Verification after 3D LUT creation for Resolve

Home Forums Help and Support Verification after 3D LUT creation for Resolve

Viewing 15 posts - 16 through 30 (of 46 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #35863

    Vincent
    Participant
    • Offline

    Okay thank you.

    In summary you are saying it’s pointless to make any calibration with the Spyder 5…?

    For whitepoint. Make a numerical match with WhiteLED correction, then if it does not look white use viaual whitepoint editor.

    But what will the i1d3 help me if it is so difficult to figure out how to use DisplayCAL…?

    On a CX271 its easy, CN7 and “No compensation”. In displayCAL verify with GB-LED, RGphosphor (U2413) correction or some user made CCSS

    Your CX271 has no LUT3D, hence you cannot load it into monitor, but youcan load it in Resolve

    I thought that would be clear anyway?

    IDNK what you mean

    TRust that your display has aperfect neutral grey => dont care about VCGT => do ot apply VCGT in LUT3D

    Okay, Color Navigator should have taken care about neutral grey here in the first calibration step.

    Again wrong approach.

    At least it worked. First time I had some kind of success. Whereas als DisplayCAL approaches seem to fail…?

    User misconfiguration on both

    Wrong. Better to use a visual white point with such innacurate device as an Spyder 5.

    If you can show me a video how to do this… with the documentation it is impossible to figure out how this should work.

    1st reply on this message

    Because that preset will only correct white & grey TRC. It’s very likely that you do not want sRGB TRC. It’s user misconfiguration.

    How can the user configure it right if all is so cryptic? “Maybe it’s not what you want”….?

    Do not use those presets, Default D65 gamma 2.2,  matrix 1 curve with black point compensation. On a well behaved IPS, even office grade this will work.

    sRGB TRC definition is in wikipedia for example, unlikely to be what you want but I cannot know.

    That’s also mentioned in the manual with a vague, very general reference to the ambient viewing conditions…? Why all so vague? Can’t you use real world examples, practical explanations and suggestions?

    Because the definition of sRGB TRC, that you did not even google. Hence stick to default preset is easier.

    I thought it was an CX271. Yours have no HW calibration AFAIK, hence no ColorNavigator support. Closest colorimeter correction would be “White LED”.

    I said GUI monitor. One reference monitor CX271, one GUI monitor FS2331.

    This forum is kind of killing any motivation to use this software… sorry to say this but till now it gave me only frustration.

    Thank you.

    -i1displayPro

    -CX271: CN7 with no compensation (RG_phosphor EDR)
    Choose native gamut and then make a LUT3D with DisplayCAL for resolve (same RG_phosphor  CCSS)
    or
    Choose Rec709 gamut & gamma 2.4 and do not use LUT3D in resolve
    (you can verify results in DisplayCAL with RG_phosphor  CCSS, a bundled correction that can be auto imported for i1d3)

    -FS2331, White LED correction
    If you wish to make a LUT3D for GUI for the Foris monitor:
    -if you want to keep system wide grey calibration, do not apply VCGT on resolve LUT3D, but DisplayCAL tray loader or another tool has to loas it into GPU
    or
    -if you only care about resolve, no not install DisplayCAL generated profile for Foris, just use it as input for making the LUT3D and apply VCGT

    That’s pretty easy. Maybe innacuracies of your spyder is making this more difficult. For example:
    -we do not know where your verification fails. Only white? grey balance? primaries? just a small screenshot instead full report
    -Also if you choose “visual white point”, you should not care about “assumed vs measured error” since you are using that option because you do not trust white point coordinates measured by Spyder, hence that test in the report is useless.
    -Also if you use visual white point match you should not use absolute colorimetric lut3d, why? by definition. It will undo your visually matched whitre to go back to numerically matched by innacurate measurement from spyder (or other tool). This has been writen hunderds of times in each thread regarding LUT3D creation.

    i1Display Pro on Amazon  
    Disclosure: As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases.

    #35871

    saltarob
    Participant
    • Offline

    Thank you. I gave it another try.

