- This topic has 5 replies, 2 voices, and was last updated 9 years, 4 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
Using a Spyder5. Ran the calibration several times and gamma keeps coming out overly bright, I have to go into the video card settings and dial down the gamma slider ~22% to match gamma calibration images. Is this a fault in my measurement settings?
The attached verification has no video card modified gamma setting.
You’re verifying against Rec 709 with a BT1886 tone curve, color management disabled, is that really what you want to do? Or are you verifying a 3D LUT?
Here are my attached settings because I barely know a tenth of the options available. I assume I made an obvious mistake somewhere because each time I ran the calibration it came out consistent, yet bright gamma because I had to turn that setting down to match gamma calibration images online.
Ok. I see you’re using a calibration gamma of 2.4 with 100% output offset and black point hue correction, on the other hand you’re also creating a 3D LUT with same gamma but 0% output offset (BT1886). Can you explain a little why you chose these settings over the defaults and what your goal is?
My goal was to calibrate the monitor for really casual use and light image/video editing so most of the settings are default. I am obviously overwhelmed by the technical options available haha. I’ve calibrated only by eye before using test patterns online and preferred a gamma of 2.4 so I put that setting. I must have left the black point correction setting on after trying to see if that would fix the bright looking image. I clicked the 3d LUT option for the same reason, to see if that was the issue.
After reading the color management comment, I went into color settings to click the grayed out “Use Windows Display Calibration” and that instantly made things look right for gamma. i just want to verify that the calibrated settings are right now and its not my bias saying it looks right or wrong. If my settings are completely off from the start, please let me know where I goofed up.
My goal was to calibrate the monitor for really casual use and light image/video editing so most of the settings are default.
Well, but some are not anymore, so my first suggestion would be to return to defaults (select “Default” under settings), and disable advanced options in the “Options” menu. It is probably OK to reduce profiling patches to 271 again afterwards.
I must have left the black point correction setting on after trying to see if that would fix the bright looking image.
I would suggest turning off black point correction as it will net you the (higher) native contrast of your display. Returning settings to default will already achieve this.
You should also not assume that whatever you were viewing, was looking correct before calibration/profiling. In fact, it’s likely the other way around.
In the case of gamma test images, they are usually created with gamma 2.2 (or alternatively sRGB) in mind. So, after calibrating to a gamma of 2.2 (or sRGB), they will look correct in non-color-managed situations, where only the display calibration is active. In color managed applications, you need to make sure that the correct source profile is used by the application (i.e. sRGB).
It is essential to not change monitor settings after calibration/profiling, as doing so would invalidate the current calibration/profile and require redoing it.
I went into color settings to click the grayed out “Use Windows Display Calibration” and that instantly made things look right for gamma.
It is fine to let Windows handle the calibration loading, but my recommendation would be to use the DisplayCAL profile loader instead (higher precision, and will make sure that the calibration stays loaded).
i just want to verify that the calibrated settings are right now and its not my bias saying it looks right or wrong.
That’s a very reasonable thing to do, but in your case, you want to disable “Use simulation profile as target”, and also the simulation profile entirely by removing the checkmark there as well, on the verification tab.
