Gamma incorrect in picture viewer
#16
I see what you mean but the video world doesn't really use ICC profiles as far as I know, and most consumer level calibration systems don't really offer support for calibrating to video standards, so most people won't really be doing the claibration thing for video and it's perhaps debatable that a target made for photo viewing is appropriate for video. Some of them will offer REC 709 or whatever it is, but in general the way the video world works is by adjusting displays to hit the standard more so than adjusting the image before it's rendered (more like offfset printing, in that regard, as it happens). In a way even the photo world is moving that way (direct hardware calibration systems that work in monitor essentially bypass the ICC system by installing an esswentially null profile at the OS level and all adjustment is done in the monitor LUTs - which is why with a DHC monitor like those I mention above, effectively XBMC is already spot on...)

e.g. Jingai mentions 6500K and gamma 2.2. (both ok for video) - but also mentions 90 cd/m2 - WAY lower than typical home video setups. (Although he/she also mentions leaving the black and white point where they are which doesn't make immediate sense)...but basically - a 90 cd/m2 monitor is appropriate for photo print work, but definitely NOT what you'd calibrate a video system to. And it would appear his profile is doing significant TRC (tonal response curve) adjustment ... much better would be to have the monitor at a sensible brightness/contrast for video when doing video. The nicer calibration systems (again, the DHC in-monitor ones) let you define multiple targets and switch between them easily (and becuase the ICC profile is null, this actually occurs by the monitor doing hardware adjustments. Some can even auto detect if you're doing video etc...and adjust accordingly. Anyway, off topic....but I am not immediately sure ICC profiles for video would really be the right way to go, but it would definitely be a good idea for still image display. One could even do a python slideshow viewer I guess....but that would be qite slow with big/lots of images I'd guess.

(PS I have made some progress on that minimal addon thing but have a whole day of cubby painting in front of me in pre-Christmas prep so I am still a bit off finishing that as it didn't - sad face Sad - work first try. And right now I am off to buy the paint so the above is jsut a very quick brain dump! )
Addons I wrote &/or maintain:
OzWeather (Australian BOM weather) | Check Previous Episode | Playback Resumer | Unpause Jumpback | XSqueezeDisplay | (Legacy - XSqueeze & XZen)
Sorry, no help w/out a *full debug log*.
Reply
#17
(2012-12-18, 00:00)bossanova808 Wrote: I see what you mean but the video world doesn't really use ICC profiles as far as I know, and most consumer level calibration systems don't really offer support for calibrating to video standards, so most people won't really be doing the claibration thing for video and it's perhaps debatable that a target made for photo viewing is appropriate for video. Some of them will offer REC 709 or whatever it is, but in general the way the video world works is by adjusting displays to hit the standard more so than adjusting the image before it's rendered (more like offfset printing, in that regard, as it happens). In a way even the photo world is moving that way (direct hardware calibration systems that work in monitor essentially bypass the ICC system by installing an esswentially null profile at the OS level and all adjustment is done in the monitor LUTs - which is why with a DHC monitor like those I mention above, effectively XBMC is already spot on...)

But I thought XBMC transforms Rec709 etc to sRGB? If that's the case, it seems to me that it would make sense still?

I'm definitely no expert here, though. That's just the impression I got from Jonathan in another thread.

(2012-12-18, 00:00)bossanova808 Wrote: e.g. Jingai mentions 6500K and gamma 2.2. (both ok for video) - but also mentions 90 cd/m2 - WAY lower than typical home video setups. (Although he/she also mentions leaving the black and white point where they are which doesn't make immediate sense)...but basically - a 90 cd/m2 monitor is appropriate for photo print work, but definitely NOT what you'd calibrate a video system to.

I thought it was the other way around actually. I see most people use 120 cd/m2 for photo work and 90 cd/m2 for video. I stuck with 90 all around because 120 is just too bright to me. I may have actually done 100 cd/m2 on my TV, though.. I honestly forget.
Reply
#18
Not really sure what XBMC actually does at this stage, I'd just be guessing. Jonathan - care to chime in?