    X-Rite is now Calibrite. And the i1Display Pro is now ColorChecker Display Pro, it that right?

    https://calibrite.com/us/product/colorchecker-display-pro-monitor-calibration/?noredirect=en-US

    Is that the colorimeter which you are recommending?

    For whitepoint. Make a numerical match with WhiteLED correction, then if it does not look white use viaual whitepoint editor.

    I am not sure what you mean with “match with WhiteLED correction”. I guess it means to set the chromaticity coordinates to the desired white point. In my case 0.3127 and 0.3290. I opened the visual white point editor with this values and it looked white for me. I hold my white card next to it and couldn’t see any color cast.

    Then I made a new 3DLUT with applied VCGT for Resolve and a new HW calibration with CN7 and “No compensation”.

    Both verifications where quite good. Only the absolute black is always off to much.

    1. Resolve 3DLUT verification:

    https://saltanat-test.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/public/DisplayCAL/Verification/Resolve_Verify_3DLUT%20%E2%80%94%202022-07-01%2013-02.html

    2.  The CN7 Rec.709 verification:

    https://saltanat-test.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/public/DisplayCAL/Verification/Resolve_Verify_CN_Rec709%20%E2%80%94%202022-07-01%2013-26.html

    3. A second CN7 Rec.709 verification to see if the results are consistent:

    https://saltanat-test.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/public/DisplayCAL/Verification/Resolve_VerifyLarge_CN_Rec709%20%E2%80%94%202022-07-01%2014-56.html

    Are that measurement problems near black coming from the Spyder5 or from the screen?

    Further I also verified the sRGB HW calibration from CN7:

    https://saltanat-test.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/public/DisplayCAL/Verification/CX271_Verify_CN_sRGB_2.2%20%E2%80%94%202022-07-01%2014-48.html

    Then I calibrated the FS2331 with Default D65 gamma 2.2, matrix 1 curve with black point compensation and made a verification:

    https://saltanat-test.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/public/DisplayCAL/Verification/FS2331_Default65_2.2%20%E2%80%94%202022-07-01%2016-26.html

    After that I wanted to generate a 3DLUT for the Resolve GUI on top of the previous calibration (Default 65 2.2). I followed the “3D LUT creation workflow for Resolve” instructions but I left the “Tone curve” as measured and applied the VCGT to the 3D LUT. Is this correct? I made a verification. According to the results it seems to be okay:

    https://saltanat-test.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/public/DisplayCAL/Verification/FS2331_Verify_3DLUT_GUI%20%E2%80%94%202022-07-01%2020-20.html

    Did I improve? Did I do it better now or is still everything wrong?

    Thank you.

    #35872

    saltarob
    Participant
    • Offline

    Sorry the last link (3DLUT for the Resolve GUI verification) was wrong. Here is the correct one:

    https://saltanat-test.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/public/DisplayCAL/Verification/FS2331_Verify_3DLUT_GUI%20%E2%80%94%202022-07-01%2020-37.html

    #35873

    Vincent
    Participant
    • Offline

    Thank you. I gave it another try.

    X-Rite is now Calibrite. And the i1Display Pro is now ColorChecker Display Pro, it that right?

    https://calibrite.com/us/product/colorchecker-display-pro-monitor-calibration/?noredirect=en-US

    Is that the colorimeter which you are recommending?

    Xrite is still Xrite, but colorimeter business is now Calibrite. Yes, that’s the device.

    For whitepoint. Make a numerical match with WhiteLED correction, then if it does not look white use viaual whitepoint editor.

    I am not sure what you mean with “match with WhiteLED correction”. I guess it means to set the chromaticity coordinates to the desired white point.

    yes

    In my case 0.3127 and 0.3290. I opened the visual white point editor with this values and it looked white for me. I hold my white card next to it and couldn’t see any color cast.

    Then it’s ok.

    Then I made a new 3DLUT with applied VCGT for Resolve and a new HW calibration with CN7 and “No compensation”.

    Hmmm no, “No compensation” is for i1d3 (to use GB-LED EDR). Leaving no compensation on a Spyder IDNK what is does.

