2019-01-11 at 22:29 #15193
Hello, I have decided to try using you software to calibrate my 2017 27″ iMac with the Radeon Pro 580 card. I decided to try DisplayCal software after reading a great article on it from Photography Life website. I followed their instructions here is the link to the article https://photographylife.com/how-to-calibrate-imac-and-imac-pro-displays they had a download that was to be used as the correction file but it looks like it is meant for the i1pro. I have went to the list of DisplayCal.net corrections page and have seen quite a large array of available corrections. I have the Colormunki Display device and see that there is several corrections available for my combination of device and computer. First should I use the ccss profiles or the ccmx profiles?Second should I use a1nm profile, 3.3nm profile, or a 9.7nm profile? I have tried a few different ones with a slight difference between them. If I look at the Gama information chart from the measurement report generated from the Verify tab the gama seems to be off from the 2.2 gama from 0-10% and 90-100% on all three profiles that I have tried. I would like to know what correction profile and or settings would be recommended for my equipment and computer combination. Also should I uninstal the Xrite software before profiling with DisplayCal.2019-01-13 at 16:06 #15212
CCMX is a correction made for A SPECIFIC colorimeter with a spectrophotometer (of “X” accuracy level) for a specific display. Is not so “portable” between devices.
A CCSS is spectral power distribution sample (“a generic display” of some technology) used to correct a colorimeter reading of the same backlight technology based in colorimeter sensivity stored in firmware. It is more “portable” if firmware data is accurate.
P3 Mac screen use backlights close to/equal to W-LED PFS phosphor “P3” backlights (like “Panasonic VVX17P051J00” 1nm correction from i1d3 correction bundle). That backlight has very narrow spikes in its spectral power distribution. You can see this by yourself if you use command line app “specplot” from ArgyllCMS (x-axis is wavelength).
Small step CCSS is better to measure it. With 3nm you should be able to distinguish “doble spike” in red channel, but those go unnoticed at 10nm, so… IMHO use 3.3nm or smaller (1nm).
If you wish that people evaluate the issues you see in verify report, upload that report.
2019-01-13 at 20:51 #15214
- This reply was modified 5 months ago by Vincent.
Just wondering what test chart or reference do you recommend for verification settings? Photography Life recommended using the ISO 12646:2008 color accuracy and gray balance and nothing under simulation profile. Do you recommend using anything under the simulation profile in addition to the verification settings.
2019-01-13 at 22:43 #15217
- This reply was modified 5 months ago by Steve L.
I do not remember all the differences between the “ti1″s, I think that the one you wrote (2008) has a lot of patches and 20-25 grey scale measurements which I find useful because I find grey tints very annoying (YMMV). That 2008 seems good for verification.
Simulation profile is used to test how that screen will behave in a color managed enviroment (with almost ideal precision) when rendering an image with simulated profile colorspace. Could be useful to test all the colors in AdobeRGB that a mac P3 cannot display because of its gamut limitations, just an example, but you do not need any simulation profile to test if calibration went wrong (your complains): just verify how calibrated screen matches its own custom profile (simulationprofile=none).
2019-01-14 at 16:16 #15229
- This reply was modified 5 months ago by Vincent.
Ok so I have tried using 2 different ccmx correction profiles. One which is a 1nm correction the other is a 9.7nm. Both of these profiles are specific to my set up combination of monitor year size and brand (2017 iMac 27″) and colorimeter (Colormunki Display). These profiles were available through the correction drop done menu and using web search which brought up these 2 profiles from the DisplayCal corrections site. The first one is the 1nm correction, the second one is the 9.7nm correction. Visually it looks to me that the 1nm profile is more accurate. The 9.7nm profile seems to have a slight greenish tint to it. Also when you look at the RGB and Gamma charts the 1nm seems to show better accuracy (if I’m reading it correctly). One last note, it seems as the blacks don’t seem as “washed out” the more I get used to this profile. My earlier comparison was based on the actual Xrite ColorMunki bundled software vs DisplayCal. I think that maybe being used to the Xrite profiles maybe had made me seem the DisplayCal profile seemed washed out.
Let me know what you think, Thanks.
Attachments:You must be logged in to view attached files.2019-01-14 at 17:42 #15232
CCMXs are matrix corrections, made for a colorimeter and a display measured with some device you call “reference”.
If you did not make that CCMX by yourself it is more useful to use CCSS instead of CCMX although i1d3s usually have good inter instrumnet agreement.
If you like results, it’s fine.2019-01-14 at 20:56 #15233
Vincent, thank you for your reply.