Re: brightness - there is no absolute standard. The calibrators have recommendations (which vary, but have all been creeping upwards as desktop monitors have got, on average, considerably brighter). The closest thing to a standard is probably the print standard ISO 12647-2:2004 (Fogra39 basically) - which is 160 cd/m2 but is based on soft proofing for print in the context of a large commercial press operation. Other than that, it's up to the user to choose a brightness that best works for them in terms of print matching or their general needs. 90 cd/m2 is a perfectly appropriate figure for print work (and what we use too, as it happens).

The calibrators generally recommend a bit higher these days (often 120 or 140), largely be cause a lot of modern monitors won't go down as low as 90, or behave very badly when they do. For instance, there's a whole generation of iMacs that can't go below about 200 cd/m2, so people use these awful tolls that basically top the LUT curves to reduce brightness (e.g. Shades...basically these work but limiting the output range from 0 to 255 down to 0 to 220, say - effectively reducing max brightness by simply not letting the top RGB values be sent to the screen. They have all sorts of horrible side effects...indeed I believe they trigger XBMC to reduce the frame rate as XBMC thinks a window is in front....so basically you get slow video....but I digress...)

Video is more difficult. There's home video, AV production and broadcast mastering, all of which are quite different. A typical modern LCD TV might be 400 cd/m2 out of the box, or a Plasma 200+. And very few people turn this down significantly ... so when you master video, picking the right brightness can be quite tough and depends on your target market. Cinema screens are kind of low in brightness and that's ok because of the completely dark environemnt (about 15 foot lamberts I have read) whereas your plasma might be at 40. Which is 'right?' A TV set to only 100 cd/m2 would be uncommonly dim. Not necessarily an issue if you're watching at night, but certainly not great during the middle of the day, for example.

In the end, brightness comes down to your actual environment....but you can bet most people are running a lot hotter than 90, even on the desktop, for video.

I'd still love to see your profile/image BTW - it's an unusual profile that does that much brightness correction....



Addons I wrote &/or maintain:
OzWeather (Australian BOM weather) | Check Previous Episode | Playback Resumer | Unpause Jumpback | XSqueezeDisplay | (Legacy - XSqueeze & XZen)
Sorry, no help w/out a *full debug log*.
Reply
#19
(2012-12-19, 03:39)bossanova808 Wrote: Re: brightness - there is no absolute standard. The calibrators have recommendations (which vary, but have all been creeping upwards as desktop monitors have got, on average, considerably brighter).

I realize there is no standard, but 120cd/m2 seemed to be what I saw the most recommended by other people for print work when I was researching it all. My understanding for print work is that you want to calibrate your display to the same level of brightness as your expected ambient viewing conditions, whereas for cinema, the display is the ambient lighting. Is that about right? You seem to know more about all of this than I do.

120cd/m2 gave me headaches though -- when working near and at the pixel level especially. So I settled on 90cd/m2.

(2012-12-19, 03:39)bossanova808 Wrote: The calibrators generally recommend a bit higher these days (often 120 or 140), largely be cause a lot of modern monitors won't go down as low as 90, or behave very badly when they do.

That seems totally reasonable. Two of my displays are for photo editing though, and our main TV (the one I care to calibrate) has sits in a room with pretty tightly-controlled lighting conditions so 90 was bright enough all around for us (again, might be 100 on the TV). I also couldn't manage to get acceptable (to me) black levels at 120cd/m2 on our TV. It's not a super-high-end TV, but it's reasonably decent and new as of July this year (one of Panasonic's new-model IPS panels).

I'd think most consumer LCDs wouldn't go that bright without making the blacks appear awfully gray, yeah?

(2012-12-19, 03:39)bossanova808 Wrote: In the end, brightness comes down to your actual environment....but you can bet most people are running a lot hotter than 90, even on the desktop, for video.

