- This topic has 17 replies, 5 voices, and was last updated 11 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
I just got a new Asus ProArt 5k monitor. I want to use Adobe RGB color space for the monitor as my photos are using that color space. The monitor specs list RGB coverage at 103% and Adobe RGB at 95%. With my Spyder 5 Express puck, I calibrated with the standard program settings. I did select calibration speed as slow to get a bit more accuracy. See my attached calibration settings. After it was done, it reported RGB measured was 148% of coverage and Adobe RGB 105%. As they exceeded the specs, I decided to run a verification. See attached verification settings used. The initial report seemed to verify the initial calibration results. But I’m a bit lost in looking at the report. So I did another verification with Gamma Mapping set to No and got “bad” results. Can someone please advise if my monitor is fine, or perhaps the calibration had an incorrect setting based on the monitor capability?
Forgot to add the initial verification results and attached. Also the gamut results after calibration.
The profileing screen is missing. Is it simple profile? The simple one is better in some cases. Some apps do not use xyz profile. The report is wrong since it is calibrated to gamma 2.2 relative and report is to 2.2 absolute. Its a lot of testing but it is great to test color theorys.
I just got a new Asus ProArt 5k monitor. I want to use Adobe RGB color space for the monitor as my photos are using that color space.
Not needed at all in any modern colormanaged editor. Full native gamut unless you have a good reason to do not.
The monitor specs list RGB coverage at 103% and Adobe RGB at 95%.
With my Spyder 5 Express puck,
Extremely innacurate device. Approcah will be to do not use WLED correction (WLED sRGB displays) but RGBLED/Wide LED / Widegamut led or whatever it is called.
Chances that resulting white is not white are high because SPyders are very innacuarte. Plan to get an i1d3 from Xrite calibrite.
Let’s say that you get a white that does not look white, with green or pink tint, or too blue yellow.
Use another screen that looks white as reference, the use in calibratuon tab “xy coordinates” for white and choose “visual whitepoint editor” (3 balls) and choose a white that looks white in popup. That will be your calibratuon target,,, that won’t be D65 (because your spyder cannot measure it properly) but alt coordinates.I calibrated with the standard program settings. I did select calibration speed as slow to get a bit more accuracy.
speed = number or grayscale patches, fro monitors that have a native gamma ramp with color tints: values are iterative incremental, 12, 24, 48, 96.
Also on a well behaved display and to prevent some truncating / rounding errors in color managed apps is best to set “single curve matrix” with blakc point compensation IF the monitor is so well bahved that could be described in this idealized way.
See my attached calibration settings. After it was done, it reported RGB measured was 148% of coverage and Adobe RGB 105%. As they exceeded the specs, I decided to run a verification. See attached verification settings used. The initial report seemed to verify the initial calibration results. But I’m a bit lost in looking at the report.
delta a ~ 0-2, delta b ~ 20 on whitepoint => usually means that are trying a direct match on a profile defined at D50 with D65 display, but does not seem you case (CCT 7200K)
It says that even trusting the innacurate SPyder5 readings you did not care to fix whitepoint on initial popup with RGB bars (maybe it’s locked on OSD mode AdobeRGB, another reason to do not use it and go to full native gamut in “custom/user” mode)
Second, using a simulate profile you are not validating monitor profile, but if monitor profile in a color managed enviroment will predict AdobeRGB RGB patches in an accurate way (as long as they are not out of gamut). It makes sense to configure such verification but for newbies is best to verify if monitor and profile match with no verification profile at all, they should match whatever display is.
So I did another verification with Gamma Mapping set to No and got “bad” results. Can someone please advise if my monitor is fine, or perhaps the calibration had an incorrect setting based on the monitor capability?
Additionaly unles it’s an OLED disable all drisfting options on initial device tab
Calibrite Display Pro HL on Amazon
Disclosure: As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases.From the replies here, I think I’m in over my head. I posted this after my 4th monitor calibration. Each time somewhat different results. There seem to be hundreds of esoteric settings that can break an accurate monitor profile for newbs. I really don’t want to spend ~$300 for a new hardware calibrator and using their calibration software. But at a certain point it might be worth it. I’m already on my 3rd calibration and different results every time. Now onto my 4th….
