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

[jj-34]

Yes will do that, it may take a little time though

When I get a chance I will also do a correction matrix for my I1D3 too but using the actual screen this time.
To do this can there be a variation if using DisplayCal instead of HCFR ?

[CyberPaul]

Yes will do that, it may take a little time though

When I get a chance I will also do a correction matrix for my I1D3 too but using the actual screen this time.
To do this can there be a variation if using DisplayCal instead of HCFR ?

No variation on the results of a calibration. The aim is always to correct the measure and you will get a corrected measure with both. But again, this is not helpful to compare the meters: once corrected they will look the same. And, as you know, you are not improving the way jvc autocal software works. A profiled meter can just provide more accurate measures outside of autocal.

[Manni]

There has been a lot of misinformation and assumptions posted in the thread recently, so after running a few tests I'm going to try to correct a few mistruths...

Regarding the i1pro2 driver:
1) The driver for the i1pro2 doesn't make any difference for the Autocal, at least here. Both in V11 and V12, the i1pro2 is detected if you leave it on the calibration tile when you select it in the software, irrespective of the driver (2006 or 2009). No idea why that didn't work for me in the past, or why it still doesn't work for some.
2) The 2009 driver is installed by Calman, so unless you want to replace the driver with an older version every time you install a new version of Calman, I don't see any reason to revert to the 2006 driver if you're running the latest windows build. The 2009 driver seems to be working just as well as the 2006 one.
3) There is no accuracy issue with the 2009 driver here, I have no idea where that comes from, at least with Calman. There might be a bug in Autocal V12, but it doesn't seem to have anything to do with the driver itself.

This is with Windows 10 Pro x64 build 1903 and with an i1pro2 REV E. Of course it could be different with older versions of Windows, or with unsupported clones of the i1pro2, but this is what I observe here.

If you observe anything different, please list the exact model of your meter and windows version and provide actual measurements, so we can try to see if there are incompatible combinations.

Regarding the results of Autocal V12 with the Spyder X:
I haven't received a version of Calman supporting the X yet, but I've done some limited tests in Lightspace with my Spyder X unit. It has a 5dE error on white, and a 1-2dE error on red and green (I didn't measure blue). The reading from the Autocal itself show the same errors when you do a log with the i1pro2 and the Spyder X, so there is nothing that suggests that V12 is doing anything wrong with the Spyder X. It just reads what the Spyder X reports and takes it as reality.

So I wouldn't use this specific Spyder X for color calibration, given that the JVCs are fairly close out of the box.

My Spyder 5 (that specific unit, it could be different with another one) reading off the lens is more accurate, even though I'd rather use the i1pro2 for color obviously.

Regarding the i1pro2, I got better results in V11 than in V12. I tried gamma with the Spyder X + color with the i1pro2 in V12, and gamma with the Spyder 5 + color with the i1pro2 in V11, and V11 gave better results, both from a gamma and from a color point of view.

So there might be some bug(s) in V12 besides the errors in my specific Spyder X unit, which are typical of the kind of errors found in Spyders.

I recommend using V11 with a Spyder 5 if you can until more tests are done with V12. I'll do that when I get a version of Calman supporting the Spyder X, but of course others are welcome to contribute in the meantime.

[jj-34]

Manni: maybe a typo, but the I1 Pro 2 is Rev E, same for the EFI ES-2000 that actually is an X-rite I1 Pro 2 simply rebadged.

[Manni]

Manni: maybe a typo, but the I1 Pro 2 is Rev E, same for the EFI ES-2000 that actually is an X-rite I1 Pro 2 simply rebadged.

Thanks, it was a typo, corrected. It's my old i1pro that was a REV. D

[CyberPaul]

There has been a lot of misinformation and assumptions posted in the thread recently, so after running a few tests I'm going to try to correct a few mistruths...

Regarding the i1pro2 driver:
1) The driver for the i1pro2 doesn't make any difference for the Autocal, at least here. Both in V11 and V12, the i1pro2 is detected if you leave it on the calibration tile when you select it in the software, irrespective of the driver (2006 or 2009). No idea why that didn't work for me in the past, or why it still doesn't work for some.
2) The 2009 driver is installed by Calman, so unless you want to replace the driver with an older version every time you install a new version of Calman, I don't see any reason to revert to the 2006 driver if you're running the latest windows build. The 2009 driver seems to be working just as well as the 2006 one.
3) There is no accuracy issue with the 2009 driver here, I have no idea where that comes from, at least with Calman. There might be a bug in Autocal V12, but it doesn't seem to have anything to do with the driver itself.

This is with Windows 10 Pro x64 build 1909 and with an i1pro2 REV E. Of course it could be different with older versions of Windows, or with unsupported clones of the i1pro2, but this is what I observe here.

If you observe anything different, please list the exact model of your meter and windows version and provide actual measurements, so we can try to see if there are incompatible combinations.

Regarding the results of Autocal V12 with the Spyder X:
I haven't received a version of Calman supporting the X yet, but I've done some limited tests in Lightspace with my Spyder X unit. It has a 5dE error on white, and a 1-2dE error on red and green (I didn't measure blue). The reading from the Autocal itself show the same errors when you do a log with the i1pro2 and the Spyder X, so there is nothing that suggests that V12 is doing anything wrong with the Spyder X. It just reads what the Spyder X reports and takes it as reality.

Looking at your gamut diagrams within Autocal I would guess that the error on green is more than 2dE. If you consider that with i1pro2 you are reading a green positioned slightly at right of the reference and SpyderX is instead reporting a green slightly to the left of the reference. You should be comparing the SpyderX with i1pro2 not with the current VPR status. So similarly to me, Autocal is trying to fix the green in the wrong direction. In DisplayCal the difference seems less than what I see in Autocal. I still have some doubts about the accuracy of Autocal 12. After all you are stating that 11 is more accurate so there is something wrong.
I don't know DisplayCal, does it allow to specify a correction matrix like HCFR does? What have you selected in that case?

