- This topic has 31 replies, 3 voices, and was last updated 4 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
Calibrite Display Pro HL (CCDIS3HL)
https://www.amazon.com/Calibrite-Display-Plus-HL-CCDIS3PLHL/dp/B0C836NB5X?th=1According to some user report and making an educate guess about actual components in all i1d3 colorimeters (like Graeme Gill did in AVSFroum), older non HL versions can measure better darker patches of OELD displays but I’m afraid that current non HL versions are “colormunki display” rebranded, hence if you bough a display with HW calibration in rear future it won’t be supported by default by monitor vendor software, so you need the pro or plus versions of whatever i1d3 you may want to buy.
Calibrite Display SL on Amazon
Disclosure: As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases.Sorry
Vincent but i dont get it. This terms makes me stupid..“Iiyama Prolite XUB2792QSU-B1 W-LED stands for white LED backlight. NOT wide LED display technology = 90% + of AdobeRGB gamut. Select ‘Standard LED’ for the display technology in the Spyder software.”
– İiyama = Standart led
– Macbook = W-LED
X-Rite = Both of them on White Led? 0_o
there is a SpyderX CCMX file: https://colorimetercorrections.displaycal.net/?get&type=ccmx&manufacturer_id=IVM&display=PL2792Q&instrument=SpyderX&html=1
The problem is DisplayCall is no go with new Macos 14.x system. Program wont start up so I’m stuck with SpyderX software or I need to buy newer Calibrite Display Pro HL and use it with native program.
There is then no point/way to use these files, I’m right?
While I was writing, you typed faster 🙂
I don’t think I’ll need a hardware-calibrated screen in the future. Because I usually do this as a hobby and I never print on paper.So, if I were to get this device (Calibrite Display Pro HL) and calibrate my current screens with it, could I get better results than SpyderX? Or closer white’s? At least in terms of knowing what’s what.
It’s really interesting that x-rite advertisements don’t match up then. I’ve been reading about this color calibration world for years, but it’s like an endless pit.
Here’s a revised version for clarity:
I just wanted a simple hardware that could profile my monitor 🙂 After using Spyder5Pro, SpyderX was a huge upgrade. The only problem I face is determining which white point is the right one – whether it’s Apple’s or Iiyama’s is the main question for me.
Sorry
Vincent but i dont get it. This terms makes me stupid..“Iiyama Prolite XUB2792QSU-B1 W-LED stands for white LED backlight. NOT wide LED display technology = 90% + of AdobeRGB gamut. Select ‘Standard LED’ for the display technology in the Spyder software.”
– İiyama = Standart led
– Macbook = W-LED
X-Rite = Both of them on White Led? 0_o
No. Let’s asumme that you have an i1d3 colorimeter from xrite/calibrite
Iiyama = White LED(IF it is actually a hite LED sRGB only display).
Macbook P3, it’s a PFS phosphor, “exactly P3” variant/flavior. Those macbooks are partially supported by i1Profiler/ccProfiler, UNsupported by calibrite Profiler and fully supported by DisplayCAL.there is a SpyderX CCMX file: https://colorimetercorrections.displaycal.net/?get&type=ccmx&manufacturer_id=IVM&display=PL2792Q&instrument=SpyderX&html=1
CCMX are not portable between colorimeters. They are valid for teh display and colirimeter used to build them.
That is the very reason an i1d3 is superior to SpyderX. i1d3 can use “distributed” corrections that are portable between several i1d3 and even several display as long as its spectral power distribution is the same.
The problem is DisplayCall is no go with new Macos 14.x system. Program wont start up so I’m stuck with SpyderX software or I need to buy newer Calibrite Display Pro HL and use it with native program.
Use a visual reference as “tru white”, then use visual white point editor on the others. SpyderX won’t be responsibe to choose proper white point , but to ensure that greys have teh same color as your visually choosen white. This is the cheapest approach. Test it.
There is then no point/way to use these files, I’m right?
