What target for gaming monitor?

Home Forums Help and Support What target for gaming monitor?

Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 17 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #25840

    rstolpe
    Participant
    • Offline

    Hi,

    I’m wondering what target I should use when I’m calirbation (profiling) my monitor for gaming?

    Is it still gamma 2.2 and D65 with Rec709?

    I’m using 1display pro with DisplayCal and I’m using the in settings Default (Gamma 2.2) and in correction I’m choosing the LCD White LED Family.

    I got this monitor: Asus TUF Gaming VG27AQL1A

    https://www.asus.com/Monitors/TUF-GAMING-VG27AQL1A/

    Is this correct settings? I don’t know if I should use the RGB LED or White LED correction.

    According to this site it using w-led and I’m guessing it’s white led?

    https://www.displayspecifications.com/en/model/2b331e5c

    #25842

    rstolpe
    Participant
    • Offline

    View post on imgur.com

    which one of this will use PC black and which one are going to use Video black?
    As I’m using it for a PC i want PC blacks. But still that it is d65 rec709 or bt1886

    #25844

    Vincent
    Participant
    • Offline

    Default & gamma 2.2. It will only correct grey (grey color neutral to white, white point and gamma).

    Regarding correction it may use some WLED PFS backlight with P3 95% (Panasonic VVX .ccss)

    #27744

    rstolpe
    Participant
    • Offline

    How do I know if i should use wled pfs or not?

    #27749

    Patrick1978
    Participant
    • Offline

    Since it is a wide gamut monitor WLED PFS is probably the right correction to use since that is currently the most common type of wide gamut backlight used for IPS displays.  Although It’s hard to say for sure without seeing the spectral distribution of that panel since most manufactures rarely specify the exact type of backlight they are using.

    There is the ability to view the spectral distributions of any installed correction in a graph, so you can use the correction search tool in DisplayCal to see if any users have uploaded a correction for your display and compare that to the preinstalled corrections and use that to figure out what type of backlight your display has.

    Note that the user supplied corrections will be much lower resolution than most of the preinstalled generic corrections, and I’d only recommend using them if none of the generic corrections match your display.

    Some other possible, but unlikely backlight types are
    RGB LED is uncommon and usually only used in high end monitors intended for color critical work.

    Quantum dot is also not as common and will usually be called out on the box or marketing materials.

    GB-R LED were the new hotness a 4-5 years ago but have been mostly dropped in favor of PFS

    The Evolution of LED Backlights

    #27771

    Vincent
    Participant
    • Offline

    How do I know if i should use wled pfs or not?

    https://colorimetercorrections.displaycal.net/

    Looks exactly like WLED PFS 95% P3.

    #27800

    Darkmatter
    Participant
    • Offline

    Wow I didn’t know that area existed. lol

    Are they the same as the ones you can see when you do the same thing in DisplayCal?

    #27838

    rstolpe
    Participant
    • Offline

    How do I know if i should use wled pfs or not?

    https://colorimetercorrections.displaycal.net/

    Looks exactly like WLED PFS 95% P3.

    Thanks! Then I used that as correction.

    One more Q, as you can se in the picture if I do understand it correct I Have 10 in bit depth for this display? So I guess that in the profiler I should set it at 10 and not 16 as it’s at default? (you can se picture of it also)

    I have attached all of the pictures in this post.

    • This reply was modified 2 weeks, 2 days ago by rstolpe.
    Attachments:
    You must be logged in to view attached files.
    #27842

    S Simeonov
    Participant
    • Online

    How do I know if i should use wled pfs or not?

    https://colorimetercorrections.displaycal.net/

    Looks exactly like WLED PFS 95% P3.

    Thanks! Then I used that as correction.

    One more Q, as you can se in the picture if I do understand it correct I Have 10 in bit depth for this display? So I guess that in the profiler I should set it at 10 and not 16 as it’s at default? (you can se picture of it also)

    I have attached all of the pictures in this post.

    Just leave it to the default 16 bit.

    • This reply was modified 2 weeks, 2 days ago by S Simeonov.
    #27844

    rstolpe
    Participant
    • Offline

    What do you think about my result? As far as I can tell it’s good 🙂

    Attachments:
    You must be logged in to view attached files.
    #27846

    S Simeonov
    Participant
    • Online

    What do you think about my result? As far as I can tell it’s good 🙂

    The white point is not so good.

    #27847

    rstolpe
    Participant
    • Offline

    As I did understand it it’s showing bad because I have the Lumiance down to 50 cd/m2 and not the ref cd/m2 or did I misunderstand it?

    #27848

    Vincent
    Participant
    • Offline

    It is bad because it is not “white” (near daylight curve of whites), maybe because you set it (ok), maybe because you modified osd settings (unlikely because it is the same WP as profile).

    #27857

    rstolpe
    Participant
    • Offline

    It is bad because it is not “white” (near daylight curve of whites), maybe because you set it (ok), maybe because you modified osd settings (unlikely because it is the same WP as profile).

    Ok I see, I did run it again but I did run it with the same settings as I did calibrate it with. I have attached the results and what settings that I did use in this post.
    Does it look better now? I have only used CalMan for 10 years but now I just want to use this SW but it has not updated for almost a year I’m hoping it still lives?

    Attachments:
    You must be logged in to view attached files.
    #27860

    S Simeonov
    Participant
    • Online

    It is bad because it is not “white” (near daylight curve of whites), maybe because you set it (ok), maybe because you modified osd settings (unlikely because it is the same WP as profile).

    Ok I see, I did run it again but I did run it with the same settings as I did calibrate it with. I have attached the results and what settings that I did use in this post.
    Does it look better now? I have only used CalMan for 10 years but now I just want to use this SW but it has not updated for almost a year I’m hoping it still lives?

    The gamma is bt1886, I wouldn’t use that gamma for an IPS monitor.

Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 17 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.

Log in or Register

Display Calibration and Characterization powered by ArgyllCMS