JVC Autocal Software V12 calibration for 2019 RS1000/RS2000/RS3000/NX5/NX7/NX9

[CyberPaul]

I experienced something similar for two different position of the iris. I used Spyder X only though.
I calibrated gamma + color with low lamp, filter on, iris = -6 and I got a very bad color temperature with a dE > 6. I saw in the log that it read a very poor red and tried to fix it but actually it was almost good and it made it worst (and decreased the luminance trying to overfix).
I calibrated then color only with combination low lamp, filter on, iris = -4 and it applied almost no change to the gamut! I was expecting same behavior: reading poor red and trying to fix it. First thing I though is that the first calibration with iris = -6 affected also iris = -4. But that should not be the case, as the different aperture should lead to a different calibration.
So even though the effects are different, still I have the feeling that the software is doing something wrong in specific conditions. I believe that the patterns used are wrong.

[Manni]

I experienced something similar for two different position of the iris. I used Spyder X only though.
I calibrated gamma + color with low lamp, filter on, iris = -6 and I got a very bad color temperature with a dE > 6. I saw in the log that it read a very poor red and tried to fix it but actually it was almost good and it made it worst (and decreased the luminance trying to overfix).
I calibrated then color only with combination low lamp, filter on, iris = -4 and it applied almost no change to the gamut! I was expecting same behavior: reading poor red and trying to fix it. First thing I though is that the first calibration with iris = -6 affected also iris = -4. But that should not be the case, as the different aperture should lead to a different calibration.
So even though the effects are different, still I have the feeling that the software is doing something wrong in specific conditions. I believe that the patterns used are wrong.

You can't use the Spyder X for color, you're more likely to make things worse than better, we've already said there is possibly a bug in V12 regarding the Spyder X and color calibration, so I have no idea why we're discussing this.

If the patterns were wrong, they would be wrong for everyone, all the time, not just in some cases. They might be wrong for the Spyder X when doing color. They are not wrong for the i1pro2. We'll find out when someone does some tests with the Spyder X compared to another meter. I've already said that I will do it, but not until next month.

The ranges might be different though. That's why I always calibrate the iris settings that I actually use, and advise others to do so. Calibrating ranges is never 100% accurate.

Please stop posting about the Spyder X color calibration. We know it doesn't work as intended. Just use it for gamma and nothing else until we know more.

[3ll3d00d]

Provided you select the iris setting before running the color only autocal with the i1pro and are not changing anything else (i.e. are not selecting a different picture mode or anything, just keep the settings used for the autocal and NOT changing the iris setting afterwards) this doesn't make much sense. Please do a reset to factory settings with the remote and try again. 

that's correct, no other settings changed except the iris and then gamma only with the spyder followed by colour only with the i1pro.

I'll repeat the same process after a factory reset next time I get time to do so.

[Manni]

Just to say that I've asked HDFury to implement the Frame Adapt HDR picture mode in the JVC Macro implementation of the Vertex/Maestro.

I've tested a f/w this morning and it works great.

Here is the command that is implemented for direct switch to Frame Adapt HDR: \x21\x89\x01\x52\x43\x37\x33\x45\x43\x0A

So watch out for a new f/w soon implementing this new mode.

Thanks to Mike Garrett for providing the info from JVC and to HDFury for implementing it so fast

[CyberPaul]

You can't use the Spyder X for color, you're more likely to make things worse than better, we've already said there is possibly a bug in V12 regarding the Spyder X and color calibration, so I have no idea why we're discussing this.

If the patterns were wrong, they would be wrong for everyone, all the time, not just in some cases. They might be wrong for the Spyder X when doing color. They are not wrong for the i1pro2. We'll find out when someone does some tests with the Spyder X compared to another meter. I've already said that I will do it, but not until next month.

The ranges might be different though. That's why I always calibrate the iris settings that I actually use, and advise others to do so. Calibrating ranges is never 100% accurate.

Please stop posting about the Spyder X color calibration. We know it doesn't work as intended. Just use it for gamma and nothing else until we know more.