    Same applies to all your reports measuring CX271 with no correction, likely to be very innacurate measurements regarding white but ypu’ll need a better device to use as a reference for comparison.s

    Both verifications where quite good. Only the absolute black is always off to much.

    1. Resolve 3DLUT verification:

    https://saltanat-test.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/public/DisplayCAL/Verification/Resolve_Verify_3DLUT%20%E2%80%94%202022-07-01%2013-02.html

    Maybe you can try to fix that tint in black, only if it bothers you. in CN calibration settings there are some greyscale set of preferences, one aims fro neutral grey ramp but it may worse a little the contrast. Yours seems a little in the low side, but it may be caused by SPyder5 innacuracies (not very good in dark readings)

    Also that tint in black could be fake, caused by Spyder innacuracies. So try CN with i1d3 if black tint is still there try CN7 option for a better grayscale.

    2.  The CN7 Rec.709 verification:

    https://saltanat-test.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/public/DisplayCAL/Verification/Resolve_Verify_CN_Rec709%20%E2%80%94%202022-07-01%2013-26.html

    Same as above regarding black.

    Are that measurement problems near black coming from the Spyder5 or from the screen?

    Same as above regarding black. Spyder5 is a poor performer in low light, a bad device design in all its components. Newer Spyder X is closer in design to i1d3 and it could have been a great device (on cheaper side) but datacolor ruined it because it does not store its spectral sensivities in fimrware so it cannot be corrected in a distributed way. With “corrected in a distributed way” I mean by donwloading an spectral power distribution sample (CCSS/EDR) for a family of displays or for an specific model, this removes “inter instrument variation” error, display model can be more generic, but correction is customized for each colorimeter since it i scomputed from display spectral sample (generic) and each individual colorimeter firmware data (custom) so overall correction is custom. I1d3 can do this, hence it is the only option unless you go to thousand dollar range.

    Then I calibrated the FS2331 with Default D65 gamma 2.2, matrix 1 curve with black point compensation and made a verification:

    https://saltanat-test.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/public/DisplayCAL/Verification/FS2331_Default65_2.2%20%E2%80%94%202022-07-01%2016-26.html

    Seems good for color managed apps, a foris gaming display like yours seems able to be characterized by an idealized profile. good.

    BEWARE, this verification is testing if profile matches calibared display. It is not testing if your sRGB-like foris matches sRGB/Rec709 primaries.

     

    • This reply was modified 5 months ago by Vincent.
    • This reply was modified 5 months ago by Vincent.
    #35876

    Vincent
    Participant
    • Offline

    Sorry the last link (3DLUT for the Resolve GUI verification) was wrong. Here is the correct one:

    https://saltanat-test.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/public/DisplayCAL/Verification/FS2331_Verify_3DLUT_GUI%20%E2%80%94%202022-07-01%2020-37.html

    +

    “BEWARE, this verification is testing if profile matches calibared display. It is not testing if your sRGB-like foris matches sRGB/Rec709 primaries.”
    Thats all color managed apps like Photoshop need and it won’t matter which gamma you choose as long as profile stored actual display behavior.

    Hence your Foris dispaly may need a LUT3D like you did for Resolve or madVR. I’ll use it because with LUT3D your display is behaving like if it was Rec709 with 2.4 gamma. Without it in MS Windows it will be rendered to Foris native gamut with gamma 2.2 (AFAIK). In macOS there is an option to rely on OS color management engine, like if it was Photoshop.

    • This reply was modified 5 months ago by Vincent.
    #35882

    saltarob
    Participant
    • Offline

    Thank you so much for helping me to get my feet on the ground.

    Hmmm no, “No compensation” is for i1d3 (to use GB-LED EDR). Leaving no compensation on a Spyder IDNK what is does.

