- This topic has 25 replies, 3 voices, and was last updated 6 years, 7 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
It shows up in the device manager but I did and update driver and it said it installed a driver, but it didn’t help. So then I reinstalled DC and no luck there. The only thing I can think of is that today I cloned my Samsung 840 EVO 250GB SSD over to an 850 EVO 5000GB SSD M.2. But I reinstalled the software and the driver and it shows up in the device manager and it worked yesterday. I haven’t moved it since yesterday so I doubt its suddenly broken. Maybe the cloning broke something but I updated the driver and reinstalled DC already. Not sure what else to try other then seeing if the Spyder Pro software see’s it.
Edit: Yup it works with the Spyder software. Very odd.
Edit: Yup it works with the Spyder software. Very odd.
Then you don’t have the correct driver installed. In DisplayCAL, choose “Tools” -> “Instrument” -> “Install ArgyllCMS instrument driver”.
That worked, thanks. I guess the driver got broken when I cloned the drive.
One odd difference in the two softwares, DC was set to a gamma of 2.2 but Spyder Software said it was actually 2.9. That’s a rather big difference.
Actually for my last calibration I took your suggestion and turned it off. But just incase I’m wrong I’ll run an long calibration tonight with it off. Gamma 2.2 is brighter then 2.4 correct? I’m finding the current gamma a bit bright for my room. I think I set the white level to 225 which feels about right for me. Color Temp is 6500k but since my room is bathed in a warm light that might not be the best choice for me, I wouldn’t know. I also put black offset to 50% but I’m not sure if that helps back crush or not. Black point correction is set to Auto and a Rate of 3.
Oh I would like to add a suggestion. The Extended Test Chart has 175 patches but the next one up, Large has 775. It would be nice to have one somewhere inbetween those 2.
Thanks for any more suggestions you can give me.
Gamma 2.2 is brighter then 2.4 correct?
Yes. But keep in mind, in color managed applications it doesn’t matter either way, because the only thing that determines the correct look is the respective source profile (e.g. sRGB or AdobeRGB).
The Extended Test Chart has 175 patches but the next one up, Large has 775. It would be nice to have one somewhere inbetween those 2.
You should set testchart to “Auto” and adjust the number of patches using the slider.
Thanks for the info. I did a longer calibration overnight. Here are the results. I would like your input.
Uncalibrated response:
Black level = 0.2555 cd/m^2
50% level = 49.74 cd/m^2
White level = 225.53 cd/m^2
Aprox. gamma = 2.18
Contrast ratio = 883:1
White chromaticity coordinates 0.3133, 0.3303
White Correlated Color Temperature = 6460K, DE 2K to locus = 5.1
White Correlated Daylight Temperature = 6462K, DE 2K to locus = 0.5
White Visual Color Temperature = 6281K, DE 2K to locus = 4.9
White Visual Daylight Temperature = 6446K, DE 2K to locus = 0.5
Effective Video LUT entry depth seems to be 8 bitsCurrent calibration response:
Black level = 0.2567 cd/m^2
50% level = 42.14 cd/m^2
White level = 225.40 cd/m^2
Aprox. gamma = 2.42
Contrast ratio = 878:1
White chromaticity coordinates 0.3131, 0.3302
White Correlated Color Temperature = 6476K, DE 2K to locus = 5.1
White Correlated Daylight Temperature = 6478K, DE 2K to locus = 0.6
White Visual Color Temperature = 6294K, DE 2K to locus = 4.9
White Visual Daylight Temperature = 6460K, DE 2K to locus = 0.5Calibration Curves link:
http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y16/Fireflyx76/CalCurves_zpszp1samll.jpg
Tone Curves Link:
http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y16/Fireflyx76/CalCurves_zpszp1samll.jpg
Thanks for the info. I did a longer calibration overnight. Here are the results. I would like your input.
What would you like to know?
Just if the numbers (especially the after calibration ones) look good and if the image links to the calibration and tone curves look normal/correct. If there’s anything that’s a bit off that a setting change might fix. That sort of thing.
Thanks!
