- This topic has 12 replies, 4 voices, and was last updated 4 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
Hi, there everyone. This is the first time trying to calibrate my external monitor by myself. Here’s a quick sum of my setup:
1. Macbook Pro 2017 15″ running Monterey (OS 12.6.3)
2. BenQ PD2700U connected via Ultrastudio Monitor 3G
3. Calibrating this using an x-rite i1 Display ProI’ve tried reading a bunch of topics related to my specific monitor or even about calibration settings in general. I’m trying to calibrate my monitor to Rec.709 Gamma 2.4 at 100nits, I’ve previously hired a calibration service around 3 months ago but they calibrated my monitor to Rec.709 Gamma 2.2.
The problem is my delta E results become worse after calibration and using the generated 3D LUT file in Resolve’s viewing LUT settings. Visually, after calibration it looks more similar to my GUI, but before calibration it still looked pretty good also (only applying exposure & color temperature correction via the monitor settings with prior reset to factory settings).
To sum it up quickly without needing people to open up several pictures, here are my settings (Use mac color display for viewers TURNED OFF):
1. Display & Instrument
> Resolve | i1 Display Pro | LCD (generic)
> Output levels set to Auto
> Correction is set to LCD White LED Family2. Calibration
> CIE 1931 2
> Whitepoint to 6500K Daylight
> White level set to 100 cd/m2 & Black level set to As Measured
> Tone Curve set to custom | 2.4 | Relative (Black output offset 100%)
> I have ambient light adjustment set to my workspace brightness
> Black point correction to 4.00? but at 0%
> Calibration speed set to High3. Profiling
> XYZ LUT + Matrix (read this somewhere that I should use this for Resolve)
> Testchart set to Auto (read this in the same forum)4. 3D LUT
> Rec.709 Gamma 2.4 Relative
> Apply calibration (vcgt) unchecked
> Everything else set as usual settings>> I attach 2 different measurement reports. In the measurement report done at “21:43” time, it showed an average delta E of 2.65. Here, I have already calibrated the monitor, saved the 3D LUT, and applied it to the viewing LUT settings on Resolve. In the other report done at “21:48” time, it showed an average delta E of 0.3. Here, I simply removed the viewing LUT to “No LUT selected”.
Both verifications were tested to a simulation profile of REC709 Gamma 2.4 Relative (Black output offset 100%) with “use simulation profile as display profile” unchecked. Happy to see if anyone can tell me why this is happening, because so far it seems my monitor is better off without the calibration!
Calibrite Display Pro HL on Amazon
Disclosure: As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases.Start by updating ArgyllCMS – for which DisplayCAL is a GUI – to the latest version (2.3.1):
- Download the latest version: https://www.argyllcms.com/Argyll_V2.3.1_win64_exe.zip
- Extract the archive.
- Go to File > Locate ArgyllCMS executables…
- Navigate to <download location>\Argyll_V2.3.1_win64_exe\Argyll_V2.3.1\bin and click “Select Folder”
There’s a lot of corrections for your monitor:
I’d say that he is using Resolve relying on macOS color management + an additional LUT3D… hence all is wrong. You can only use one of them.
Also your report seems to be using a color managed verification instead of profile accuracy.
1st one should have been desktop validation, not resolves, then no profile simulation. Usually a matrix single curve profile + BPC sinace you are on MacOS and usually it did not like mesh profiles for dispalys. Also this thets will give you a hint about how well behaved is display.
2nd one, the actual resolve LUT3D verification (ONCE you solved the double corretion issue) should use profile simulation + use simulation profile as display profile.
For 2nd one if using Resolve configured to use macOS color management the setting must be set to what you did use in your 1st report. I mean, if you rely on macOS color management for Resolve, you shoud use your fist report and no lut3D at all.I’d say that he is using Resolve relying on macOS color management + an additional LUT3D… hence all is wrong. You can only use one of them.
First of all, thanks for the kind reply. Sorry for what may seem like a beginner question, but what is the proper way of doing this? My initial understanding was that because I use the Ultrastudio Monitor 3G, the signal being sent out to my external BenQ monitor would be a pure signal with no tampering from macOS color management (All these tests are only for my BenQ external monitor, haven’t tried with my Macbook Pro yet). Thus, adding the 3D LUT file from the calibration would help me get a corrected display?