Yup, and I don't bother trying to calibrate anything for broadcast material because I really doubt it all matches anyway. I just try to make HD movies look 'right' and leave the rest alone, personally.

As an aside, I couldn't imagine leaving a set at 400cd/m2... I know mine was like staring into the sun before I adjusted it Cool

But back to the original issue, it does seem that since XBMC already does the color space transforms that utilizing the display's color profile would probably work, at least providing that everyone using XBMC uses the same target response curve. sRGB seems reasonable for this since that's what web browsers expects and most computers are at least relatively close from the factory.

(2012-12-19, 03:39)bossanova808 Wrote: I'd still love to see your profile/image BTW - it's an unusual profile that does that much brightness correction....

I'll get it for you, but I guess I really should check again on my second display. I was testing this on my MacBook Air's internal display (simply because it was easiest to do), but I actually do all my editing on the other (an HP IPS panel with a lot more controls than just brightness).

I'll post both here for ya, actually, if you just want to have a look. It's entirely possible I'm doing something wrong too, so feedback wouldn't fall on deaf ears Wink
Reply
#20
Yep a lot of people end up on 90 for print work. The idea is simply to make your screen the best predictor of your final output and how you view that output. So it's perfectly reasonable to work at 90....there are no rules!

Yeah LCDs and contrast are always an issue as you raise the white - and basically, most don't really have true contrast controls o effectively when you raise white you are moving the black up in lock step. But especially for an LCD, 100 is low - f you're watching in that dark a room that 100 works, you should have bought a plasma. But that's a religious war, so let's not get into that!!

I suspect that transforming 60 frames a second is probably not going to be worth it, but I have no idea how quick those shader thingies can work. REC709 and sRGB really very similar, so is it even worth it? - I suspect for most people, doing a pure calibration (i.e. no profiling) - is the way it can/should go for TVs (essentially, use a sensor to guide adjustments to the TV set to get is as close to correct as possible). A profile on top is always nice, of course...

But ideally for still image viewing, yes a profile transform would be a good plan at least - and hence my suggestion above to do this before the image hits the render pipeline - should be pretty simple. I am wya, way out of practise with my 'C' and haven't every really done more than trivial C++, so I am not sure about doing this myself, but I *might* look at this over the holidays just to get a sense of what would be involved. I can usually rise to the challenge....but only if I can get sufficiently motivated Smile I suspect I *might* be able to eventually manage whacking in a simple transform using the littlecms library...but I haven;'t got near enough skills/time to look at proper shader based solutions Sad

Yep, I'd love a look, so please PM them to me or post here.


Addons I wrote &/or maintain:
OzWeather (Australian BOM weather) | Check Previous Episode | Playback Resumer | Unpause Jumpback | XSqueezeDisplay | (Legacy - XSqueeze & XZen)
Sorry, no help w/out a *full debug log*.
Reply
#21
(2012-12-20, 01:28)bossanova808 Wrote: Yeah LCDs and contrast are always an issue as you raise the white - and basically, most don't really have true contrast controls o effectively when you raise white you are moving the black up in lock step. But especially for an LCD, 100 is low - f you're watching in that dark a room that 100 works, you should have bought a plasma. But that's a religious war, so let's not get into that!!

I realize, and agree -- but the biggest reason I ended up with LCD over Plasma is because I live where it's hot nearly year-round, and saving energy was a motivating factor. Additionally, the set is turned off and on a lot (two kids) and is frequently left on static images (by mistake, but it happens).

To be honest, I'm perfectly satisfied with the current-gen Panasonic IPS panels too. I wouldn't have said that last year, though.

Curious though: if 100 is low, but 120 showed unacceptable black levels, what should I have done...?

(2012-12-20, 01:28)bossanova808 Wrote: I suspect that transforming 60 frames a second is probably not going to be worth it, but I have no idea how quick those shader thingies can work. REC709 and sRGB really very similar, so is it even worth it?

I don't know this for sure, but I think this is done at the GPU-level so it shouldn't hurt performance at all.