No,
While I was writing, you typed faster 🙂
I don’t think I’ll need a hardware-calibrated screen in the future. Because I usually do this as a hobby and I never print on paper.So, if I were to get this device (Calibrite Display Pro HL) and calibrate my current screens with it, could I get better results than SpyderX?
i1d3 like Calibrite Display Pro HL admit the use of distributed correctiosn… but calibrite profiler software makes wrong use of them (it lie to you).
Or closer white’s? At least in terms of knowing what’s what.
IF you get / patch proper spectral correction (CCSS/EDR) to those displays, yes, an i1d3 colorimeter would fit better. But calibrite Profiler has not them. ccProfiler/i1Profiler offer partial support.
An advanced user may try to patch the EDRs, like other users have done with other software.It’s really interesting that x-rite advertisements don’t match up then. I’ve been reading about this color calibration world for years, but it’s like an endless pit.
i1d3 devices, the colorimeter are wonderful. Current calibrite software is not.
Here’s a revised version for clarity:
I just wanted a simple hardware that could profile my monitor 🙂 After using Spyder5Pro, SpyderX was a huge upgrade. The only problem I face is determining which white point is the right one – whether it’s Apple’s or Iiyama’s is the main question for me.
Use visual whitepoint matching (match screen white by eye). Then let SpyderX correct greyscale assuming that white. That is the cheapest solution.
BUT if you do that, and eventually want to create a LUT3D for Davinci Resolve, you cannot use absolute colorimetric with “standard rec 709” profile, or whitepoint will be undone.
Vincent, thank you so much for your patience and responses. I don’t even know how to thank you properly.
“Manual white point adjustment” is only supported in SpyderX Elite. I guess I need to upgrade my package for that. Or i will buy the Calibrite Display Pro HL, with hope in the future for better software support.
I have one last question. When we focus on just one screen, our brain adjusts to the ‘white point’ of that screen and starts perceiving colors accurately… Let’s say we edit our photo based on that. Later, when we view this photo on a different screen, of course, the colors will look odd. However, after looking at this screen for a sufficient amount of time, once our brain adjusts to the ‘white point’ of this screen, will the colors appear accurate again?
I wonder if this theory of mine is correct?
You can run Erkan’s python 3 port on Sonoma. You only need to get a visual match and get xy coordinates. Then you can port those coordinates (WITH THE SPYDERX mode used to get it) to Datacolor software if you insist to use it.
Regarding WP adaptation… it depends on how far away they are. cian-blue whietpoint of some office laptops is disgusting even if you have been using it for a time.
Because I don’t have a specific white reference other than an A4 paper…
Perhaps this product might help.
I just tested it again with my iPad, and it also showed a magenta cast similar to what’s in the stores.
While using Spyder5, my colors appeared more magenta. Despite SpyderX being supposedly better. So, I’m asking myself, did Spyder5 provide a better white point?
In my previous post, the person who conducted the test mentioned that Spyder5 had a significant magenta cast and said, “Ugh.” That’s why I always thought SpyderX was eliminating the magenta. Also, if I don’t compare it side by side with other screens, the white seems quite good.
At 18:20 in this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wl6ftGpD2W4&list=FLURdrOVDNGPzZuZWZr31S1w&index=3
Therefore, I think the most logical thing would be to get Calibrite Display Pro HL and test it side by side with SpyderX.
Because I don’t have a specific white reference other than an A4 paper…
hahaha, actually not, by far, no joke.
To use a A4 sheet as reference you should have a normalized light source (not only color coordinates but actula spectral power distribution) and then to have perfectly neutral sheet with not a*b* color. A typical A4 sheet will have OBA content and b -10 or worse. Far far far from reference.
Perhaps this product might help.
I just tested it again with my iPad, and it also showed a magenta cast similar to what’s in the stores.
Apple P3 LED displays have same backlight. PFS.
While using Spyder5, my colors appeared more magenta. Despite SpyderX being supposedly better. So, I’m asking myself, did Spyder5 provide a better white point?
