- This topic has 74 replies, 4 voices, and was last updated 1 year, 3 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
So, when I viewed the Lagom test with no calibration applied (just my screen’s default colors), was I doing so in a non-color managed environment?
No, or yes. It depends on browser and default display profile.
When you say to fix whitepoint, do you mean that I should choose a different setting for it in DisplayCal other than ‘Color Temperature’ set to 6500 K? And should I try increasing the patch amount? If so, could you suggest what might be good values to change these two settings to?
No, I say that other that calibrating whitepoint & gamma there is little more you can do wich such low gamut display.
Also, do you think a matrix profile with no XYZ LUT might result in less errors, like Ben mentioned?
No, bc you need to use perceptual in Krita/GIMP to avoid clipping in out of gamut error in sRGB but outside display colorspace. And they are many…
Lastly, I thought that the ‘Relative Colorimetric’ rendering intent was the best to use for the most accurate representation of colors (especially for professional digital art use), so wouldn’t it be better than ‘Perceptual’ (which compresses all colors)?
With a good display yes, but you have not such display.
Rel colorimetric = out of gamut will be clipped.
I see. So you think I should try a matrix-only profile, as this could potentially result in lower DEs?
unlikely.
if a 3d mesh does not show a good match, an idealized profile is less likely to describe display bahavior accurately.
If so, which of the following options might be best to use: ‘Curves + Matrix,’ ‘Single Curve + Matrix,’ ‘Gamma + Matrix,’ or ‘Single Gamma + Matrix’? And do you think I should use more than 175 patches?
If matrix-only doesn’t work out though, then were you saying to go back to the ‘XYZ LUT + Matrix’ profile?
According to some information I found, I think the ICC profile mentioned in the error message is an internal identifier assigned by my system to the DisplayCal profile. I wasn’t able to find it in my system’s file browser, but when I installed the DisplayCal profile, my screen’s colors instantly changed, and the DisplayCal profile is selected for my display in my OS’ color management software. Do you think, therefore, that I need to worry about the error message since it seems my system is using the DisplayCal profile?
On such bad display the best you can do for krita is XYZLUT+perceptual from sRGB.
I believe Vincent. I do not know which would be best. The 8 de might be a black unseen. Still need to test them in action and just keep going with xyz lut since it seems good. A low color volume seems like it should be better with xyz since it can do the perceptual.
Thank you, Ben.
I wasn’t sure if you saw already, but I had posted that the DisplayCal profile appears to be in effect, despite the error message about the mystery ICC profile that supposedly doesn’t exist. Do you think then that I can just ignore the message?
Okay, got it. Should I use ‘Relative Colorimetric’ when doing the spotread test though?
Also, for future calibrations of my laptop’s display, can I continue using the same settings? Might increasing the patch amount, however, improve the results (although the next number after 175 is 425)?
I would do 1000 and plus. I saw a difference once. I had to run it for 4 hrs and more. There is a lot of extra blue color on your low end if you saw it. It helped my old screen better. Way deep in the mud and I wonder if your printing? What is your gamma you like? Is white balance good at native?
Even getting the highest color and other colors can make a nice profile to even out the color in colormanaged apps. https://docs.krita.org/en/general_concepts/colors/color_managed_workflow.html says look up your printer. A uncalibrated screen and just a profile helps. I use apps that do not use a profile so just get a verification report of the hardware after calibration and not profiled is all I need. A profile is the only way to get a laptop screen right color wise.
What a eye test. 100 percent green with 25% red is just barely noticeable on my screen. https://docs.krita.org/en/general_concepts/colors.html
Glad your a painter. I can not paint.
I might try the 1155 patch amount next time then, if I can borrow a dark room for so long. Vincent, I believe, had recommended medium speed, but I don’t know if that would significantly increase the calibration time for so many patches, and therefore, be an undesirable setting. What do you think? Also, when you said ‘I saw a difference once,’ did you mean that you tried 1000+ patches once with good results or that you did several such calibrations but only saw noticeable improvements once?