Also your report seems to be using a color managed verification instead of profile accuracy.
1st one should have been desktop validation, not resolves, then no profile simulation. Usually a matrix single curve profile + BPC sinace you are on MacOS and usually it did not like mesh profiles for dispalys. Also this thets will give you a hint about how well behaved is display.
Since I’ve only yet to try and calibrate my external monitor, does this ‘desktop validation’ mean if I were to do the calibration not through the Resolve app but still through the Ultrastudio Monitor or via another connection?
2nd one, the actual resolve LUT3D verification (ONCE you solved the double corretion issue) should use profile simulation + use simulation profile as display profile.
For 2nd one if using Resolve configured to use macOS color management the setting must be set to what you did use in your 1st report. I mean, if you rely on macOS color management for Resolve, you shoud use your fist report and no lut3D at all.Thanks for the clear up, was kind of confused on that one too.
There’s a lot of corrections for your monitor:
I’ve tried using this correction for the calibration. Perhaps I may still be a bit confused regarding all the settings and whatnot, but I’ve tried a calibration with the new correction and all the same settings as before (Maybe it may help you guys evaluate what I’m missing).
The only thing i changed here is the correction, utilizing one from the link provided by Kuba. And for the report, I based it to Vincent’s comment regarding my 2nd report for the actual resolve LUT3D verification (But I still haven’t quite figured out what he actually meant regarding the double correction issue) so i used profile simulation + use simulation profile as display profile.
Hope any of this helps paint the picture better while I await a response from my previous question. Thanks for the help!
I’d say that he is using Resolve relying on macOS color management + an additional LUT3D… hence all is wrong. You can only use one of them.
First of all, thanks for the kind reply. Sorry for what may seem like a beginner question, but what is the proper way of doing this? My initial understanding was that because I use the Ultrastudio Monitor 3G, the signal being sent out to my external BenQ monitor would be a pure signal with no tampering from macOS color management (All these tests are only for my BenQ external monitor, haven’t tried with my Macbook Pro yet). Thus, adding the 3D LUT file from the calibration would help me get a corrected display?
Also your report seems to be using a color managed verification instead of profile accuracy.
1st one should have been desktop validation, not resolves, then no profile simulation. Usually a matrix single curve profile + BPC sinace you are on MacOS and usually it did not like mesh profiles for dispalys. Also this thets will give you a hint about how well behaved is display.
Since I’ve only yet to try and calibrate my external monitor, does this ‘desktop validation’ mean if I were to do the calibration not through the Resolve app but still through the Ultrastudio Monitor or via another connection?
2nd one, the actual resolve LUT3D verification (ONCE you solved the double corretion issue) should use profile simulation + use simulation profile as display profile.
For 2nd one if using Resolve configured to use macOS color management the setting must be set to what you did use in your 1st report. I mean, if you rely on macOS color management for Resolve, you shoud use your fist report and no lut3D at all.Thanks for the clear up, was kind of confused on that one too.
I missed to read the Ultrastudio Monitor 3G in your 1st post , my fault.
Your last report shows an overall desaturation vs Rec709 with LUT3D applied while all these sRGB displays native gamut is slightly bigger thanRec709/sRGB in green & red.
So it seems that your system is color managing twice.I do not remember where macOS color management chekbox is located in Resolve for mac, it should be on System / General / “Use mac display profiles for viewers” and then on project settings disable auto color management in color management, then add LUT3D. Sorry, Im not an usual macOS user.
With these settings reprofile your display through Resolve output.Then run a verification report as you did simulation profile + use simulation as display profile. That will test the LUT3D.
Also DO NOT USE CCMX corretions unles you made them by your own means (or unles you hired someone to do it in YOUR display). These are non portable between i1d3s and displays. CCSS are teh ones that you can port between different i1d3 measuring the same display model.
Your last report shows an overall desaturation vs Rec709 with LUT3D applied while all these sRGB displays native gamut is slightly bigger thanRec709/sRGB in green & red.