    I compared it. Since the results with “no compensation”, especially for the whitepoint, turned out better in the DisplayCAL verification, and the white looked okay in the visual white point editor, I went for it. But maybe that was wrong again? Following the verification results with CN7’s compensation on “color managed”:

    CN7’s Rec.709 calibration with compensation on “color managed”:

    https://saltanat-test.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/public/DisplayCAL/Verification/Resolve_Verify_CN_ColorManaged_Rec709%20%E2%80%94%202022-07-01%2013-11.html

    CN7’s sRGB calibration with compensation on “color managed”:

    https://saltanat-test.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/public/DisplayCAL/Verification/CX271_Verify_CN_ColorManaged_sRGB_2.2%20%E2%80%94%202022-07-01%2014-20.html

    As you said, it may be pointless with the Spyder5 devise but I just try to understand it. Thank you.

    BEWARE, this verification is testing if profile matches calibared display. It is not testing if your sRGB-like foris matches sRGB/Rec709 primaries.

    Yes thank you. I was aware of this. And I tried if I could verify it against an sRGB simulation with an device link but I couldn’t figure out how to do this. Maybe it’s not possible?

    Hence your Foris dispaly may need a LUT3D like you did for Resolve or madVR. I’ll use itbecause with LUT3D your display is behaving like if it was Rec709 with 2.4 gamma. Without it in MS Windows it will be rendered to Foris native gamut with gamma 2.2 (AFAIK).

    I made a 3DLUT for Resolve like it is described in “Creating a 3D LUT for the GUI color viewer“. Was this wrong? As I said in the previous post I just made two modification to be able to use the 3DLUT in Resolve on top of this Default 65 calibration. I left the “Tone curve” on “as measured” and applied the “VCGT” to the LUT. Was this wrong?

    If you want, you can verify the 3D LUT you have just created by going to the “Verification” tab and clicking the “Measurement report” button. Enable the “DeviceLink profile” checkbox.

    I did this (above is from Florian Höch) in the “3DLUT for the Resolve GUI verification”.  Was it wrong?

    My original approach was to calibrate the Foris display to sRGB and Rec709 do avoid the inconsistency between color managed applications and non color managed application. But you said, that’s not what I want and should do…?

    Now if I watch a video in Safari, which should be color managed it looks very different on FS2331 compared to CX271. FS2331 is more saturated and too much red.

    In the Display mode I chose “LCD generic” for the CX271 and “LCD White LED” for the FS2331. Is that okay?

    Thank you.

    #35883

    Vincent
    Participant
    • Offline

    Thank you so much for helping me to get my feet on the ground.

    Hmmm no, “No compensation” is for i1d3 (to use GB-LED EDR). Leaving no compensation on a Spyder IDNK what is does.

    I compared it. Since the results with “no compensation”, especially for the whitepoint, turned out better in the DisplayCAL verification, and the white looked okay in the visual white point editor, I went for it. But maybe that was wrong again? Following the verification results with CN7’s compensation on “color managed”:

    CN7’s Rec.709 calibration with compensation on “color managed”:

    https://saltanat-test.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/public/DisplayCAL/Verification/Resolve_Verify_CN_ColorManaged_Rec709%20%E2%80%94%202022-07-01%2013-11.html

    CN7’s sRGB calibration with compensation on “color managed”:

    https://saltanat-test.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/public/DisplayCAL/Verification/CX271_Verify_CN_ColorManaged_sRGB_2.2%20%E2%80%94%202022-07-01%2014-20.html

    As you said, it may be pointless with the Spyder5 devise but I just try to understand it. Thank you.

    There is no point making a comparison CN with “color managed” (generic matrices) and then “no correction “in displaycal, it’s like apples vs oranges.
    Unless you have am accurate device to compare agisnt it… you cannot know which is morer accurate.
    A more “fair”but inaccurate (because device) will be “color managed” in CN and in DisplayCAL choose Spyder5 built-in mode “Widegamut LED” or something like that (1st tab upper right combo… like you did for the Foris choosing “Whiet LED”)

    BEWARE, this verification is testing if profile matches calibared display. It is not testing if your sRGB-like foris matches sRGB/Rec709 primaries.

    Yes thank you. I was aware of this. And I tried if I could verify it against an sRGB simulation with an device link but I couldn’t figure out how to do this. Maybe it’s not possible?

