AVS Discussions
  Go Down

JVC Autocal Software V11 calibration for 2019 RS1000/RS2000/RS3000/NX5/NX7/NX9

Manni

  • *****
  • 254
Hi Manni,

Mind sharing your tips to get i1pro2 to read gamma at low IRE levels?
I keep getting a reading of zero on the first gamma step of Red. (iris is already set to max)
You can't really do a gamma autocal with an i1pro2, unless you zoom down the picture to the minimum size, and if that's not enough use a piece of white board that you bring closer to the lens (assuming you can't bring the PJ closer).

Otherwise, even if the value is non-zero, it's probably garbage under 10% white anyway, and not far from garbage under 20% white. When you read gamma with an i1pro2, you can see that anything below 10-15% is complete garbage and should be ignored, so you definitely can't use it for calibration of low brightness levels, it's not designed for that. A spectro is best used to do high brightness color work, or to profile a faster/more accurate in low light tristim such as the Spyder.

If you do manage to get good gamma autocal results with the i1pro2 without the zoom/cardboard tip suggested above (and even with that, I'm not 100% sure I'd trust the i1pro2), let us know!

I haven't tried to do gamma with the i1pro2 because I use the Spyder 5 for gamma autocal. So my suggestion is to buy one and use it for gamma. A Spyder 5 Express (if you can still find one) isn't that expensive and it does the job well.
« Last Edit: August 01, 2019, 10:52:28 PM by Manni »

Yes you do need a different LUT for SDR BT709 and SDR BT2020 (it's not advised to use a static HDR 3D LUT because that means you can't use automatic tonemapping, whether static in the JVC/player or dynamic in madVR/Radiance Pro).

Unless you zoom the picture down to its minimal size (and even then, I'm not sure it will be accurate enough), you can't use the i1pro2 for a 3D LUT. It can't read the dimmest patches accurately, this will cause a lot of issues especially near black and with blue. You have to train the Spyder to the i1pro2 and use the profiled Spyder to generate the LUT in Calman. See  a few posts above for tips to profile a meter to a spectro.

A 3D LUT will NOT visibly improve things if you're already spot on after an Autocal. In fact, it can make the picture worse. So I would advise to only make a LUT if there are significant errors that the Autocal and manual fine-tuning can't resolve. If, after setting white to D65 using the i1pro2, you have gamma/gamut (including saturations) under 3dE accross the range, and a colorchecker SG with all points under 3-4, I would say don't bother with the 3D LUT. You're going to waste hours of good lamp time for little to no visible improvement, unless you can get significant improvements with a Lightning LUT (which works well after an Autocal). Remember, if you're picky, you have to redo the calibration every 200 hours or so, due to lamp drift.
I see how to profile the Spyder using the i1pro2,is the Spyder ok to use for this and would I then point the Spyder at the screen to do my reads?

I played around more last night and the only thing that is baffling me is 2020, when I do a read of 709 (using the i1pro2) everything color wise looks pretty spot on but if I do the same read of 2020 (with the filter engaged on the JVC) lots of point (especially the top green) are WAY off so I am wondering if I am doing something wrong?  I am using the 2020 default CMS and telling the Lumagen to output SDR2020 (verifying with JVC info).  Anything else I need to do to get a proper 2020 read?  

Manni

  • *****
  • 254
I see how to profile the Spyder using the i1pro2,is the Spyder ok to use for this and would I then point the Spyder at the screen to do my reads?

I played around more last night and the only thing that is baffling me is 2020, when I do a read of 709 (using the i1pro2) everything color wise looks pretty spot on but if I do the same read of 2020 (with the filter engaged on the JVC) lots of point (especially the top green) are WAY off so I am wondering if I am doing something wrong?  I am using the 2020 default CMS and telling the Lumagen to output SDR2020 (verifying with JVC info).  Anything else I need to do to get a proper 2020 read? 
The spyder points the way it points when you profile it to the i1pro2. It should work fine pointing at the screen, as long as it doesn't read its own shadow or the i1pro2 shadow.

