- This topic has 5 replies, 4 voices, and was last updated 3 years, 5 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
- Offline
Hi, when using a report on uncalibrated device I get “Effective Video LUT entry depth seems to be 8 bits”
When I switch the profile loader from 16 bit to 8 bit I notice a difference, greys in things like webpages or windows explorer look darker in 16 bit when compared to it being slightly brighter in 8 bit so there is a visible difference.
These are more sighted impressions so take them with a grain of salt but on 8 bit things look slightly too saturated but white looks brighter and less muted than in 16bit. There is also a bit more banding.
I’m using a 750ti and calibrating a 2.0 gamma monitor to rec 1886 (approx 2.22 at 50%). In which setting is the calibration correct? Shouldn’t they be the same?
Hi, when using a report on uncalibrated device I get “Effective Video LUT entry depth seems to be 8 bits”
When I switch the profile loader from 16 bit to 8 bit I notice a difference, greys in things like webpages or windows explorer look darker in 16 bit when compared to it being slightly brighter in 8 bit so there is a visible difference.
These are more sighted impressions so take them with a grain of salt but on 8 bit things look slightly too saturated but white looks brighter and less muted than in 16bit. There is also a bit more banding.
I’m using a 750ti and calibrating a 2.0 gamma monitor to rec 1886 (approx 2.22 at 50%). In which setting is the calibration correct? Shouldn’t they be the same?
I’m using the default 16 bit in the profile loader, gamma rec 1886 is not good for IPS monitors. Use 2.2 gamma relative 100% boo.
Hi, when using a report on uncalibrated device I get “Effective Video LUT entry depth seems to be 8 bits”
nvidia and their commitment to color quality…
When I switch the profile loader from 16 bit to 8 bit I notice a difference, greys in things like webpages or windows explorer look darker in 16 bit when compared to it being slightly brighter in 8 bit so there is a visible difference.
These are more sighted impressions so take them with a grain of salt but on 8 bit things look slightly too saturated but white looks brighter and less muted than in 16bit. There is also a bit more banding.
Run a measurement report on both settings. Then check what is going on. Truncation on LSB should not cause those changed. But maybe it’s some driver issue. Did you try dither hack?
Also since Windows Explorer is not color managed, try to capture RGB colors sent to display where you notice a difference. Then measure them on both settings with a patch in MS Paint (may need to use ArgyllCMS spotread).I’m using a 750ti and calibrating a 2.0 gamma monitor to rec 1886 (approx 2.22 at 50%). In which setting is the calibration correct? Shouldn’t they be the same?
Simeonov explained it.
- Offline
It’s not the gamma that’s the issue, rec 1886 is near identical to srgb anyway on 1000:1 displays and it looks good. For now I’m sticking with the loaders 8 bit rounding. Text is easier to read and media looks more 3 dimensional and crt-like. Something about 16 bit on mine is flatter and worse. I have a 2nd monitor and it matches better now.
- Offline
I’ve never used this so no idea what I’m doing here. I set a reference while on 8 bit of the colour on paint, then measured it a couple times on 8 bit then measured it a couple times on 16 bit.
On 8 bit (was always around this every time)
Result is XYZ: 2.113482 2.209663 2.504868, D50 Lab: 16.551175 -0.375963 -6.273309
Delta E to reference is 0.003514 0.006922 0.000556 (0.007783, CIE94 0.007239)Same colour on 16 bit (again tried multiple times and it stayed similar)
Result is XYZ: 2.027572 2.169617 2.363060, D50 Lab: 16.353332 -1.445487 -5.413993
Delta E to reference is -0.194330 -1.062602 0.859871 (1.380676, CIE94 1.229157)No idea what any of this means but if you put these two colours next to eachother you’ll see a diff I think.
The difference is minor here I do realise (left half 8 bit right half 16 bit, entered the xyz values in)