In my previous post, the person who conducted the test mentioned that Spyder5 had a significant magenta cast and said, “Ugh.” That’s why I always thought SpyderX was eliminating the magenta. Also, if I don’t compare it side by side with other screens, the white seems quite good.
Spyder5 is useless paperweight. Degraded by time by design.
SpyderX COULD have been a good device IF they had stored spectral sensivities like i1d3 so they could have use CCSS/EDR and distributed corrections. That is the problem with SpyderX, it is not bad HW by sensor design.At 18:20 in this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wl6ftGpD2W4&list=FLURdrOVDNGPzZuZWZr31S1w&index=3
That video is useless for your comparisons, but useles per se, I’m saying useless for your comparisons.
ColorNavigator7 uses several corrections, built in, not available for other software, matrix type, not portable. Even configured it does not support WLED PFS phosphor. Eizo custimer must replace gb-LED rorrection (like CS2730) with custom WLED PFS (AdobeRGB green flavor) provided by Eizo Asia Paciffic or by people here in this community or by ypurself (CCSS2EDR python tool).
I mean, that video would be interesting once you limit to the setup used, but is useless for a “buying guide”.
Therefore, I think the most logical thing would be to get Calibrite Display Pro HL and test it side by side with SpyderX.
Yes, but if you dio not want to spend more more, you can try visual whitepoint editor.
Also remember that calibrite software does not support PFS pshosphor EVEN if they label it, it is fake. This is not a Calibrite Display Pro HL fault, only their software. Using DisplayCAL or Argyllcms commandline you can measure those screens.Hello Vincent, It’s a long story, please read when u have time 🙂
I received a second email from Spyder support, and today, I’ve been thinking about your suggestions on what to do next.
Firstly, I’ve adjusted the white balance now. Of course, I used my MacBook Pro as a reference (why didn’t I think of that before… silly me!).
Here’s what I did step by step:
- In a dark room, I placed the MacBook and the Iiyama side by side, displaying a completely white screen.
- I adjusted both to 160cd/2 brightness.
- When I chose the ‘Normal’ setting on Iiyama instead of the RGB setting, I noticed that the whites matched much better.
- I calibrated the Iiyama using the “White point: DO NOT ADJUST”, gamma 2.2.
- Everything was almost the same compare to Macbook.
- I chose the RGB option again and tried to match the white balance of Iiyama with the MacBook as closely as possible.
- Calibrated again by selecting “White point: DO NOT ADJUST.”, gamma 2.2.
- At this point, the difference between them is so minimal that even on my MacBook, I have confidence in editing photos. When the screens are side by side, everything looks the same. The whites are as close as possible. I’m satisfied with the results.
I have a question that applies to both the MacBook and the Iiyama.
Question 1: Currently, I’m only calibrating brightness and gamma, including colors, of course. Do I need files like CMSS to calibrate these correctly or CMSS only nedeed for white balance (Kelvin)? Colors are identical at the moment, whites close as possible.
Question 2: After calibration, the contrast always decreases a bit. Have you observed this too? The shadows become a bit brighter, and I can see more detail. (I work years like this)
Question 3: MacOS also has found Iiyama’s factory calibration file and added it to the ICC list. And, of course, there’s the familiar sRGB IEC 61966-2.1
When I select ‘sRGB IEC’, the colors become more saturated (a liitle bit too much). When I choose the ‘factory ICC’, saturation decreases, and the contrast matches sRGB IEC. When I set up my calibration from SpyderX, colors are the same as the ‘factory ICC’, contrast decreases, and shadows fill with more detail (same effect on the MacBook between P3 ICC and Calibrated with SpyderX).
In this case, what do you think is more logical? Is it reducing contrast, brightening shadows, and gaining more detail, in your opinion?
If you say the version with contrast is correct, then I’d almost say there’s hardly any need for the calibration tool because the colors perfectly match my MacBook Pro when I select that ICC profile. If the contrast decreases, then it’s definitely needed.