You need to post screenshots, but there are two ways things could look like they are wrong in measurements when they are fine:
1) You have not set the target in the calibration software you are measuring
2) You don't realise that the projector will never reach bt2020, only P3. If you want to see a nicer looking graph, measure P3 within BT2020, not BT2020.

With the filter, the PJ can reach 100% of DCI-P3, but that's only around 70% of P3, so if BT2020 looks undersaturated, that's what it is.
If it looks oversaturated, that might be because you left the target on rec-709.

But again, without screenshots of your measurements, it's impossible to tell.

The spyder points the way it points when you profile it to the i1pro2. It should work fine pointing at the screen, as long as it doesn't read its own shadow or the i1pro2 shadow.

You need to post screenshots, but there are two ways things could look like they are wrong in measurements when they are fine:
1) You have not set the target in the calibration software you are measuring
2) You don't realise that the projector will never reach bt2020, only P3. If you want to see a nicer looking graph, measure P3 within BT2020, not BT2020.

With the filter, the PJ can reach 100% of DCI-P3, but that's only around 70% of P3, so if BT2020 looks undersaturated, that's what it is.
If it looks oversaturated, that might be because you left the target on rec-709.

But again, without screenshots of your measurements, it's impossible to tell.
I get it now, the RS 2000 cannot even do BT2020?  Should we still be using SDR2020 though it just wont get the full benefit or should we be using 709 or something it can do?  I will do some screens this weekend, greatly appreciate the help.

Manni

  • *****
  • 254
I get it now, the RS 2000 cannot even do BT2020?  Should we still be using SDR2020 though it just wont get the full benefit or should we be using 709 or something it can do?  I will do some screens this weekend, greatly appreciate the help.
Yes you should. Consumer sources output BT2020, which is used as a container, so you should use BT2020 when sending HDR. Saturations are tracking properly, and content rarely exceeds P3 anyway, so that's the way to do it.

Again, if you measure P3 within BT2020 you'll see nicer looking charts, and how much the PJ covers of what's actually in the UHD content 99% of the time (only a few titles are mastered to BT2020, and no one knows if the content itself significantly exceeds DCI-P3 anyway). Whether the UHD content is mastered to rec-709, DCI-P3 or BT2020, BT-2020 is always used as a container.

However, if you tonemap with madVR or the Radiance Pro, you can tonemap to DCI-P3 instead (discard the BT2020 container), and use an SDR DCI-P3 calibration that will produce nicer looking graphs when you measure it.

It's also easier to create 3D LUTs without artifacts such as posterization if the target gamut is not too far from the native gamut of the PJ. BT2020 3D LUTs are very difficult to get right with most software when the display only covers DCI-P3 or so. DCI-P3 LUTs are much easier to get right.

So to sum it up:

If you output HDR passthrough from a consumer source (UHD BD player etc), BT2020 is the gamut to use (with PQ gamma).

If you want to measure nice-looking graphs, measure P3 within BT2020, not BT2020.

If you use madVR or the Radiance Pro, and especially if you plan to create a 3D LUT, tonemap to DCI-P3 instead of BT2020 with madVR/the Radiance, and use an SDR DCI-P3 calibration in the PJ.

In that case you can measure DCI-P3 (not DCI-P3 within BT2020) and it should look fairly close.
« Last Edit: August 02, 2019, 02:34:23 PM by Manni »

Set11

You can't really do a gamma autocal with an i1pro2, unless you zoom down the picture to the minimum size, and if that's not enough use a piece of white board that you bring closer to the lens (assuming you can't bring the PJ closer).

Otherwise, even if the value is non-zero, it's probably garbage under 10% white anyway, and not far from garbage under 20% white. When you read gamma with an i1pro2, you can see that anything below 10-15% is complete garbage and should be ignored, so you definitely can't use it for calibration of low brightness levels, it's not designed for that. A spectro is best used to do high brightness color work, or to profile a faster/more accurate in low light tristim such as the Spyder.