    AFAIK no, you can do it running DisplayCAL in  a virtual machine. Host will load VCGT, guest will run verification with “simulation profile + use simulation prpofile as display profile”.

    It would be a nice feature to add to DIsplayCAL. There is an user porting DisplayCAL to python 3.x. Contact him in his thread and suggert him to add this feature to his TODO LIST once all code is ported & stable.

    Hence your Foris dispaly may need a LUT3D like you did for Resolve or madVR. I’ll use itbecause with LUT3D your display is behaving like if it was Rec709 with 2.4 gamma. Without it in MS Windows it will be rendered to Foris native gamut with gamma 2.2 (AFAIK).

    I made a 3DLUT for Resolve like it is described in “Creating a 3D LUT for the GUI color viewer“. Was this wrong? As I said in the previous post I just made two modification to be able to use the 3DLUT in Resolve on top of this Default 65 calibration. I left the “Tone curve” on “as measured” and applied the “VCGT” to the LUT. Was this wrong?

    It does not matter.
    It is equivalent to:
    -generate a 2.2 gamma calibration on a detailed profile, then make a LUT3D (Rec709 g2.4) and embed VCGT to correct grey (& do not load GPU calibration)
    -generate a profile with no calibration, then make a LUT3D (Rec709 g2.4) (& do not load GPU calibration)
    also there are other equivalent approaches.

    If you want, you can verify the 3D LUT you have just created by going to the “Verification” tab and clicking the “Measurement report” button. Enable the “DeviceLink profile” checkbox.

    I did this (above is from Florian Höch) in the “3DLUT for the Resolve GUI verification”.  Was it wrong?

    My original approach was to calibrate the Foris display to sRGB and Rec709 do avoid the inconsistency between color managed applications and non color managed application. But you said, that’s not what I want and should do…?

    Foris should be sRGB-like in native gamut. DisplayCAL or i1Profiler or other GPU calibration tools cannot calibrate colorspace, only grey gramp.

    You can use its output (an iCC profile) to perful full gamut calibration with a LUT3D. Taht LUT3D will be load by a 3rd party tool like Resolve, MADVR, DWMLUT… not by DIsplayCAL, not by i1Profiler.

    Hence you cannot calibrate your Foris to simulate srGB/Rec709 primaries, you can use them to make an ICC profile whcih can be osed for other things.

    Now if I watch a video in Safari, which should be color managed it looks very different on FS2331 compared to CX271. FS2331 is more saturated and too much red.

    Maybe safari video player is not color managed. JPG & HTML colors should be. Use W3C shoool colorpicker web and test (google it). Also if you are on macOS both display should have assigned their profiles.

    In the Display mode I chose “LCD generic” for the CX271 and “LCD White LED” for the FS2331. Is that okay?

    Thank you.

    No if you trust Spyder readings. Explained above 1st reply in my message

    #35887

    saltarob
    Participant
    • Offline

    Thank you so much for all the explanations. I learned a lot and slowly I am understanding a little bit more. I just ordered the ColorChecker Display Pro. I will continue with my test after the new device arrives.

    Thank you.

    #36456

    saltarob
    Participant
    • Offline

    Hi,

    hope you are well.

    I made now the verifications and the comparison with the ColorChecker Display Pro. I hope I made it correctly.

    1. Resolve 3DLUT verification:

    https://saltanat-test.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/public/DisplayCAL/Verification/Resolve_Verify_3DLUT%20%E2%80%94%202022-08-17%2020-44.html

    2.  The CN7 Rec.709 verification:

    https://saltanat-test.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/public/DisplayCAL/Verification/Resolve_Verify_CN7_Rec709%20%E2%80%94%202022-08-17%2021-37.html

    3. FS2331 Rec.709 DeviceLink verification:

    https://saltanat-test.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/public/DisplayCAL/Verification/FS2331_Verify_3DLUT_GUI%20%E2%80%94%202022-08-19%2022-02.html

    According the verification results it seems to be no difference in accuracy between a CN7 Rec.709 calibration and the DisplayCAL 3D LUT calibration for Resolve. Is my conclusion correct?

    Thank you so much.