Note: In the Spyder program, there’s a feature for viewing calibrated/uncalibrated images. That’s a big disaster! it intentionally shows exaggerated results for wow amazing! effect 🙂
———————
I got the following email from Spyder Support… They didn’t say anything about magenta 🙂
Spyder X Pro is fully capable of calibrating all these displays.
Please note the display technologies for the displays you list:
IIyama Prolite XUB2792QSU-B1 – Standard LED
MacBook Air – Wide LED
MacBook Pro – Wide LED, change reference mode to Apple Display (P3 – 500 Nits) first
Dell UltraSharp U2723QE – Wide LED, disable HDRAs my colleague mentioned we use the industry standard ICC standards.
You can’t always believe what you read on the internet…
Also keep in mind that calibration is not meant to make every display look the same. It’s meant to maximize the color performance and the accuracy of a particular display for a workflow, like photography. Difference in backlight technologies, age, brightness and other factors will make a monitor appear different when comparing two displays.
Please use the display technologies in the list above to go back and calibrate each display. Be sure to use 2.2 for gamma and 6500 Kelvin for white point and 120 cd/m2 in the spider software for calibration settings.
Hello Vincent, It’s a long story, please read when u have time 🙂
I received a second email from Spyder support, and today, I’ve been thinking about your suggestions on what to do next.
Firstly, I’ve adjusted the white balance now. Of course, I used my MacBook Pro as a reference (why didn’t I think of that before… silly me!).
Here’s what I did step by step:
- In a dark room, I placed the MacBook and the Iiyama side by side, displaying a completely white screen.
- I adjusted both to 160cd/2 brightness.
- When I chose the ‘Normal’ setting on Iiyama instead of the RGB setting, I noticed that the whites matched much better.
- I calibrated the Iiyama using the “White point: DO NOT ADJUST”, gamma 2.2.
- Everything was almost the same compare to Macbook.
- I chose the RGB option again and tried to match the white balance of Iiyama with the MacBook as closely as possible.
- Calibrated again by selecting “White point: DO NOT ADJUST.”, gamma 2.2.
- At this point, the difference between them is so minimal that even on my MacBook, I have confidence in editing photos. When the screens are side by side, everything looks the same. The whites are as close as possible. I’m satisfied with the results.
I have a question that applies to both the MacBook and the Iiyama.
Question 1: Currently, I’m only calibrating brightness and gamma, including colors, of course.
You calibrated grayscale because that is the only thing you can do.
Do I need files like CMSS to calibrate these correctly or CMSS only nedeed for white balance (Kelvin)? Colors are identical at the moment, whites close as possible.
Your SpyderX has no support for that, so use whatever they are recomending as long as you left whitepoint untouched because you matched it visually.
Question 2: After calibration, the contrast always decreases a bit. Have you observed this too? The shadows become a bit brighter, and I can see more detail. (I work years like this)
COntrast is whit lum / black lum so unless SPyder software is doing something in lower end there is no contrast modification. Brigther the darkest greys, but not blacks does not modify contrast. Also gamma setting when calibrating under color managed apps (including macOS desktop) means nothing, all will be undone by image profile to display profile… so for macOS staying close to native /2.2/ sRGB TRC seems a reasonable choice.
AFAIK fake EDID profiles made by macOS when you plug a new display fake sRGB TRC or something close by default.Question 3: MacOS also has found Iiyama’s factory calibration file and added it to the ICC list. And, of course, there’s the familiar sRGB IEC 61966-2.1
When I select ‘sRGB IEC’, the colors become more saturated (a liitle bit too much). When I choose the ‘factory ICC’, saturation decreases, and the contrast matches sRGB IEC. When I set up my calibration from SpyderX, colors are the same as the ‘factory ICC’, contrast decreases, and shadows fill with more detail (same effect on the MacBook between P3 ICC and Calibrated with SpyderX).