I don't understand your tone. I was just trying to provide more elements to figure out together why the results are so wrong. I believed this was a forum to exchange our experience with the goal of enriching our knowledge and help other people that are trying to use the tool.
I know that Spyder X is not precise for color, but:

• it cannot be that bad as the results we are getting
• most of people simply can't afford an i1pro2
• It has been said that Spyder X is more accurate than Spyder 5 and I can ensure that a lot of people bought it to calibrate color.
• apparently there are some combinations where it seems to work correctly.
• we have seen strange behavior also with an i1pro2 few posts above, so it can still be related to the software/patterns. How can you exclude it?

Don't you think can be valuable to investigate a little bit more? I will stop posting then and do my test alone, without exchanging what I may discover. Just wait for a months your tests without having the opportunity to talk. But this sounds really weird to me

[Manni]

I don't understand your tone. I was just trying to provide more elements to figure out together why the results are so wrong. I believed this was a forum to exchange our experience with the goal of enriching our knowledge and help other people that are trying to use the tool.
I know that Spyder X is not precise for color, but:

• it cannot be that bad as the results we are getting
• most of people simply can't afford an i1pro2
• It has been said that Spyder X is more accurate than Spyder 5 and I can ensure that a lot of people bought it to calibrate color.
• apparently there are some combinations where it seems to work correctly.
• we have seen strange behavior also with an i1pro2 few posts above, so it can still be related to the software/patterns. How can you exclude it?

Don't you think can be valuable to investigate a little bit more? I will stop posting then and do my test alone, without exchanging what I may discover. Just wait for a months your tests without having the opportunity to talk. But this sounds really weird to me

I'm not stopping anyone from doing any tests, but you won't be able to do any of these tests if you only have a Spyder X.

I don't see the point of speculating, but any useful info is more than welcome, especially if someone wants to do tests between a Spyder X and a reference meter (or near reference meter like an i1pro) in another software, which is what we need to figure out if the difference comes from the meter or the software. Until someone does that, I don't think anything else really matters.

Your last post simply doesn't add any useful data. It makes assumptions when what we need is facts.

So feel free to post useful data, but saying things like "I think there is something wrong" doesn't help, when we've already established there was something wrong.

Again, in my experience, the Spyder X cannot be used for color autocal yet, and the i1pro2 works fine in V12.

I've only done brief tests, I'll do more next month (not in a month).

In the meantime, it's a public forum, do whatever you like.

[CyberPaul]

I'm not stopping anyone from doing any tests, but you won't be able to do any of these tests if you only have a Spyder X.

I don't see the point of speculating, but any useful info is more than welcome, especially if someone wants to do tests between a Spyder X and a reference meter (or near reference meter like an i1pro) in another software, which is what we need to figure out if the difference comes from the meter or the software. Until someone does that, I don't think anything else really matters.

Your last post simply doesn't add any useful data. It makes assumptions when what we need is facts.

So feel free to post useful data, but saying things like "I think there is something wrong" doesn't help, when we've already established there was something wrong.

Again, in my experience, the Spyder X cannot be used for color autocal yet, and the i1pro2 works fine in V12.

I've only done brief tests, I'll do more next month (not in a month).

In the meantime, it's a public forum, do whatever you like.

Well, you said: Please stop posting about the Spyder X color calibration...
However I own a ColorMunki and I'm checking results of Autocal with an i1d3 profiled with the ColorMunki within Calman. Otherwise how I could say that the calibration didn't work? How could I estimate the excess of red without a term of comparison? So after all there is something to say I believe... Let judge the others if I add value

[Manni]

Well, you said: Please stop posting about the Spyder X color calibration...
However I own a ColorMunki and I'm checking results of Autocal with an i1d3 profiled with the ColorMunki within Calman. Otherwise how I could say that the calibration didn't work? How could I estimate the excess of red without a term of comparison? So after all there is something to say I believe... Let judge the others if I add value

We need to compare the reading of the Spyder X with the reading of a reference meter in a software that supports both. At the moment, Calman doesn't, which is one of the reasons why I'm waiting because I don't have the time to get into Lightspace to do this at the moment.