Here is the profile for the MacBook Air internal display. And this is for the secondary (HP ZR22w).

And the sample image.
Reply
#22
Even the saving energy thing is a bit of a myth as LCDs have fixed energy usage (X watts per hour) whereas plasmas have variable - using much less in dark scenes than light ones - but in comparisons they always take the easy option and compare peak draw of the plasma against the LCD....if you actually measure both, the energy usage is very similar over watching a movie, say. I have both (much prefer the plasma - and also Pana Vieras (both)...and with the LCD there really isn't much you can do to improve your blacks. Basically, with both - contrast is fixed and pretty much the key ingredient...they put it reasonably well here: http://hdguru.com/the-case-for-plasma-vs-ledlcd-hdtv/ - so I don't think there' much mroe you can do. Also, I have two young kids - burn in is a wildly overstated issue...you do gt minor short term IR (image retention) - you can only see this on pitch black screens, and it only last a few mins. Ours has been left on for 8 hours plus on static things (e.g. xbmc home screen) - and never an issue.

Yep shaders are GPU level but I don't think that means there's no performance hit at all, as in even with GPUs there's a limit to how much you can do in a render cycle pumping up to 60 fps to screen...but I would suspect it is indeed doable. Just not by me Wink

I immediately note one thing - that says 120cd/m2 in the profile - is this your 90 cd/m2 profile?? Also it has a whitepoint of 6600K in it, would have expected 6500K - Ok your profile is definitely a bit bizarre - it's inducing a massive yellow shift...and in general has very big adjustments in the vcgt tags. Fromt he yellow shift I am guessing you have an LED backed panel huh?

I am not that familiar with argyll/dispcal. What actual sensor are you using, and can you try some other software with it - it looks pretty fundamentally broken for a monitor profile to me. Compared to other profiles I have here it's doing WAY more adjustment...so unless your TV is way out, I think there's something funky going on here. An easy test - if you get rid of this profile...does xbmc still exhibit the weird gamma shift you see? I am betting it won't....I think there's a good chance this profile is doing more harm than good.

With your image - your blacks aren't fully black yet - they are at RGB 7ish, so I'd clip those out if I were you, just to be safe. Also your mid/skin tones are just marginally heavy so a very slight bump in the curve would help there. Very cute though!



Addons I wrote &/or maintain:
OzWeather (Australian BOM weather) | Check Previous Episode | Playback Resumer | Unpause Jumpback | XSqueezeDisplay | (Legacy - XSqueeze & XZen)
Sorry, no help w/out a *full debug log*.
Reply
#23
(2012-12-20, 03:52)bossanova808 Wrote: Even the saving energy thing is a bit of a myth as LCDs have fixed energy usage (X watts per hour) whereas plasmas have variable

I realize this is still contended, but the LCD I chose draws 75 watts at full brightness. I haven't put a killawatt on it, but since I drive the backlight at 30%, I suspect it's somewhat less than that. Further, plasma generate more heat -- we spend nearly $200/month in cooling in the summer months (read: 8 months out of the year) so this plus switching to LED light bulbs throughout the house was part of me trying to cut that cost.

I don't have a plasma myself, so I'm not saying you're wrong or anything. Just saying how I arrived at my decision (partly).

(2012-12-20, 03:52)bossanova808 Wrote: Basically, with both - contrast is fixed and pretty much the key ingredient...

Yeah, that was my understanding. However, I'm happy with how it performs (measured at 1000:1 if I remember correctly).

(2012-12-20, 03:52)bossanova808 Wrote: you do gt minor short term IR (image retention) - you can only see this on pitch black screens, and it only last a few mins. Ours has been left on for 8 hours plus on static things (e.g. xbmc home screen) - and never an issue.