Macos Desktop is color managed. If iiyama’s native gamut is a bit bigger than sRGB, EDID or custom profile will reflect it, hence desaturate icons and such.
If iiyamas RGB primaries (coordinates) do not match sRGB there is n point using sRGB as display profile.In this case, what do you think is more logical? Is it reducing contrast, brightening shadows, and gaining more detail, in your opinion?
If you say the version with contrast is correct, then I’d almost say there’s hardly any need for the calibration tool because the colors perfectly match my MacBook Pro when I select that ICC profile. If the contrast decreases, then it’s definitely needed.
Note: In the Spyder program, there’s a feature for viewing calibrated/uncalibrated images. That’s a big disaster! it intentionally shows exaggerated results for wow amazing! effect 🙂
Maybe it is working as intened. You are seeing color managed image adjusted to actual display primaries and TRC.
———————
I got the following email from Spyder Support… They didn’t say anything about magenta 🙂
Spyder X Pro is fully capable of calibrating all these displays.
Please note the display technologies for the displays you list:
IIyama Prolite XUB2792QSU-B1 – Standard LED
MacBook Air – Wide LED
MacBook Pro – Wide LED, change reference mode to Apple Display (P3 – 500 Nits) first
Dell UltraSharp U2723QE – Wide LED, disable HDRSeems reasonable given the very limited number of options that you have. But I won’t calibrate XDR macbook with Spyder software or even displaycal, just use (if needed) Apple’s CMS with custo preset/tune up or whatever it is called. Explained in previos messaged.
As my colleague mentioned we use the industry standard ICC standards.
And that means….¿
You can’t always believe what you read on the internet…
Also keep in mind that calibration is not meant to make every display look the same. It’s meant to maximize the color performance and the accuracy of a particular display for a workflow, like photography. Difference in backlight technologies, age, brightness and other factors will make a monitor appear different when comparing two displays.
Not really. when you calibrate you match whit to some target (even visually) then calibrate greyscale. That’s all “calibration” you are doing (excluding XDR behavior explained before).
Then you profile, measure, the monitor am¡nd made a profile reflecting how it’s behaving.
Please use the display technologies in the list above to go back and calibrate each display. Be sure to use 2.2 for gamma and 6500 Kelvin for white point and 120 cd/m2 in the spider software for calibration settings.
They’r instructing you to use their corrections, which are unfit due to SPyder HW limitations…. and that’s what you should avoid.
Choose a white, by numerical coordinates or by visual match. Then calibrate grey= meake sure greys have the same color tint.
Then profile (measure) how it hevaes fter all these tweaks. Photoshop will only care about the later, display behavior (ICC), regardless of what whiteppoint coordinates you chose.
Photoshop image to screen is always WP relative, otherwhise ProPhotoRGB images white “255” will loook yellow.Hello Vincent,
I don’t know how to thank you. You’ve taught me things I didn’t understand before. It’s such a profound subject, seemingly endless. Physics, light, the human brain – they’re incredible things.
I’m lucky to have my MacBook as a reliable white balance for reference…
I calibrated the white balance of the Iiyama, using my eyes as a reference against the MacBook Pro 13″. I ensured the grey tones matched (as much as possible) just as you said, and I’m very pleased with the results. They’re not flawless, but when I put them side by side, except for pure white, the differences in colors were so subtle that my eyes couldn’t notice.
After calibration, there’s a slight bending in the grey colors going from white to black, something that was always there before. This applies to both the MacBook and the Iiyama. Without calibration, there are seamless transitions, but this time, the blacks are dominant. http://www.lagom.nl/lcd-test/gradient.php
Today, I took my laptop and compared its white balance with a friend’s iPad, and I noticed the iPad shifted more towards magenta. However, I’ll keep the white balance the same as on my laptop. It’s much better than before and closer to many devices. I confirmed that my previously edited photos also show correct colors with very nice results. My brain has adapted very well to ‘greenish-white’ 🙂
When I checked the standard sRGB and SpyderX’s ICC profile with ‘ColorSYNC Utility,’ I noticed that the profile I created is slightly larger than sRGB, especially in the green areas.