    #36468

    Vincent
    Participant
    • Offline

    According the verification results it seems to be no difference in accuracy between a CN7 Rec.709 calibration and the DisplayCAL 3D LUT calibration for Resolve. Is my conclusion correct?

    Yes, but what actually means is that uncalibrated display is so well behaved that using a simple lut-matrix-lut simulation in display HW allows display to simulate smaller “idealized” (defined by primaries and a TRC) colorspaces.
    It means that once grey is calibrated to your white and desired gamma there are little to no “3d volume colorimetric errors”, hence display itself (display behavior) can be described woth an “idealized profile” (matrix profile) and from that you can simulate whatever you want as long as its smaller or equal that colorspace.

    So it’s not really “Color navoigation simulating Rec709 very good” but actually ” display itself (native gamut) being so good that once it is grey calibrated can be described by its primaries and a gamma and nothing more… so CN can do its job simulating Rec709 with a simple lut-matrix-lut in display HW.
    If this requirements fails, “3d volume” erros cannot be corrected with a lut-matrix-lyt hardware… adn you need a LUT3D (a set of n x n x n nodes in a 3D mesh to capture actual display behavior with all 3d volumne non ideal behavior).

    #36469

    saltarob
    Participant
    • Offline

    Thank you. Yes I understand that is only possible because the display shows such a good behaviour. But it gives me the possibility to use the simpler and quicker workflow with CN7 and still get good results. And thanks to DisplayCAL I can verify it any time and switch to the 3D LUT if necessary.

    May I ask you another question?

    Now I would like to calibrate my MacBook Pro 2016.  Creating a 3D LUT for the GUI color viewer in Resolve. The uncalibrated display report shows a gamma of 2.4 and a whitepoint of 8000 K.  Now I am wondering if I should calibrate it to the 6500 K and gamma 2.2 or 2.4 or should I leave it as measured? But 8000 K is very blue. Following my tests:

    https://saltanat-test.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/public/DisplayCAL/Verification/MacBookPro13%2C3_Verify_3DLUT_GUI_Gamma2.4%20%E2%80%94%202022-08-20%2014-08.html

    https://saltanat-test.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/public/DisplayCAL/Verification/MacBookPro13%2C3_Verify_3DLUT_GUI_Gamma2.2%20%E2%80%94%202022-08-20%2015-07.html

    Did I use the right settings for the Display? The right correction?

    Thank you so much.

    #36622

    saltarob
    Participant
    • Offline

    Hi,  hope you are well. Just wanted to check if you got my last reply, my last question about the MacBook Pro. But maybe you are too busy. Sorry for bothering. Thank you so much.

    #36656

    Vincent
    Participant
    • Offline

    Brighteess seems to low… but IDNK what you want to do. Usually 100nits.
    Regarding white point it can be corrected in VCGT or by full LUT3D correction.
    1st one translates allways white correction to LUT3D if you apply LUT3D
    2nd one can have VCGT calibrates to closest daylight white, or some midway duyalifht white between native and D65. Then on LUT3D + embed VCGT you can choose “absolute colorimetric” to correct to D65 (midway white gets corrected to D65)  or “relative” to keep your “midway white”.

    #36661

    saltarob
    Participant
    • Offline

    Thank you for your answer.

    Brighteess seems to low… but IDNK what you want to do. Usually 100nits.

    Yes I saw this as well but I was not sure how to adjust it to 100nits. Since in the preset for laptops the interactive display adjustment is off I didn’t know what is the best practise to address this. Can you maybe guide me?

    I think I would go for the VGGT calibration to D65 plus absolute colorimetric. But I am not sure about the pros and cons. Maybe it’s not good to pull it to D65 if the native whitepoint is 8000K?

    I will attach screen shots of me settings.

    Thank you.

    Attachments:
    You must be logged in to view attached files.
    #36867

    saltarob
    Participant
    • Offline

    Hi Vincent hope you are well. Did you get my last message from 31st of August? Thank you.

Viewing 15 posts - 16 through 30 (of 46 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.

Log in or Register

Display Calibration and Characterization powered by ArgyllCMS