I don't have one, so I believe you about long-term IR. However, my brother has one, and the short-term IR bothered me. His set wasn't top-of-the-line, but it's not very old either (2-3 years). Additionally, the dithering/snow effect really bothered me. I'm sure a more expensive set might help with these issues, but that was my problem when deciding.. the plasma set I'd actually want to buy was nearly twice the cost of the LCD I chose. Money is a factor these days, unfortunately (kids are expensive!).

(2012-12-20, 03:52)bossanova808 Wrote: Yep shaders are GPU level but I don't think that means there's no performance hit at all, as in even with GPUs there's a limit to how much you can do in a render cycle pumping up to 60 fps to screen...but I would suspect it is indeed doable. Just not by me Wink

Considering I doubt that XBMC is pushing any modern GPU to its limits, I suspect you won't see a difference at all.

(2012-12-20, 03:52)bossanova808 Wrote: I immediately note one thing - that says 120cd/m2 in the profile - is this your 90 cd/m2 profile?? Also it has a whitepoint of 6600K in it, would have expected 6500K - Ok your profile is definitely a bit bizarre - it's inducing a massive yellow shift...and in general has very big adjustments in the vcgt tags. Fromt he yellow shift I am guessing you have an LED backed panel huh?

Oh dear... I hope I just gave you the wrong profile.. but I guess I could have messed it up last go-around. I assume you're looking at the first one? That's the MBA internal display and it is LED-backlit. The whitepoint is 6600K because I told the software to use the native whitepoint of the panel (which I cannot adjust -- literally the only control is for the backlight). It was close enough, so I chose that. Besides, the internal display isn't what I use for editing, so maximizing contrast was pretty much my only goal there.

The HP ZR22w however is CFL. Does it also appear way off to you?

(2012-12-20, 03:52)bossanova808 Wrote: I am not that familiar with argyll/dispcal. What actual sensor are you using, and can you try some other software with it

It's a DataColor Spyder 3 Express (same hardware as the Pro). The only difference between that and the Pro is the software, which is why I use Argyll CMS/dispcal. The included software only works with one display, and IIRC, that display has to be the main display. So it was basically useless to me.

(2012-12-20, 03:52)bossanova808 Wrote: it looks pretty fundamentally broken for a monitor profile to me. Compared to other profiles I have here it's doing WAY more adjustment...

Do you think I did something wrong, or could it just be that I literally am doing all adjustment in the profile? Remember, I have no hardware controls on the display.

I'm curious to know what you see in the HP profile.

(2012-12-20, 03:52)bossanova808 Wrote: With your image - your blacks aren't fully black yet - they are at RGB 7ish, so I'd clip those out if I were you, just to be safe. Also your mid/skin tones are just marginally heavy so a very slight bump in the curve would help there. Very cute though!

I guess I should have checked the actual value of the blacks.. alas, they've already been sent to the printer (the females in my life were pressuring me to get this done before Christmas). I suspect they'll be OK though.

As for the mid tones, I didn't really do any adjustments there. That's pretty much what I got out of the camera. I do see what you're saying, but imho that's all a matter of personal preference more than anything. Although I will say, they pretty much match the color of my kid, at least when she's viewed under 6500K lights Wink
Reply
#24
Bit busy today (last day of work) - but shortly:

The HP profile doesn't have a black point set, the Air one does - I think this is responsible for your 'gamma bump' and that's why you shoudl try without it and see what happens. I'd re-profile in any case given the 90 vs 120 thing as I think maybe that profile you missed a setting or something.

The HP profile is very normal looking, so I really think your Air has gone haywire. The Spy3 Express is not an awesome sensor, and was definitely not designed with either LED or wider gamut panels in mind, so it's really not the ideal tool here. Your profile is doing more harm than good I'd say, it's truly nasty looking. Even though the profile is doing everything, if an Air needs that much correction, something isn't right somewhere....my Samsung Series 9 2012 15 inch has a less good panel than your Air int heory and needs *way* less correction than that...