If you do manage to get good gamma autocal results with the i1pro2 without the zoom/cardboard tip suggested above (and even with that, I'm not 100% sure I'd trust the i1pro2), let us know!

I haven't tried to do gamma with the i1pro2 because I use the Spyder 5 for gamma autocal. So my suggestion is to buy one and use it for gamma. A Spyder 5 Express (if you can still find one) isn't that expensive and it does the job well.
I foolishly sold my Spyder 5 after I bought the i1pro2 :(

Anyway, reducing the screen size did the trick. Here's what I did:
 - zoom to minimum size
- ipro2 is positioned 10cm away from screen
- the shadow of the ipro2 sits below the screen and the ipro2 itself is angled upwards 
- ditched my usb extension cable and plug it directly to my laptop (not sure if this makes  a difference)

After doing all that, I was able to barely get the i1pro2 inside the rectangle in autocal. Previously it was sitting outside the rectangle just like what you have written in your guide.

I haven't done a full check in HCFR, but near black readings don't have a red haze anymore.
That's enough for me for now :)

Manni

  • *****
  • 254
I foolishly sold my Spyder 5 after I bought the i1pro2 :(

Anyway, reducing the screen size did the trick. Here's what I did:
 - zoom to minimum size
- ipro2 is positioned 10cm away from screen
- the shadow of the ipro2 sits below the screen and the ipro2 itself is angled upwards
- ditched my usb extension cable and plug it directly to my laptop (not sure if this makes  a difference)

After doing all that, I was able to barely get the i1pro2 inside the rectangle in autocal. Previously it was sitting outside the rectangle just like what you have written in your guide.

I haven't done a full check in HCFR, but near black readings don't have a red haze anymore.
That's enough for me for now :)
Sorry to hear about the Spyder, but glad the zooming tip worked.

10cm is very close, I'm not sure how valid the resuts are, but as it's gamma only it might be fine. As long as you're happy, that's all that counts :)

When you check with HCFR, make sure you use the i1pro2 at a normal position, and discard readings below 10-15%.

Then measure the way you ran the gamma autocal to check below 15% white, and check if there are any significant differences above. There shouldn't be, otherwise it means that the extreme angle used to avoid the i1pro2 shadow causes the issues.

Hey Manni, I did some measurements and calibration on my NX5 the other day.

Just wanted to post them to see what you think about my results and to learn maybe what I need to change etc.

This was Spyder5 autocal gamma and i1 Pro 2 autocal color.  Followed by i1D3 trained to i1 Pro 2 in DisplayCAL for 3DLUT.

https://nicko88.com/misc/nx5cal/

It looks pretty good to me.  I am surprised how good the rec709 looks after autocal, but my P3 does not look that great after autocal.  It seems to be much improved with the 3dlut?

There are a few colors that have a higher dE but I assume that is because they are outside the gamut?  My NX5 measured 88.5% P3 coverage and 89% volume.

FYI, I always had my projector 8-bit color mode (so I don't need report BT.2020) and used the DCI color profile for my P3 3DLUT.

But do I still need to worry about posterization with only 88.5% coverage?  I’m doing everything with DisplayCAL with madTPG.  I believe I am doing everything right but not sure if I could be doing something even better. 

Here were the DisplayCal numbers after the 3DLUT profile was complete.

https://imgur.com/a/1mGxQwb

Look forward to your thoughts, thanks!
« Last Edit: August 12, 2019, 12:13:41 PM by SirMaster »

Manni

  • *****
  • 254
I find the graphs hard to read (I never used DisplayCAL for pre/post cal measurements, I always use Calman for that. I only ever used DisplayCAL to generate some test 3D LUTs when I had issues with both Calman and Lightspace, and I was impressed with the results). I'm not sure what is a target and what are your measurements in the graphs. Were you measuring saturations as well? Or were you only measuring the primaries/secondaries of the gamut?