I don't consider an i1d3 profiled to a Colormunki to be reference or near reference, in fact you're just as likely to make the i1d3 worse rather than more accurate profiling it to a colormunki. I wouldn't use my i1pro2 to profile an i1d3 as there is no way to know which is more accurate on LCOS. But even an i1d3, profiled or not to a colormunki, that would be better than nothing.

Comparing the reading of the Spyder X in the autocal with the reading of another meter in another software is pointless, because we've already established that the Autocal is most likely doing something wrong with the Spyder X regarding color calibration. Until we can confirm this by using the same software to check if the meter is wrong or not and provide that information to JVC, I really don't see the value of your data.

I'm not going to stop you from posting whatever you want to post, but I won't discuss this further until you actually provide some useful info (in my opinion, of course everyone is free to make their own assessment).

Again, it's a free forum.

[SirMaster]

It is true that only Calman supports the physical button on the i1pro2, but they all require you to initialize the i1pro2 by putting it on its plate and either pressing the button on the i1pro2 (Calman) or by pressing a button to initialize the meter (Lightspace, etc). It's exactly the same here, except that the Autocal supports the i1pro2 physical button like Calman, and doesn't provide clear instructions regarding what to do.

As soon as you select the i1pro2 in the JVC Autocal, you have to press the button on the ip1ro2 (while it's on its plate), and keep it pressed for a few seconds. It should then display the pattern and the meter positioning frame (which doesn't work with the i1pro2, simply place it around 2 ft from the screen, pointing up towards the centre).

If you wait too long before selecting the i1pro2 , or if you don't keep the button pressed long enough, the i1pro2 will NOT be detected by the JVVC Autocal.

If that doesn't happen I have no idea why.

Maybe someone else can explain it better than I do.

I find this odd.

Autocal finds and uses my i1 Pro 2 perfectly well without me ever touching it's button whatsoever.

I do leave it lying on the white calibration plate when I select the meter in autocal, and then I remove it shortly after selecting the meter while autocal is on the meter placement screen.

As soon as I click the meter in Autocal, the light on the back of the i1 Pro 2 lights up and goes off (which indicates it's taking a reading) then lights back up again as it tries to read the screen during meter placement.

Also, a i1 Pro 2 should be more accurate than an i1D3.  There is nothing special about LCoS for an i1 Pro 2 to read.  

Spectrometers only care about the spectral bands of the light source and in the case of JVC NX, that is UHP mercury lamp which does not have really narrow spectral bands.  Whether the UHP lamp light goes through 3LCD or bounces off DLP or LCoS doesn't make its spectral bands narrower, so the i1 Pro 2 at 10nm bands should be plenty sufficient to get an accurate reading of the color.  You could further take the readings with DisplayCAL or HCFR as well which will read in 3.3nm bands and be slightly more detailed as well with narrower spectral light sources.  Tests with high end Jeti 5nm spectrometers shows that reading the i1 Pro 2 in 3.3nm mode does indeed improve its accuracy.

[LeFric]

It is true that only Calman supports the physical button on the i1pro2, but they all require you to initialize the i1pro2 by putting it on its plate and either pressing the button on the i1pro2 (Calman) or by pressing a button to initialize the meter (Lightspace, etc). It's exactly the same here, except that the Autocal supports the i1pro2 physical button like Calman, and doesn't provide clear instructions regarding what to do.

As soon as you select the i1pro2 in the JVC Autocal, you have to press the button on the ip1ro2 (while it's on its plate), and keep it pressed for a few seconds. It should then display the pattern and the meter positioning frame (which doesn't work with the i1pro2, simply place it around 2 ft from the screen, pointing up towards the centre).

If you wait too long before selecting the i1pro2 , or if you don't keep the button pressed long enough, the i1pro2 will NOT be detected by the JVVC Autocal.

If that doesn't happen I have no idea why.

Maybe someone else can explain it better than I do.

I have passed the i1Diagnostics 4 and it gives me the following error, but I already say that with the rest of the programs it works correctly ...  Is that error correct?

