- This topic has 22 replies, 3 voices, and was last updated 8 years, 11 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
Both profiles are not all that different and show artifacting in the red-violet-blue region when used. I would recommend using a smaller testchart (e.g. the 271 default) and enabling white level drift compensation. Which colorimeter correction (if any) and measurement mode were you using?
Does the screen have any auto-contrast/auto-dimming features? If so, these would need to be turned off. Also, make sure that the graphics driver does not alter the output (e.g. color settings should not be used/left at default).The screen does not have any auto-contrast/auto-dimming features. All the graphics card settings are left at default. I was using the CCFLFamily_07Feb11.ccss and LCD(generic) mode.
I have done the two calibrations with white level drift compensation using the “Default testchart for LUT profiles”, but the results are same as previous results.
Argyll 1.6.3/DispcalGUI 2.6
delta E avg 0.3 max 1.0 rms 0.3
Luminance reported in profile is 85.52 (close to white level from report on calibrated display)
Current calibration response:
Black level = 0.2063 cd/m^2
50% level = 18.98 cd/m^2
White level = 86.16 cd/m^2
Aprox. gamma = 2.18
Contrast ratio = 418:1
White chromaticity coordinates 0.3104, 0.3291
White Correlated Color Temperature = 6628K, DE 2K to locus = 6.1
White Correlated Daylight Temperature = 6627K, DE 2K to locus = 1.9
White Visual Color Temperature = 6396K, DE 2K to locus = 5.9
White Visual Daylight Temperature = 6560K, DE 2K to locus = 1.8
White drift was 0.000000 DEArgyll 1.7/DispcalGUI 3.0
delta E avg 10.7 max 18.8 rms 11.4
Luminance reported in profile is 62.27 cd/m2 (Is this wrong? White level from report on calibrated display device is 84.42 cd/m2 )
10:50:38,424 Current calibration response:
10:50:38,426 Black level = 0.2058 cd/m^2
10:50:38,427 50% level = 18.61 cd/m^2
10:50:38,429 White level = 84.42 cd/m^2
10:50:38,430 Aprox. gamma = 2.18
10:50:38,432 Contrast ratio = 410:1
10:50:38,433 White chromaticity coordinates 0.3119, 0.3283
10:50:38,437 White Correlated Color Temperature = 6552K, DE 2K to locus = 4.7
10:50:38,439 White Correlated Daylight Temperature = 6552K, DE 2K to locus = 0.1
10:50:38,440 White Visual Color Temperature = 6381K, DE 2K to locus = 4.5
10:50:38,441 White Visual Daylight Temperature = 6549K, DE 2K to locus = 0.1
10:50:38,442 White drift was 0.000000 DEThe old version always reports a low delta E indicating a good calibration result, but the new version always reports a high delta E indicating the display cannot be calibrated at all. If the two profiles are in fact similar, which delta E values are the correct one?
The log file contains logs for both calibrations.
Many Thanks
The gamut mapping of those profiles looks smoother, the artifacting is gone as far as I can tell. I’d go with the 1.7 profile as it’s a little smoother than the 1.6.3 one.
Could you help me to compare the attached profile to LCD TV profile (the previous one v1.7) and see which one is better for photo editing? The LCD TV profile has 99% sRGB coverage but very bad delta E results according to v1.7. The attached profile has 68% sRGB coverage and good delta E results. I don’t know if I can trust the delta E results because of the huge difference for the LCD TV between v1.6 and v1.7.
Many Thanks
A better test would be to run a verification measurement report (enable “Simulation profile” and set it to sRGB). The Color LCD profile’s gamut is small compared to sRGB, so I doubt it’ll fare well. The TV covers sRGB almost fully.
