing the autocal, so I just created a custom colour that was a little more oversaturated and re-ran the autocal. When I checked afterwards with my i1D3 Pro/Chromapure it was close enough to be able to adjust to perfection using the JVC CMS.

It does take a bit of effort to learn manual calibration, but you should be aware that the 729 point calibration using Lumagen requires more than just pressing a button. You should set the brightness/contrast correctly, chose the best colour temp, gamma and colour profile to start from and also you need to adjust the white balance at 100% using the projector's controls. Also note you will need to buy either Chromapure (or Calman) to perform the calibration. If you buy Chromapure first then you can do a manual calibration anyway before you pay for the Lumagen.

As it stands at the moment, you probably aren't getting anything like the best out of your X500 if you are just using some 'recommended settings'.

 

[rlindo]

You are correct! I own an i1 Pro meter actually - purchased for a video editing project. I only recently learned it could be used to calibrate projectors. I planned to buy Calman and use the Autocal feature - but then I learned that the 2014 JVC's aren't working properly with that.

So that's when I decided to go whole hog on a 3D LUT.

Honestly I have never calibrated a projector manually. I've always heard it's an art form - tweak one variable and another one goes out of wack. And you're back-and-forth, back-and-forth etc.

But maybe I should get over my fear.

I never tried the JVC's internal auto-cal feature because people say it only calibrates back to factory settings, which can be inaccurate anyway - also I'd need a Spyder instead of my i1. But if it's worth doing I can buy a Spyder.

Getting a decent calibration result isn't that difficult with the X500. Well, at least it wasn't with mine as it was very accurate out of the box. Because of this, you only have to do a few minor adjustments which doesn't require a lot of back and forth. The beauty with digital devices like this that have controls in the user menu is you can always reset things if you feel you screwed up.

I don't know which settings you're using but I'd recommend using a user picture setting and then setting the colour profile as custom instead of the preset ones if you are using a preset. Custom on mine without even touching anything in the CMS menu gave great dEs for the primaries and secondaries. I think the highest was around 2.5. A couple reviews of the X500 have stated the exact same thing about how custom seems to be the most accurate for the colours and that they didn't require any CMS adjustments. Some say turning the CMS on (not changing anything in it) with custom does the trick yet there was zero difference when I turned the CMS on.

Also on mine, the 6500k colour temp preset was accurate other than a slight red deficiency at 90 and 100 IRE. I think 90 was at 3 and 100 was just a bit above 3 dE. Nothing that was bad and I'd have been fine leaving as is if I didn't already have the equipment to calibrate. The other IRE levels were all under 2. I also found the 2.4 gamma preset to be very close to 2.4.

My previous projector was the RS50 and it was a pain to calibrate and I still never got it to be as accurate as this X500. This thing is a revelation compared to that when it comes to calibration.

There really isn't anything to be fearful of and I'd suggest you give it a shot.

 

[chrisreeves]

When I A/B with a split source, each projector does have it's own unique look, even with both projectors calibrated.

Is this the A800 or the A900? it's a shame Samsung didn't stay in this market.

Yep D-ILA and DLP do each have a unique look - I wish I could articulate it, but it's hard to describe. Mine is the A800 - I couldn't find an A900 when I was hunting for it last year. Now I have the chance to buy an A900 for less than $2,500 but I really don't need another projector right now.

 

[stanger89]

Since we're talking calibration here, and Lumagen's, I've got a question I'd like to pose to the "regular projector owners rather than the extreme "tweaky end" population of calibration geeks". Like I said I've got a Lumagen, so I've been interested to try out the auto-cal/Cube calibration, as well as gamma. But every time I try to read up on what I need I keep finding myself going down the path of needing another $1000 in hardware and software to do it. I mean you read the calibration forums and it sounds like anything but a profiled colorimeter or spectro is like playing Russian Roulette with your calibration.

I've got an i1 Display 2 (LT), I think a Spider 2/3, and the i1 Display Pro isn't ridiculously expensive. I guess I'm just curious what I really "need". I tried doing a manual gamma calibration with my i1D2 and ColorHCFR but I'm not convinced I didn't just make things worse.

Of course it would also be interesting to try a calibration with the built-in CMS in my Planar 8150.

 

[Kelvin1965S]

I know what you mean Stanger89. However, I still have an old i1D2 that I bought when I first started out with calibration. It is awful though and gave an error of 12dE when compared on the sam display with a rented i1Pro at the time. I've since bought an i1D3 Pro (I think this is the same sensor you refer to as the i1 Display Pro) which wasn't massively expensive and it gives me very good results.

I have been tempted to buy an i1Pro (spectro) so I could create an offset from it for my i1D3 Pro, but I'm happy enough with results anyway.

However, even my old i1D2 gives decent results for gamma calibration, so you can still rely on it for that, same for the Spyder4 Pro I bought to carry out the JVC autocal with (it is a little further out in colour gamut measurements though). I find that getting the gamma right seems to be the most important thing for me, since unless the colour temp is a very long way off I find it harder to tell (so long as it is the same reading from 0 to 100%).

Having struggled with HFCR I would recommend that you buy some calibration software though. I use Chromapure myself, thought Calman seems to be equally well thought of. As Chromapure has a gamma section that shows gamma and colour temp in real time I found I could do a manual greyscale/gamma calibration in under 30 minutes. It would take me hours using HFCR and still wouldn't be right.

Fingers crossed I might get to run my 729 point calibration on Friday night so I'll be able to see how much better (or not) it looks compared to my manual calibration using the JVC's controls.

 

[nightfly85]

Since we're talking calibration here, and Lumagen's, I've got a question I'd like to pose to the "regular projector owners rather than the extreme "tweaky end" population of calibration geeks". Like I said I've got a Lumagen, so I've been interested to try out the auto-cal/Cube calibration, as well as gamma. But every time I try to read up on what I need I keep finding myself going down the path of needing another $1000 in hardware and software to do it. I mean you read the calibration forums and it sounds like anything but a profiled colorimeter or spectro is like playing Russian Roulette with your calibration.

I've got an i1 Display 2 (LT), I think a Spider 2/3, and the i1 Display Pro isn't ridiculously expensive. I guess I'm just curious what I really "need". I tried doing a manual gamma calibration with my i1D2 and ColorHCFR but I'm not convinced I didn't just make things worse.

Of course it would also be interesting to try a calibration with the built-in CMS in my Planar 8150.

You should give the JVC autocal a try. $130 or so for a Spyder4 Pro and about 10 mins (30mins the first time) and you'll likely get a very good cal with spot on gamma. Of course since you point the sensor at the projector, you don't have your screen in play. So either turn the Spyder4 around (or in my case I have a i1D3) and tweak for your screen if necessary.

I love the fact that with the JVC autocal, I can spend so little time to get really good results. I'll likely use it to cal every 100hrs or so...so I can spend less time fiddling and more time watching.

 

[stanger89]

You should give the JVC autocal a try. $130 or so for a Spyder4 Pro and about 10 mins (30mins the first time) and you'll likely get a very good cal with spot on gamma.

Plus about $4k+ for a JVC. I've got a Planar, not a JVC