- This topic has 10 replies, 2 voices, and was last updated 6 years, 3 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
Hello!
So I am using a BenQ PD3200u. This is the 2nd one I buy because the first one had a dead pixel almost in the center and was driving me crazy. BUT that one at least with the i1 profiler was showing to be very accurate out of the box.
In case you are not familiar with the model, these monitors come with a calibration report showing an Avg. Delta E of .5759 for example on my current one.
The one with the Dead Pixel after calibration with i1 Profiler, I barely saw any changes and during the adjustments of RGB before starting the calibration, I did not have to touch anything at all. I felt confident that it was really good from stock.
This 2nd one though, neither the Standard or SRGB modes are showing that level of perfection as the 1st one. After calibration with I1 profiler I could clearly notice the difference between calibrated and out of the box which bothers me since they come pre-calibrated.
So…I decided to try DisplayCal to see what this monitor can do. This is used only for photography btw.
What do you think about the report? I am thinking on trying a 3rd monitor to see if I get one that is accurately calibrated as per the report that comes with it but just making sure I am not making a big fuzz about nothing.Thanks!! 🙂
Hi,
the report looks very good. In general, when you’re going to profile a monitor yourself, it becomes less relevant how good or bad it was calibrated at the factory (if at all). A good factory calibration can help if you’re using the monitor with a lot of non-color managed software under Windows (which I understand is not going to be the main use of the monitor in your case).
Awesome. Thanks for the information.
This was used sRGB mode so blue channel was showing much lower than the rest but I was not able to adjust only I go to USER mode. From all reviews/test, user mode was never able to get them as accurate calibration as either Standard or sRGB. Now since mine seems not as good out of the box, I wonder if USER mode so that I can adjust RGB to be perfect match on the pre-calibration window, will give me better results.
Also based on that report, is there anything you look at more specifically to determine the quality of the calibration? Like that Delta E reported there is it comparable to the calibration report that came with the monitor?
If I am seeing correctly the Delta E from Display cal calibration is like .28 which sounds really low and awesome but maybe that is not the real measurement I should be looking at?
Thanks again!Also based on that report, is there anything you look at more specifically to determine the quality of the calibration?
The report tells you the accuracy of the profile, which is the most important thing in a color managed environment.
Also based on that report, is there anything you look at more specifically to determine the quality of the calibration?
The report tells you the accuracy of the profile, which is the most important thing in a color managed environment.
Thanks !
One more question..from another thread I was reading, it seems that my verification was just against the same profile I created.
In order to verify against sRGB to see how close it is, should I be using Simulation Profile and choosing “sRGB IEC61966-2.1”. Is that the correct simulation profile for sRGB?
All I want is to make sure my monitor is as accurate as possible to the sRGB standard since most of my work ends up on the internet.
Thanks againAlso based on that report, is there anything you look at more specifically to determine the quality of the calibration?
The report tells you the accuracy of the profile, which is the most important thing in a color managed environment.
Thanks !
One more question..from another thread I was reading, it seems that my verification was just against the same profile I created.
In order to verify against sRGB to see how close it is, should I be using Simulation Profile and choosing “sRGB IEC61966-2.1”. Is that the correct simulation profile for sRGB?
All I want is to make sure my monitor is as accurate as possible to the sRGB standard since most of my work ends up on the internet.
Thanks againOh wait, I did have sRGB IEC61966-2.1 selected BUT Simulation profile option was not checked when I did my previous verification…so did my previous verification compared my results against sRGB expected results?
In order to verify against sRGB to see how close it is, should I be using Simulation Profile and choosing “sRGB IEC61966-2.1”. Is that the correct simulation profile for sRGB?
Yes (enable the checkbox next to the droipdown to actually use the selected profile). Note though that you’ll get better results profiling the monitor in its wide gamut mode, otherwise the gamut will be limited by the monitor already.
In order to verify against sRGB to see how close it is, should I be using Simulation Profile and choosing “sRGB IEC61966-2.1”. Is that the correct simulation profile for sRGB?
Yes (enable the checkbox next to the droipdown to actually use the selected profile). Note though that you’ll get better results profiling the monitor in its wide gamut mode, otherwise the gamut will be limited by the monitor already.
