- This topic has 4 replies, 2 voices, and was last updated 7 years, 3 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
Hi, I had a couple questions about using displaycal, and the settings to choose/expected outcomes. I am more or less a complete novice here, so bear with me if the questions are obvious, just couldn’t really figure it out using the wiki/googling.
I have a Spyder 5, and the display I am trying to calibrate is an Asus PG279q. Just wanting to calibrate the display and apply a profile for general use, as well as generate a 3d lut for use with madvr. Have run multiple calibrations, but seeing what I “think” are issues each time. First question I had was, in the display and instrument panel, if I check online for a correction, one comes up, but it seems to be for an i1 Pro, what looks to be a different device. Using it does change the values I need to meet for the interactive display adjustment, and I assume it changes the end result. What I’m wondering is, if it’s listed as using the i1 Pro, is it better to not use it? Just stick to the auto(none) option?
Secondly, in the calibration section, I have selected the following settings, attached as an image. Specifically wondering about the tone curve, as I’m hoping the rest is fine. I have it set to gamma 2.2, the gamma set to the same, and relative chosen as the option. Also have ambient light adjustment selected. What I’m wondering is, once I get done with the calibration, and go under tools/report/report on calibrated display device , I get a value of almost 2.8 or so for gamma. It’s been the same through multiple calibrations. Is that expected? Should it be that high? Without any calibration, I get a level of 2.1 for gamma. Curiously, I get the same value running the report for uncalibrated display device, that is a gamma of 2.1. even after calibration. I only see the 2.8 using the report on calibrated display device. Is it able to intelligently strip off the profile when I use that report, even after I have calibrated? If the 2.8 is accurate, is it because of the ambient light adjustment, or the relative setting? And more importantly, is that fine, or is something wrong? I feel like it should be lower, but am unsure. I don’t really understand the graphs very well, the tone curve, etc., but they seem to indicate high gamma levels as well. Speaking of the graphs, that brings me to my last question.
To get to the 120cd/m2 value, I have to tank the brightness of the display to something very low, 15-25, depending on the contrast. I suppose this is fine, since I set it to be that bright, but my questions mostly concerns the contrast value. At the default 60 brightness, 50 contrast, which is extremely bright, using the uncalibrated display report, the contrast is approximately 950:1. As it is advertised at 1000:1, this is fine. However, lowering the brightness to the aforementioned brightness values causes the contrast to take a pretty large hit, down to 750 or so, according to the calibrated display report. Is this expected? Since the brightness is lower, is the contrast supposed to go down? I ask, because googling, it seems like that shouldn’t be the case. I see reviewers saying the contrast more or less stays the same level the entire gamut of brightness. Also saw some reviewers saying the default contrast of 50 was too high, as it caused a lot of gamma issues at the high end. Again, not sure what that means, but figured it may have caused my gamma problems, so I did run calibrations with the gamma set at 50, and at 42, which is what they recommended. Post calibration gamma values were in both cases reported as quite high, 2.8, though the graphs did look much different, the curves switching from above to below the default line. The problem is, the contrast dropped even lower, to 650 or so. Expected to drop obviously, as I did lower the amount, but should it even be that low? Again, referring to reviewer values, they still had a contrast of 929:1 at 42 contrast, albeit at 200cd/m2(again not sure if brightness should have any affect here.)
Basically unsure if I am interpreting the graphs/reports/numbers right, or if I am even running them correctly. I realize it’s quite a few questions I had, but any advice would be hugely appreciated.
First question I had was, in the display and instrument panel, if I check online for a correction, one comes up, but it seems to be for an i1 Pro, what looks to be a different device.
The Spyder4/5 can use the same spectral corrections as the i1 Display Pro/ColorMunki Display. I’d generally recommend to stick with a matching measurement mode instead for the Spyder4/5 though.
Also have ambient light adjustment selected. […] What I’m wondering is, once I get done with the calibration, and go under tools/report/report on calibrated display device , I get a value of almost 2.8 or so for gamma.
That is to be expected because you have enabled ambient light adjustment – that will adjust the tone curve for the measured ambient light level. My general recommendation is to leave the advanced options alone, there’s zero need to even enable them for normal use.
However, lowering the brightness to the aforementioned brightness values causes the contrast to take a pretty large hit, down to 750 or so, according to the calibrated display report. Is this expected?
This depends on how the display in question implements the brightness control. If it only adjusts the backlight, contrast would stay roughly the same. If it only adjusts the backlight to a certain point and below that adjusts the panel’s digital driving levels, then contrast will go down.
Calibrite Display Pro HL on Amazon
Disclosure: As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases.Hi, thanks for the quick reply. I’ve taken your advice an re-ran the calibration. Set the spyder mode to w-led, turned off ambient light adjustment, and didn’t bother with any of the advanced settings. Results look much better, or at least much closer to what I expected. I’ve attached the various graphs and outputs, again, not very adept at interpreting them, but I hope they look alright? The curves at least look closer to the tracking line, and the post calibration report has the gamma much closer, at 2.18, and the contrast higher as well, in a range from 800 to 830.
Definitely an improvement, though I did have a question about contrast. This measurement is with contrast set to 50. I understand if I raise it, perhaps hoping for a higher post-calibration contrast, I will have to lower the brightness to get to my white level, and I assume it will also change how much I have to fiddle with the rgb measurements. Just wondering, since there was no contrast adjustment “test” presented pre-profliling when calibrating, is leaving it default all right? Do the graphs/info indicate it’s at an all right location, or does something there point to raising or lowering it? In a similar vein, is something like 800:1 or so a decent enough ratio for contrast, on an ips-display?
Finally, as I understand it, the profile loader should automatically apply the profile on log-in to general windows tasks/browsing/applications. I also wanted to make a 3d lut for madvr though. I wasn’t sure of the results, so I didn’t bother enabling the tab and ticking “create 3d lut after profiling”. Is it adequate to use this new profile from the settings tab, enabling the 3d lut tab, and just sticking with the defaults(other than file format), and create it? It just uses what is stored, no need to go through the calibration/profiling process again, and then I upload the results through madvr? Or is going back to display, selecting madvr, and using madvr’s TPG to create the lut somehow “better” or more preferred?
Thanks again for your assistance.
[…] I did have a question about contrast. This measurement is with contrast set to 50. I understand if I raise it, perhaps hoping for a higher post-calibration contrast […]
My general recommendation is to leave the “contrast” control alone on LCD monitors (not TVs) – changing it will likely either result in reduced contrast or clipping.
In a similar vein, is something like 800:1 or so a decent enough ratio for contrast, on an ips-display?
Yes.
Is it adequate to use this new profile from the settings tab, enabling the 3d lut tab, and just sticking with the defaults(other than file format), and create it? It just uses what is stored, no need to go through the calibration/profiling process again, and then I upload the results through madvr?
Absolutely.