From a gamut coverage point of view, the rec-709 calibration seems OK and the DCI-P3 is about as close as you can get with an N5 as it doesn't have a P3 filter, so all looks normal really. Green is short, and therefore all the points between green and blue are undersaturated, which gives you the errors you see. That's a normal result in P3 for an N5 without a filter. As long as your saturations track well below 100%, you should be fine, but I honestly can't see your saturation tracking on the graphs you provided.

In my experience DisplayCAL does a great job at dealing with understurateds gamut re posterization, so you should be fine. If you can't see posterization visually, you should be good to go.

My clips to check for this are the sunset at the end of the capture sequence in Mad Max: Fury Road (when Max is running after the car). If there is posterization on red, you should see plenty in the sunset. You can also look at explosions later. For cyan, I use the aerial shots of the sea at the beginning of The Shallows, after she first gets on the beach and she starts looking around. You should also see posterization on whatever is in her wash bag when it's present.

Frankly I don't see anything worrying for an N5 in your measurements. If you want more than 85-90% of P3, you need the filter (hence an N7/N9).

If you do get posterization, I would suggest you simply tell madVR to target rec-709 for all content (i.e. only load a rec-709 3D LUT and no other LUT). Without the filter, you're not covering that much more than rec-709, so it's better not to get posterization than to cover a bit more and get artifacts.
« Last Edit: August 13, 2019, 01:56:26 AM by Manni »

Thank you for taking a look :)

You are correct there are no saturation measurements unfortunately.


I am only used to DisplayCAL and a little HCFR so far, but I am expanding my toolset and I will be able to gather more and better data soon.

Thanks for confirming that I am at least on a decent track.  I know that the format of my data is not what you are familiar with, but I figured I would post what I had so far anyways.

I will make sure to get good saturation tracking measurements and check for posterization visually.

So I did a whole re-calibration of my NX5 from the start with a fresh autocal and fresh 3DLUT.

Here are my results (everything is calibrated and measured against DCI-P3):

JVC Autocal:
https://i.imgur.com/7p9Sl0w.png
JVC Autocal Software V11 calibration for 2019 RS1000/RS2000/RS3000/NX5/NX7/NX9


3DLUT:
https://i.imgur.com/dxkbEe8.png
JVC Autocal Software V11 calibration for 2019 RS1000/RS2000/RS3000/NX5/NX7/NX9


Gamut:


Video version:


It's pretty nice, I now got 90% DCI-P3 coverage and 95.8% DCI-P3 volume.

3DLUT was created in DisplayCAL with just 115 patches.

I really love the results that I see in movies when I toggle the 3DLUT on and off.  Every scene is better with the 3DLUT on.

Thanks again Manni for all your help!  I think it is time for a break for awhile so I can enjoy some movies!
« Last Edit: August 13, 2019, 09:42:19 PM by SirMaster »

Manni

  • *****
  • 254
Glad you're happy with the results.

Enjoy your projector! :)


Any rumors or news on support for the new i1Basic Pro 3 Plus?

Manni

  • *****
  • 254
Any rumors or news on support for the new i1Basic Pro 3 Plus?
Not that I know of, but I don't expect much improvement from this model over the i1pro2 for our projector use. The black level is still 0.2cd/m2, same as the i1pro2, which is poor, so a spyder will still be needed for gamma. The max brightness is 5000cd/m2 (up from 1200cd/m2 for the i1pro2), which can be useful for brighter displays, but clearly that doesn't really matter for projectors. I don't think it will even bring much futureproofing for laser/BT2020 as it seems to be still a 10nm spectro. So unless it doesn't need dark calibration anymore (arguably the main downside of the i1pro2 beyond the poor low light performance), I'm not sure it's worth upgrading. I certainly won't unless I hear some real-life benefit for display calibration from an actual user, as I might have missed something in the specs.
Of course if it's your first spectro it might make sense to get the new model, especially if you plan to calibrate brighter displays.
Same as the Spyder X, I guess will find out when/if they are supported when a new version of the software is delivered with support for new meters.
So if you have a good reason to get the new model, I'm afraid you'll have to wait. Otherwise, nothing should stop you from getting an i1pro2 and a Spyder 5 Express or Pro and get going. :)

  Go Up