Perfect.
So now that I am more familiar with the apps and have read the info from the website I can ask more specific questions.This Monitor is not wide gamut..it is rated at 100% sRGB coverage. No rating for Adobe RGB but from reviews it seems to be low like 77% or so since it was not intended for that.
For my needs I want the best calibration to do my photo editing which will normally be exported to sRGB format.- With that in mind…from the Display and Instrument tab, I should leave Output levels as Auto or better set to Full range?
- I am not applying the Correction I found for this monitor and I1 profiler because seeing how they are not all equal out of the box, it did not make much sense for me to apply that. Correct me if I am wrong please.
3. Under Calibration tab I am selecting temp 6500, white level 120 and Black as measured.
Gamma at 2.2 and Black output offset I am not touching from the default 100%. Good?Calibration speed I am testing medium and low when ready to commit to one calibration.
4. CIE 1931 and 2012 10 are interesting because they require me to drastically change the RGB settings of my Monitor to make the RGB levels right before calibration. Any particular reason not to use the newer 2012? From a quick research it seems to fix several things.
5. When doing a Verification the default is CIE 2000 where usually my max Delta E is 2.65 or so for a Blue color with OK OK. But if I change to CIE 1976 it reports the Maximum as failed at over 7.33. Why such discrepancy?
6. Finally for Profile Type, looks like XTZ Lut + Matrix is good for my photoshop, capture one needs, correct?Thanks!!!
With that in mind…from the Display and Instrument tab, I should leave Output levels as Auto or better set to Full range?
If you already know (for sure!) that you’re driving the monitor in full range, you can do that and save on the three measurements to determine black clipping at the start of each run.
I am not applying the Correction I found for this monitor and I1 profiler because seeing how they are not all equal out of the box, it did not make much sense for me to apply that. Correct me if I am wrong please.
That seems reasonable (I assume you found a matrix correction, not spectral sample?)
Under Calibration tab I am selecting temp 6500, white level 120 and Black as measured.
Gamma at 2.2 and Black output offset I am not touching from the default 100%. Good?Yes. Personally I wouldn’t set a luminance target (you can still adjust luminance to any desired value during interactive adjustment).
Calibration speed I am testing medium and low when ready to commit to one calibration.
Ok.
Any particular reason not to use the newer 2012?
Unless you have a specific use case that requires it or helps a certain situation (e.g. matching several displays to one another), there may not be much to gain.
When doing a Verification the default is CIE 2000 where usually my max Delta E is 2.65 or so for a Blue color with OK OK. But if I change to CIE 1976 it reports the Maximum as failed at over 7.33. Why such discrepancy?
Different delta E formulas provide different result. The original CIE 1976 L*a*b* delta E is simply the euclidean distance of two points in the L*a*b* colorspace. Because the L*a*b* colorspace is not perfectly perceptually uniform, one delta E (which is supposed to be the just-noticeable-difference threshold) has different meaning depending on where you are in the colorspace (i.e. lightness, and especially hue angle and chroma influence the result in ways that make it sometimes less suitable to communicate color tolerances). There were later attempts at fixing this with the CIE 1994 and CIE 2000 color difference formulas, which apply non-linear transforms to the incoming L*a*b* colors to try to make the locations (and thus resulting dE) more perceptually uniform. CIE DE 2000 (despite its computational complexity which was sometimes criticized in the past) has proven to be the most sufficient solution so far (meaning 1 dE about represents the same just-noticeable-difference irrespective of where the points lie in the L*a*b* colorspace).
6. Finally for Profile Type, looks like XTZ Lut + Matrix is good for my photoshop, capture one needs, correct?
Yes.
Thanks for all the answers.
So this is my latest calibration using the USER mode so I could adjust RGB before starting the calibration and compared against sRGB.I did notice one issue..my side monitors calibration, I was looking at a B&W photo and their gray scale looks bluer vs the BenQ which looks more neutral or at least less blue in comparison. Sure the BenQ reports %98.1 sRGB vs only %91 for the side monitors I have but still I find it odd that at least when doing calibrations with the i1 Profiler, the end results were a closer match between the main monitor and the side ones.
Just curious about why I am seeing this.
Thanks!
