- This topic has 5 replies, 3 voices, and was last updated 4 years, 10 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
Hi All, I’ve been exploring more and comparing the spyder4pro software and displaycal. I realised when i select white LED as the type, my srgb coverage report will be lower (85%) as compared to when I select generic LCD which can allow it to achieve (96% srgb). My monitor is a recently bought Korean branded and I suppose it should be using white LED yeah?
Is there anything that has been addressed before regarding this? I’d certainly much prefer a higher % coverage.
Just another update is when I select white LED, the contrast ratio is actually a bit higher. This is probably due to less adjustments in the monitor OSD to hit the white point for “white-LED” settings. Thus higher contrast ratio.
I am still unsure why the rgb coverage turns out to be higher if I choose generic LCD. If anyone understands how these works, please advise.
Coverage is an intersection of two sets, two colorspaces.
Colorimeter corrections modify CIE XYZ from raw colorimeter data to other CIE XYZ values based of factory/firmware data or in experimemtal results (in matrix corrections made for your and your monitor and your colorimeter with an spectrophotoeter).
Different XYZ values for R,g,b & W lead to different colorspaces than uncorrected. Intersenction between those colorspaces and sRGB result in different % volumen of sRGB.
Since all these Spyders are innacurate devices, maybe bundled corrections are unable to provide accurate colorimeter measurements, so maybe uncorrected XYZ raw readings are wrong AND corrected readings with “WLED” preset from Datacolor is wrong too.
So you may need to get an i1d3 colorimeter… or make a CCMX correction your spyder with an spectrophotometer (made for YOU, not a downloaded one) if you want to get data you can trust.Calibrite Display Pro HL on Amazon
Disclosure: As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases.I’d certainly much prefer a higher % coverage.
The actual coverage is a property of the monitor, not the colorimeter. If the colorimeter is accurate (less likely for Spyders), you’ll get a relatively accurate reported coverage. But whether that’s 85% or 96% doesn’t matter, as it doesn’t change anything about the monitor properties. Maybe 85% is the accurate number, or maybe it is 96%, or maybe something else altogether. You won’t know without a sufficiently accurate instrument.
What I am saying is if selecting WLED for the backlight type would be the right choice for my case? The color seems more washed out after calibration compared to selecting Native LCD. To me white is white, assuming the colorimeter is accurate, and it does not seem to make sense why selecting different backlight type will result in different results.
Of course, I will be borrowing a colormunki display from my friend next week so will definitely report back my findings if it’s any different.
To me white is white, assuming the colorimeter is accurate, and it does not seem to make sense why selecting different backlight type will result in different results.
It makes all sense. What you call backlight type is actually a colorimeter correction for that backlight type. You need a correction because your colorimeter is not an exact match od CIE standard observer.
If you apply different backlight corrections (like a 3×3 matrix) to a raw uncorrected measurements (like a vector with X,Y,Z components) you get different corrected measurements (different corrected X’,Y’,Z’ coordinates).
In an oversimplification, color coordinates for black, white and R,G,B fixes boundaries of a display colorspace, like a solid in 3D. Since vertex coordinates are moved using different corrections you may get different intersction value in % with another colorspace like sRGB.As Florian explained to you, your monitor colorspace is what it is… and it does not matter at all if you like or don’t like a lower % coverage value. You should aim for the right value, whatever it is (measured with a Munki Display and WLED correction for example)