I do not currently print, but I appreciate the advice. As for gamma and white balance, I am only just beginning to understand such terms, so all I can tell you is that I used the DisplayCal default of ‘Gamma 2.2’ for ‘Tone Curve,’ and in the ‘Profile Information’ report for my current calibration, ‘Illuminant-Relative CCT’ for ‘Media White Point’ (if that is even what you were asking about) shows as 6566K. I’m not sure if that is good or not.
And would you happen to know if it is possible to change the default rendering intent that DisplayCal uses? I see that ‘Perceptual’ is the default for my current profile, but I have been unable to find any way of choosing the intent in the settings for future calibrations.
The 1st page medium speed is not the best but good for testing. The page is for white all system with a lut correction. The other 1155 patach is for color profile and white in a color managed app. can just run the test again with same color profile.
The 1st one wont effect the 2nd one on time. The 1st one can be redone with update calibration. It won’t do all the 1155 patches over again. If I am wrong let me know.
I meant I got exceeds recommendations in all the verification reports. I mostly could not get that on the old screen. It had the right screen type correction ccfl so it was better to calibrate. The new screen type is different. It is very hard to get a exceed recomandation. Its not to hard to get a ok screen verifaction. It gets better reports with single curve and matrix and 135 patches. I think my screen type is unknown. White Led is way off in red in it. Picture wise and tv color filter wise it is right.
My report should be a longer one but at least it matches 1886 and is ok.
So, put ‘Calibration Speed’ on ‘High’ and select ‘Update Calibration’ on the ‘Calibration Settings’ page of DisplayCal? Do I have to deselect ‘Interactive Display Adjustment’ if I am only doing an update?
You probably know more about this than I do, but I thought that, since screens drift in color, all patches have to be tested each time because, even if certain patches were tested before, they might not be accurate anymore. Is this right, or no?
Ah, I never realized that one can generate reports with the ‘Verification’ DisplayCal page. Do I need to have my colorimeter connected in order to use this feature? And should I change any of the settings on the page, or can I use the defaults?
Yes put calibration on high and update unless you want more color patches. Do not change anything on the calibration screen or it will make a new icc and do color patches again.
If the screen is warmed up the calibration will be the same. Your position on the screen and angle will change slightly. It will be slightly different and drift more when it is new. It will drift little. Some say to go 1 month before rechecking. Just check and see if it is accurate and if it is warmed up. The meter gets warmed up to. The update calibration will help white levels at more lower levels since that is not easy to predict between the points it measures. It measures up to 80 something and there is 255. Once every 3 rgb is very fine color and unnoticeable by eye most people.
If you delselect intereractive display adjustment I think it wont update. It will run new and make a new icc.
The help menu is the question box in displaycal. It has a very big manual and explantions. It covers all the functions but is not easy to understand it all for me at least. It has the screen verification covered. It verifies the profile that is in display cal calibration section not the OS icc. It usually is the same. But you can check old profiles that way.
Use simulation as profile tests what non colormanegeds is. no simulation as display profile unchecked but simulation profile checked checks the icc for color managed app. No simulation checked checks .
Thank you for the information.
I read some of the DisplayCal guide, but I’m still not sure I completely understand the ‘Verification’ feature. If you view ‘Image 1’ attached below, you will see the default settings that are selected on that page in DisplayCal. Would I keep these settings as is in order to have a report created on how accurate my ICC profile (the one currently selected) is? And what information in the report would indicate that it is time to perform a new calibration? Also, will the testchart alone compare my ICC profile (which was created with ‘Gamma 2.2’ chosen) to the sRGB color space, or would I have to enable the ‘Simulation Profile’ feature and then select the sRGB option from the drop-down menu for that to happen?
For SRGB comparision yes you would need to enable the simulation profile and select srgb colorspace. The gamma would still be 2.2 since the profile is 2.2 . My best google answer. https://sourceforge.net/p/dispcalgui/discussion/932493/thread/495da119/ . Florian Hoec even answered. Another one https://sourceforge.net/p/dispcalgui/discussion/932493/thread/16078e52/
Those discussions are most informative; thank you for taking the time to find and share them.
I have a deadline for a project that is coming up soon, so I am going to wait with creating a verification report for now, but I will share the results once I do. In the meantime, thank you for all of the help you’ve given me. I really appreciate it!