From the replies here, I think I’m in over my head. I posted this after my 4th monitor calibration. Each time somewhat different results. There seem to be hundreds of esoteric settings that can break an accurate monitor profile for newbs. I really don’t want to spend ~$300 for a new hardware calibrator and using their calibration software. But at a certain point it might be worth it. I’m already on my 3rd calibration and different results every time. Now onto my 4th….
Some slight drift can happen between each run. Once you get what each option is for it will all seem easy in the end, just keep at it and fire away any questions you have. AI tools are pretty knowledgeable about calibration too if you need fast answers, just a tip. Ultimately you will need to upgrade the Spyder to be confident of the calibration, Xrite/Calibrite calibrator can be had for less than $300 if you look for deals, OEMs and the used market. The main issue with Spyders is that they have hardcoded modes for different panel types, which won’t be accurate if your display is slightly unique or uses new tech.
Match your calibration gamma in correction settings or do not use it – use as measured. It will be ungamma checked but color will be fixed in ICC. Find your gamma setting in the hardware or measure it without a profile or lut. Fixing gamma with a Spyder might be wrong it will be off unless you fix white visually like Vincent said. HCFR software is good for checking the hardware calibration. It will show gamma and white balance. Do not mess with white balance if you want it to be simple. Display Cal is simple. Your profile to use is user preference. Its recommend to use 80 to 160 nits full white. Sometimes bt1886 looks better under 80 nits on a low contrast screen with gamma near 2.2. It depends on the light in the room and the source material broadcast settings.
Delta E under .5 in white balance should be unnoticed visually and display cal goal is .4 max. I get .2 max but its not simple using 20 whitebalance controls in HCFR. It goes up to .5 or worse delta when things changes. Dirt on screen. device not as flat on the screen, switching contrast on the tv. Contrast effects the control points. The profile makes the wide gamut not wide in color managed apps.
I ramble forever and always rethink and get things wrong sometimes or not. Sometimes it is to complicated. I complicate things because I have to understand how it works to get 100% of what calibration can do. Getting the gamma right is for getting color right, shadows right, highlights right. SRGB might be a starter for pictures. Some use 2.4 gamma. 2.4 gives a wider range of colors and things do not get so bright that you can not see the shadows.
Thanks Ben. It’s obvious my spyder 5 express puck isn’t gong to cut it for accurate readings. I’m eyeing a Calibrite Display Pro HL as it’s on sale now. And honestly, I’m so lost on all the settings with displaycal, I think I’ll just use the calibrite software.
Display Cal is so much better. More options is better. It has more patterns and more control over the gamma offsets. Only way to find the right picture is with the right options. You should compare them. I never saw the need for proprietary software. It was nice and easy though. You can verify any profile with display cal.
I wish the new Display Cal worked properly in Windows 11 24h2. It will after a while. Windows 11 has been in a state of flux. Hard to make tools for something not stable. The new auto color management really messes up the whites on tv. Turns them red to the eye since it maxs out contrast. It takes over the color management too.
It might not be bad for everyone. It could be just my display or display model. I should report it but live with it instead. Vizio V-555-J01.
It might not be bad for everyone. It could be just my display or display model. I should report it but live with it instead. Vizio V-555-J01.
Perhaps its not an issue for all. But for myself, I bought the Calibrite Display Pro HL calibrator and used the included profiling software. Not as customizable options compared to displaycal of course. For me this is a plus as its not overwhelming like displaycal. Displaycal also wont load the created profile with my build of Windows and so I got tired of trying to make it work. A constant losing battle of frustration.
Satisfied with the new results? Can you attach the resulting profile for a quick verification?
Resulting profile? For my Asus monitor? I used Calibrite Display Pro HL hardware and software to generate a new monitor profile. I’ve given up on Displaycal completely.
Without DisplayCAL you won’t be able to check whiteness (daylight) or grey range issues, common in low quality HW clibration monitors bc HW cal software takes few greyscale measurements, hence low QC uncalibrated greyramp may be undermeasured thus uncorrected.
I mean, you can use Asus HW cal software, or Eizo or NEC but verify results using DisplayCAL. Remember to use the same colorimeter correction as HW cal software (EDR-CCSS) to check “aiming error” or the actual proper colorimeter correction for that backlight to check actual error.