In conclusion, I’m very, very thankful to you for the satisfying results!
Your kindness is priceless, thank goodness you exist 🙂After calibration, there’s a slight bending in the grey colors going from white to black, something that was always there before. This applies to both the MacBook and the Iiyama. Without calibration, there are seamless transitions, but this time, the blacks are dominant. http://www.lagom.nl/lcd-test/gradient.php
Likely to be Apple’s CMM fault and APPs that use it like macOS image viewer. DisplayCAL had a workaround, default settings, to mimic fake idealized profiles expected by the very limmited CMM for apple, desktop color management engine.
On photoshop it may happen due to limited precision on 8bit images when display profile TRC and image profile TRC do not match , blame PS for lacking dithering without OpenGL10bit tricks.After calibration, there’s a slight bending in the grey colors going from white to black, something that was always there before. This applies to both the MacBook and the Iiyama. Without calibration, there are seamless transitions, but this time, the blacks are dominant. http://www.lagom.nl/lcd-test/gradient.php
Likely to be Apple’s CMM fault and APPs that use it like macOS image viewer. DisplayCAL had a workaround, default settings, to mimic fake idealized profiles expected by the very limmited CMM for apple, desktop color management engine.
On photoshop it may happen due to limited precision on 8bit images when display profile TRC and image profile TRC do not match , blame PS for lacking dithering without OpenGL10bit tricks.Yes, I was aware of Photoshop’s bending issue. Especially when it adds magenta to dark shadows, it brings out the bending quite noticeably 🙂 It was also on Windows like this. Usually, the problem is resolved when you save in 8-bit, or of course, if needed must be saved in 16-bit, tiff etc..
After calibration, there’s a slight bending in the grey colors going from white to black, something that was always there before. This applies to both the MacBook and the Iiyama. Without calibration, there are seamless transitions, but this time, the blacks are dominant. http://www.lagom.nl/lcd-test/gradient.php
Likely to be Apple’s CMM fault and APPs that use it like macOS image viewer. DisplayCAL had a workaround, default settings, to mimic fake idealized profiles expected by the very limmited CMM for apple, desktop color management engine.
On photoshop it may happen due to limited precision on 8bit images when display profile TRC and image profile TRC do not match , blame PS for lacking dithering without OpenGL10bit tricks.Hi Vincent,
First of all, happy new year!
Currently, I’ve received the Dell U2723QE, and I’ve retired the Iiyama.I’ve tried the things I learned from you on this monitor as well. Additionally, there was a calibration report paper included, which I’ve added. I ignore all kelvin reports of SpyderX.
I’m curious to know which scenario you would choose from the following.
Scenario 1:
Use in Standard mode, calibrate it (without adjusting the white setting, of course), it leans towards green compared to the MacBook Pro 13″ M1, ignore it.Scenario 2:
Switch to Custom Color, adjust the ‘White setting’ using RGB, referring to the MacBook Pro 13″ M1 screen. Calibrate and use it.Scenario 3:
Switch to sRGB mode, disable P3, use it without calibration, relying on the provided calibration report. (RGB sliders become deactivated, causing a slight shift towards green in the white balance.)Scenario 4:
Switch to sRGB, calibrate with SpyderX. The white settings of the MacBook Pro 13″ M1 laptop and the screens differ, but disregarding this issue. (After all, I can’t edit on the small screen.)When I switch between ICC profiles:
In sRGB mode = sRGB photo test, There’s very little difference between calibrated and uncalibrated. Generally, the contrast decreases slightly, and color transitions become slightly smoother.In Native mode = sRGB photo test, I see more differences compared to sRGB. The same changes observed in sRGB result in slightly more variations, mainly affecting the colors.
Photos edit method: Lightroom -> export as JPEG with sRGB embedded (sometimes transfer to Photoshop with sRGB 16bits -> save as JPEG sRGB, 8bits.)