[CyberPaul]

@Manni
No correction matrix with DisplayCal?

[SirMaster]

@Manni
No correction matrix with DisplayCal?

You can create correction matrix in DisplayCAL or use correction matrix created elsewhere (like HCFR) with it too.

[CyberPaul]

You can create correction matrix in DisplayCAL or use correction matrix created elsewhere (like HCFR) with it too.

I was referring to something subtly different. When you create a new session within colorHCFR, it is asked which correction matrix to apply from a predefined list. This list seems to be embedded in the meter (or driver?). For sure it changes with the meter. And it alters significantly the measures. One of them was able to make the spyder measures closer to the reference. I was asking if displaycal does the same and in that case which one Manni selected.

[jj-34]

Within the DisplayCal help and guidance there is a chapter that mentions the fact that the spyders 4 and 5 (X too ?)  have some sort of in-build spectral values caracterizing their filters. Not sure I understand all of it but that looks like what you're talking about.

Special note about the X-Rite i1 Display Pro, ColorMunki Display and Spyder4/5 colorimeters
These instruments greatly reduce the amount of work needed to match them to a display because they contain the spectral sensitivities of their filters in hardware, so only a spectrometer reading of the display is needed to create the correction (in contrast to matching other colorimeters to a display, which needs two readings: One with a spectrometer and one with the colorimeter).
 That means anyone with a particular screen and a spectrometer can create a special Colorimeter Calibration Spectral Set (

.ccss

) file of that screen for use with those colorimeters, without needing to actually have access to the colorimeter itself.

[SirMaster]

I was referring to something subtly different. When you create a new session within colorHCFR, it is asked which correction matrix to apply from a predefined list. This list seems to be embedded in the meter (or driver?). For sure it changes with the meter. And it alters significantly the measures. One of them was able to make the spyder measures closer to the reference. I was asking if displaycal does the same and in that case which one Manni selected.

In my experience those are called spectral corrections rather than matrix, which is what threw me off.

Those come from the manufacturer and are found in the stock manufacturer drivers of the Spyder 4/5 and i1D3.

In order to use a spectral correction, the meter must have an internal table knowing its own spectral distribution set by the manufacturer when it's created.  The SpyderX does not have this and is not compatible with spectral corrections.

Using one of the provided spectral corrections to check the Spyder5 doesn't really make sense since Autocal might use no spectral correction, or I would more likely assume that JVC has included their own spectral correction for the Spyder5, but of course are unable to do so for the SpyderX.

Problem is we will probably never truly know if autocal does or does not use a spectral correction with the Spyder5, so checking it with HCFR or DisplayCAL, choosing no spectral correction might be right, but it may also be wrong.

[CyberPaul]

The issue with colorHCFR is that you must select one correction matrix (that’s how it calls it). I guess that “General” means no correction, but I am not sure. They are general purpose matrices for specific type of devices (led, wide led, etc) in case you can’t create your own custom correction matrix with a reliable spectrometer as a reference. At least the deviations due to the device get corrected, not the inaccuracy of the meter.

[SirMaster]

Since you can select no correction in DisplayCAL you could compare that to HCFR general or whatever it's called and see if they are the same.

I am pretty sure the general or 1st drop down correction option is essentially no correction in HCFR.

[Manni]

Please could you take the off -topic HCFR / DisplayCAL discussion to PM or to another thread? Thanks.

@Cyberpaul, you need to read my posts more carefully.

I don't use DisplayCAL. The measurements I've posted are made with Lightspace, as indicated.

Obviously I wasn't using a correction matrix, it would be pointless otherwise.

The measurements show the difference between the meters, nothing else.

However, you can't compare the measurements from Autocal and the measurements from Lightspace directly simply because they don't use the same patterns. The autocal uses the JVC Internal patterns, Lightspace was using madTPG. DisplayCAL or HCFR could be using different patterns still (for example their internal ones). Depending on the settings, the GPU, the driver, the OS, this can induce further differences. The only valid comparison between two meters is with the same software, using the same patterns / video chain.

There can also be differences due to different drivers if a calibration software doesn't use the windows standard driver, which is the case with DisplayCAL/HCFR as they might be using Argyll driver.

Anyway, let's keep the discussion on topic, I only use different software to provide data related to the Autocal.

I will do more tests when I get a version of Calman supporting the Spyder X, as Lightspace is pretty much useless and not very ergonomic for this kind of work.

In the meantime, feel free to provide measurements, but stop requesting more work, explanations,especially when you haven't read the information already provided properly.

Again I don't have the time to answer off-topic questions or to correct all the incorrect assumptions or statement made recently in the thread.

[CyberPaul]

Please read my posts more carefully too. My only mistake is to have said DisplayCal instead of LightSpace. We are only human after all . You focused on that mistake but the rest is still valid.

• I was simply saying that you should compare the meters between them, not the meters with the reference, as you can have an imperfectly calibrated VPR as a starting point. So if Lightspace told you that you have dE=+2 with SpyderX and let's say -1 with i1pro2, you may have to sum the two to get the total difference (depending on the direction of the deviation). I was asking confirmation that you considered the real difference between the two. This is very important as I was observing a bigger difference within AutoCal and our main goal was to understand if it is interpreting correctly the measures.
• As I explained very clearly, the point of the correction matrix is that colorHCFR forces you to select one so I was asking if Lightspace does the same and in that case which one you selected. This was helpful to understand if there is an implication on differences with what AutoCal is reading.

Nothing offensive or stupid I believe... Not even OT!

I would humbly say keep calm and be open