Re: power - dimming the backlight doesn't change usage I believe, that's done at the filtration end I think...just by the by. And yeah, my plasma (V50 Panasonic) definitely does get a bit warm but down here in Melbourne that's not a huge issue. The snow - I know what you mean and initially when looking at TVs years ago it bothered me but then I realised you can never see it from a viewing distance, nor have I seen unpleasant dithering from the panel itself (source banding etc., sure, but not with good quality material). BNut I have seen very good LCDs too and definitely get why you might go that way.

Re: Kids and $s - amen to that, brother. My two girls cost a bomb!! But they're worth it Smile

Re: the image - you'll be fine in print for sure. And I ma sure your audience will love it and that's the point eh!

Addons I wrote &/or maintain:
OzWeather (Australian BOM weather) | Check Previous Episode | Playback Resumer | Unpause Jumpback | XSqueezeDisplay | (Legacy - XSqueeze & XZen)
Sorry, no help w/out a *full debug log*.
Reply
#25
(2012-12-21, 02:16)bossanova808 Wrote: The HP profile doesn't have a black point set, the Air one does - I think this is responsible for your 'gamma bump' and that's why you shoudl try without it and see what happens. I'd re-profile in any case given the 90 vs 120 thing as I think maybe that profile you missed a setting or something.

I didn't check the gamma issue on the HP actually. It was on the MBA. But I think the 90 vs 120 thing is just me not remembering what I had done... I may have lied to you this whole time (not intentionally, of course).. I do know I originally chose 90, but when I redid the cals this year it's possible I bumped it and just got used it.

I plan on redoing them both this weekend anyway since I'm now uncertain about them..

(2012-12-21, 02:16)bossanova808 Wrote: my Samsung Series 9 2012 15 inch has a less good panel than your Air int heory and needs *way* less correction than that...

I will redo it, but are you sure the Samsung is worse than the Air's panel? This is not the most recent Air -- the one I have has only about 50% sRGB coverage and isn't nearly as contrasty. It's not known to be the best display. The newest Air has a much better display.

I get (and see) what you're saying about the massive corrections, but the display honestly "appears" ok to me.. if it were really as bad as you say, wouldn't I notice it, especially since it's sitting 2 inches away from the HP...? I mean I definitely see that it doesn't have the same range, but it looks otherwise fine to me.

(2012-12-21, 02:16)bossanova808 Wrote: Re: power - dimming the backlight doesn't change usage I believe, that's done at the filtration end I think...just by the by.

Not sure, I'd have to put a killawatt on it and see. Regardless, I'm pretty happy with even 75w.

(2012-12-21, 02:16)bossanova808 Wrote: And yeah, my plasma (V50 Panasonic) definitely does get a bit warm but down here in Melbourne that's not a huge issue.

Yeah. Here in Florida, it really is. Our electric bill goes to $300+ from June to September, and that's predominately the air conditioning. Keeping the heat gain down in the house is a big deal to me now.

(2012-12-21, 02:16)bossanova808 Wrote: The snow - I know what you mean and initially when looking at TVs years ago it bothered me but then I realised you can never see it from a viewing distance, nor have I seen unpleasant dithering from the panel itself (source banding etc., sure, but not with good quality material). BNut I have seen very good LCDs too and definitely get why you might go that way.

On my brother's panel, I saw it from 12 feet away on a 55" set (and yes I told him to put his sofa closer, but his wife wouldn't let him lol). I'd probably get used to it, but maybe not.. stuff like that really bugs me.

Truthfully I pretty much agree with ya on all of this. I just didn't want to spend that much to get the plasma I wanted, so when I saw Panny's new IPS panels (which addresses the viewing angle issue, and covers 95% of sRGB) at the price I wanted to spend, well, that's where I went Smile

(2012-12-21, 02:16)bossanova808 Wrote: Re: Kids and $s - amen to that, brother. My two girls cost a bomb!! But they're worth it Smile

Every time I get stressed about how my time and money has become so limited, all it takes is one smile out of them and I remember again why I'm doing it. And I wasn't a "kid person" before this. Amazing what it does to ya Smile
Reply
#26
BTW, here is the Panasonic profile. It looks fine to me -- does it look OK to you?
Reply
#27
Re: your Air - yeah, ok that doesn't sound great. I was thinking of the current Air. I've never owned one so don't know for sure anyway, jut going on reputation but yep those older Airs are not awesome...