JVC Autocal Software V12 calibration for 2019 RS1000/RS2000/RS3000/NX5/NX7/NX9

[LeFric]

Below I show you the profiling that I have done to my SpyderX Pro vs i1Pro2.

JVC Autocal Software V12 calibration for 2019 RS1000/RS2000/RS3000/NX5/NX7/NX9

[CyberPaul]

Below I show you the profiling that I have done to my SpyderX Pro vs i1Pro2.

JVC Autocal Software V12 calibration for 2019 RS1000/RS2000/RS3000/NX5/NX7/NX9

Spyder x does not look that bad.
what software are you using to profile? Unfortunately no profiling is possible with Autocal. Workaround is creating custom color profile with Chad method, not applicable in combination with DTM though. Unless someone doesn’t find a different workaround. If only they allowed entering a correction matrix...

[Manni]

I have passed the i1Diagnostics 4 and it gives me the following error, but I already say that with the rest of the programs it works correctly ...  Is that error correct?

JVC Autocal Software V12 calibration for 2019 RS1000/RS2000/RS3000/NX5/NX7/NX9

Looks like there might be something wrong with your i1pro2, but if it works with other software it should work with the Autocal too. Your Spyder X looks fairly close to it, at least for white.

Are you using the matching calibration plate that came with your i1pro2 when you initialize it?

If it fails the diags you might have to send it to xrite for a recertification.

[Manni]

I find this odd.

Autocal finds and uses my i1 Pro 2 perfectly well without me ever touching it's button whatsoever.

I do leave it lying on the white calibration plate when I select the meter in autocal, and then I remove it shortly after selecting the meter while autocal is on the meter placement screen.

As soon as I click the meter in Autocal, the light on the back of the i1 Pro 2 lights up and goes off (which indicates it's taking a reading) then lights back up again as it tries to read the screen during meter placement.

Also, a i1 Pro 2 should be more accurate than an i1D3.  There is nothing special about LCoS for an i1 Pro 2 to read. 

Spectrometers only care about the spectral bands of the light source and in the case of JVC NX, that is UHP mercury lamp which does not have really narrow spectral bands.  Whether the UHP lamp light goes through 3LCD or bounces off DLP or LCoS doesn't make its spectral bands narrower, so the i1 Pro 2 at 10nm bands should be plenty sufficient to get an accurate reading of the color.  You could further take the readings with DisplayCAL or HCFR as well which will read in 3.3nm bands and be slightly more detailed as well with narrower spectral light sources.  Tests with high end Jeti 5nm spectrometers shows that reading the i1 Pro 2 in 3.3nm mode does indeed improve its accuracy.

Was it always the case that you didn't need to press the button? With V11 my i1pro2 wasn't detected by the Autocal until I pressed the button during init, and I think Bobof's behaves the same. Maybe they have improved this with V12, I'll try to do nothing next time and see if it detects it.

You are misreading me. I was only mentioning LCOS because that's the only technology I tried the i1d3 with. I am not ruling out that an i1pro2 or a Colormunki could improve things on a different technology, that's all. I tried three different i1d3, I rejected them all because of how bad they were in low light and their inability to read black, but they were very consistent and too close to the i1pro2 to know whether profiling them to it would make them more accurate or not, given that I have no idea how far away from reference my i1pro2 is to start with. I expect it to be accurate given the results I get with it, but I have no way to quantify its accuracy.

Again, the i1pro2 is not a reference meter, and neither is the Colormunki. Profiling a colorimeter to a non-reference spectro only makes sense if it's significantly off on a given technology, like my Discus, which I wouldn't be able to use on its own. Otherwise you're only making the meter closer to the spectro, but not necessarily closer to reference, depending on the direction of the errors of the respective meters.

[Manni]

EVERYONE
I have very little time at the moment, so please forgive me if I stop replying to all the posts, it's taking too much of my time. I'll only reply to questions that are not already answered in the basic/advanced section or in the FAQ, and I won't reply to statements/comments, even if they are inaccurate/misleading. There are many knowledgeable people participating to this thread, so I'm sure they will brilliantly fill this gap.