- This topic has 2 replies, 2 voices, and was last updated 5 years, 3 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
Hello. Thank you for the great software and positive community. Happy new year.
I read documentation and forum but didn’t find an explanation.
After profiling, I am getting much worse results using XYZLUT compared to 1xCurve. Is this normal?
I attached all files needed so you can see the difference in final results. I did as much as possible to assure display is properly adjusted (hardware adjustments are same for XYZLUT and 1xCurve). Also, calibration doesn’t seem to have anything with this issue. Only profiling.
The reason why I want to avoid XYZLUT is that I use Mac OS and have some issues like crushed blacks in the Preview app and tint in some greys (please check the screenshot). As I read this is normal behaviour for Mac OS and it is advised not to use XYZLUT.
I used 175 patches for XYZLUT (huge improvement compared to 34) and 778 for 1xCurve (not much improvement compared to 34 or 175 patches).
I thinking about using 1xCurve for general use and switching to XYZLUT for FCP X and Lightroom. For these two apps are crucial to have good colours. Also, visually I cannot see anything different between the two profiles. Only tinted one kind of grey on XYZLUT. Why there is so much difference in results?
Is this normal? Am I doing something wrong?
Thank you.
Getting much worse results with 1xCurve compared to XYZLUT
Yes, that’s normal. Depending on the type of display, there’s only so much that you can do with a 3×3 matrix. This is especially true for TVs where it is usually not possible to get at the native response of the panel due to undefeatable processing done by the driving electronics (e.g. YCbCr to RGB conversion etc).
I used 175 patches for XYZLUT (huge improvement compared to 34) and 778 for 1xCurve (not much improvement compared to 34 or 175 patches).
That’s expected. There’s very little if anything to gain by increasing number of patches for matrix profiles.
