DisplayCal Profile Verification: Measured versus Assumed target whitepoint

[JoeDenver]

Hi there –

I’m new to the world of display calibration and profiles, and am learning a lot.  I am using a ColorMunki Display on a Mac Laptop.  I used the ColorMunki software to create a profile, as well as using DisplayCal to create a profile.  When I run a verification on these profiles, I get some interesting results.  The Colormunki software creates a profile that is off by about 3 points in both the “Measured versus assumed target whitepoint” and “Measured versus display profile whitepoint.”  The DisplayCal profile is off by 11.5 points in the “Measured versus assumed target whitepoint” category, which seems like a lot, but is close to zero in the “measured versus profile whitepoint.”  Can you give me any feedback on this?  It seems displayCal is creating a profile the screen is reproducing quite accurately, but that is quite off in creating the assumed whitepoint.  Visually, the DisplayCal profile is much greener in color, and the ColorMunki is more red.  I used a correction for the i1 / Colormunki Display when I made the profile in DisplayCal.  Verification reports for both are attached below.

Thanks greatly,

Joe

Attachments:

You must be logged in to view attached files.

Calibrite Display SL on Amazon  
Disclosure: As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases.

[Florian Höch]

Hi,

you have calibrated to a different whitepoint in both softwares, and also used a different colorimeter correction (the ColorMunki software does not support custom colorimeter corrections, only the default X-Rite ones). For matching results, the settings need to be exactly the same.

[JoeDenver]

I actually am only cailbrating one display, not trying to match two different ones.  I’m just testing the two softwares against each other to see which is more accurate.  How do I get DisplayCal to make a profile that the whitepoint more closely aligns to the “assumed taget whitepoint?”.  It’s about 11.5 points off, and the recommended threshold is less than 2 or 1.

[Florian Höch]

By setting a target whitepoint other than “As measured” on the calibration tab. You should also set profiling patches to the default of 175 on the profiling tab (which will automatically set profile type to “XYZ LUT + matrix”).

[JoeDenver]

Thanks ever so much, that worked perfectly.

[Lindsey]

What does the target white point be set to?  I’m having the same issue exactly and I had my white point set to 6500 a s I’m 12.45 off and everything else is perfect

[Florian Höch]

See documentation.

[Author]

Posts