So it seems that your system is color managing twice.I do not remember where macOS color management chekbox is located in Resolve for mac, it should be on System / General / “Use mac display profiles for viewers” and then on project settings disable auto color management in color management, then add LUT3D. Sorry, Im not an usual macOS user.
With these settings reprofile your display through Resolve output.Then run a verification report as you did simulation profile + use simulation as display profile. That will test the LUT3D.
Also DO NOT USE CCMX corretions unles you made them by your own means (or unles you hired someone to do it in YOUR display). These are non portable between i1d3s and displays. CCSS are teh ones that you can port between different i1d3 measuring the same display model.
Thanks for the reply, Vincent. I still seem to be rather confused in where I’m color managing twice, I’ve turned off the “Use Mac display profile for viewers” since my first calibration tests. As for ‘auto color management’, I’m not sure what you mean by that but for color management purposes, I’m doing all the settings manually if it helps.
So I’ve done another calibration test just now, this time also taking note on your comment to note use CCMX corrections. I used CCSS from the link Koba gave, with some changes in the settings (I’ve provided the screenshots to make things easier and more proper). I then, added the 3D LUT profile to Resolve and did the measurement report same like my last response.
The result I got was an even worse report with a bigger delta E (I’ve attached it here). Visually, the main difference from the other calibrations would be that this resulted in the image on my external monitor to become darker (where the previous profiles made my image become slightly brighter) so I think it may have something to do with gamma? But I’m not really sure as the colors seem to be worse also.
One thing to note was that the CCSS correction i used (and most of them) forced me to use Refresh (generic) instead of LCD. Also, for time purposes, I decreased the number of patches on the Profiling tab as the default 1553 gave me a duration of 53 minutes, which was too long for now since I’m just testing it out.
Would love to know if you have any further insight. Thanks!
Settings screenshot link: https://imgur.com/a/BkgBF3U
The result I got was an even worse report with a bigger delta E (I’ve attached it here). Visually, the main difference from the other calibrations would be that this resulted in the image on my external monitor to become darker (where the previous profiles made my image become slightly brighter) so I think it may have something to do with gamma? But I’m not really sure as the colors seem to be worse also.
LATEST UPDATE: I’ve fixed this ‘darker’ image issue, turns out I changed my tone curve setting on the Calibration from Custom 2.4 relative to Rec.709. Not sure which one’s better for my case, shouldn’t both be the same?
As per my last calibration, I’ve now reached a similar image with my previous calibrations where the profiles made my image become slightly brighter. This last report has somewhat of a better result, and the gamma is at 2.4 instead of 2.2 (which I read somewhere on this forum is quite common when trying to calibrate for 2.4? CMIIW).
Anything else I can try to fix this still consistent worse delta e issue?
It is pointless to set target gamma to Rec709, it does not work the way you think. Stick to closer gamma to native gamma in your display which should be 2.2. It will be undone by LUT3D.
Also there is no gamma correction applied to your LUT3D so your LUT3D does not correct grey color or gamma at all, hence the results in your report. Since you are using finite contrast display you usually set black output to 100% but IDNK what you want so it may be OK.
I mean, you wrongly created a profile with useless gamma Rec709: an ICC profile with your display primaries + close to rec709 TRC (useless) + VCGT calibration from native gamma to rec709.
Then you created a LUT3D that transforms Rec709 2.4 content to that profile (the custom one, the one with the useless rec709 gamma)… but you miss to make display behave like your custom profile says. So the pipeline is broken.If you set a different than as measured gamma for your custom display profile and you’ll plg it to a device (a decklink) with no VCGT you need to apped it to LUT3D.
Maybe the easy way to you to make it work is to rebyuild display profile and do not modify display gamma. Then make LUT3D as you did.
Here, upper right screen shot, tone curve as measured and uncliek ambient light measurement, it doe snot work as you think, hence it’s pointless if you are not able to make a LUT3D work:
Then redo all.
There are other ways to do it but I think it should be easier to you this way.
Vincent, thank you for the tremendous help. It seems that the last calibration as you suggested to tweak the settings, have done the job! The measurement report shows good delta E, nothing out of the ordinary, and a gamma curve of 2.39 which is pretty good for now.
I’ll attach the measurement report here for future purposes in case anyone else comes across this issue also.