And the Panasonic profile - Looks about halfway between the others, really. It too has a black point set in it....but no major issues there. Bit of warming up going on but ntohing to crazy. That Air one really is a bit much though - so either really bad panel, or it's just wonky.

I'd re-do all three carefully!!

And then maybe report back where you're at if you're still seeing weird issues..but my sneaking suspicion is it's those set black points causing the issue.

Addons I wrote &/or maintain:
OzWeather (Australian BOM weather) | Check Previous Episode | Playback Resumer | Unpause Jumpback | XSqueezeDisplay | (Legacy - XSqueeze & XZen)
Sorry, no help w/out a *full debug log*.
Reply
#28
(2012-12-21, 03:16)bossanova808 Wrote: And the Panasonic profile - Looks about halfway between the others, really. It too has a black point set in it....but no major issues there. Bit of warming up going on but ntohing to crazy. That Air one really is a bit much though - so either really bad panel, or it's just wonky.

The Panasonic was cold in all modes, even in "Cinema". Odd (my prior Sony's were always warm), but that's just what they chose. You should see what they chose for "Game" -- the blue cast is total insanity lol.

I see the bkpt tag, but for the HP, it's XYZ=0/0/0, and for the Panny it's XYZ=0.002/0.002/0.001. If I'm hearing you correctly, I shouldn't see the difference on the HP (because it's all zeros), right?

(2012-12-21, 03:16)bossanova808 Wrote: I'd re-do all three carefully!!

My prints match (to my eye, anyway) what I get out of the HP. Do you really think I need to re-do that? The Spyder 3 is soooo slow lol... and yes I know I should buy something better, but again, money was a factor. It was cheap -- like $70 or thereabouts.
Reply
#29
My Pana is naturally quite warm. But I am happy with that, gives a nice tone to black and white portraits and skin tones...so I have left most of it in. But with the shift to LED backlights, cold is definitely the norm these days...

Well, no, if the HP is ok I guess not. Proof is in the pudding I guess!

i1Display Pro is currently the best of the medium cost ones by a long way. Even DataColor's rep's admit it....but DataColor do some killer marketing.

Yep the HP black point is 0 and the Pana L* 2....I guess my point is, something must be bumping your blacks considerably since you're seeing a significant shift (two stops you said?) in shadows that is not XBMC induced (based on our tests above). The easiest way to work out if it's the profile is to simply remove it - colour might go off but are your blacks where they should be? If so - then it's your profile that's inducing the issue....so then I'd experiment with dispcal's settings to work out what's going on there.


Addons I wrote &/or maintain:
OzWeather (Australian BOM weather) | Check Previous Episode | Playback Resumer | Unpause Jumpback | XSqueezeDisplay | (Legacy - XSqueeze & XZen)
Sorry, no help w/out a *full debug log*.
Reply
#30
(2012-12-21, 03:49)bossanova808 Wrote: Yep the HP black point is 0 and the Pana L* 2....I guess my point is, something must be bumping your blacks considerably since you're seeing a significant shift (two stops you said?) in shadows that is not XBMC induced (based on our tests above). The easiest way to work out if it's the profile is to simply remove it - colour might go off but are your blacks where they should be? If so - then it's your profile that's inducing the issue....so then I'd experiment with dispcal's settings to work out what's going on there.

I see what you're saying, but if my prints are fine (I send them off with the standard sRGB profile).............

ok, hold up. I just checked on my HP. It's definitely no where near as bad -- it's a tad brighter, but not worth complaining about. Would the shift you see in the Panasonic profile really make the difference I see there?
Reply

Logout Mark Read Team Forum Stats Members Help
Gamma incorrect in picture viewer0