AVS Discussions
  Go Down

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

Re: Feedback to JVC / Suggested improvements
« Reply #720 on: January 13, 2020, 02:21:23 PM »
Added to the list. I agree it would be nice, but I wouldn't hold my breath. There are too many more important improvements on the list. But you never know, sometimes, easy stuff get added before more important changes...
Greetings,

Manni, if you had your druthers, which meter would you use, the SpyderX or Spyder5 Pro? I have the Spyder5 Pro but haven't been exactly pleased with the gamma calibration results. I find that brightness takes a bit more of a hit than I would like afterward. I am leaning toward trying the SpyderX to see if the results are any different.
Thanks!

Re: Feedback to JVC / Suggested improvements
« Reply #721 on: January 13, 2020, 02:34:03 PM »
Greetings,

Manni, if you had your druthers, which meter would you use, the SpyderX or Spyder5 Pro? I have the Spyder5 Pro but haven't been exactly pleased with the gamma calibration results. I find that brightness takes a bit more of a hit than I would like afterward. I am leaning toward trying the SpyderX to see if the results are any different.
Thanks!

Gamma calibration shouldn't really affect your brightness.  As in it doesn't affect your peak white level which is how we measure brightness.

What the gamma calibration does is make all the shades between black and white the correct brightness.  If you feel that the shades between black and white are too dim then you would want to use a lower gamma.

I don't see a reason why the Spyder5 wouldn't be calibrating your gamma really well unless it's malfunctioning.  After the gamma calibration is done it's up to you to choose what gamma to use ad they will all be correctly calibrated to their respective numbers.

If you are thinking it's too dark then use a higher gamma.  I use 2.2.  Some people use 2.4 but I find it too dark.
« Last Edit: January 14, 2020, 07:57:33 AM by SirMaster »

Re: Feedback to JVC / Suggested improvements
« Reply #722 on: January 13, 2020, 02:57:10 PM »
I have the Spyder5 Pro but haven't been exactly pleased with the gamma calibration results. I find that brightness takes a bit more of a hit than I would like afterward.
If you didn’t do any colour calibration but find that the brightness “takes a hit” after gamma calibration, it’s because the Spyder5 has done its job and fixed the gamma droop that was there prior to calibration. :)

A SpyderX would have done the same.
« Last Edit: January 13, 2020, 03:00:27 PM by dcchan2 »

Manni

  • *****
  • 423
Re: Feedback to JVC / Suggested improvements
« Reply #723 on: January 13, 2020, 03:35:18 PM »
Greetings,

Manni, if you had your druthers, which meter would you use, the SpyderX or Spyder5 Pro? I have the Spyder5 Pro but haven't been exactly pleased with the gamma calibration results. I find that brightness takes a bit more of a hit than I would like afterward. I am leaning toward trying the SpyderX to see if the results are any different.
Thanks!

Hi Ralph,

Gamma calibration shouldn't take any hit on peak brightness, because the gamma autocal only makes adjustments between black and 100% white, but it doesn't touch either. The main difference between the Spyder 5 and the Spyder X is speed, but the results shouldn't be much different for gamma autocal otherwise, except maybe in the low end.

If you have a brightness hit at 100% white, it's most likely because you did a color autocal, or a gamma+color autocal, and it's the color autocal that has cut the brightness to bring 100% white to what it thinks is D65. A Spyder X could do better or worse, it's a lottery based on each unit, not on the model.

However, if your spyder 5 does overcorrect when doing a color autocal, a Spyder X might improve things. Or make them worse... Still, you could try and either return it if worse, or keep it just for gamma (it's much faster than the Spyder 5, and more importantly works facing the screen, which is a lot more convenient IMO).

If you think you might have run a color autocal by mistake, you can simply restore your INIT file and run a gamma only autocal. This should restore your brightness (unless the loss is due to something else, for example a long calibration session in high lamp). Sometimes the next day that brightness is back.

If you mean that the picture looks less bright but 100% white has not dropped, then it might simply be the correction of the gamma droop (as gamma in the high end was probably too low, making the picture brighter than it should at 50-95% white).

If the picture is darker everywhere, and especially in the low end, you could try a lower gamma in SDR (it doesn't matter in HDR). You don't have to choose between 2.2 and 2.4, you can select 2.3 or any other value selecting custom and whichever value feels better. However, I know you are in a dedicated room, so I would highly suggest you keep 2.4. 2.2 would look washed out.

By the way, we're talking actual gamma, not selected gamma. Often times, even after an autocal, you have to select 2.5 to get 2.4, or 2.3 to get 2.2, so it's worth checking or adjusting by eye, as the value selected isn't necessarily accurate, although it should look fairly flat after an autocal. You can also fine-tune using picture tone in the tri-band gamma adjustment, as it lowers/raises the whole curve with a single setting.

Hope this helps!
« Last Edit: January 14, 2020, 01:40:02 AM by Manni »

Re: Feedback to JVC / Suggested improvements
« Reply #724 on: January 14, 2020, 07:58:36 AM »
Hi Ralph,

Gamma calibration shouldn't take any hit on peak brightness, because the gamma autocal only makes adjustments between black and 100% white, but it doesn't touch either. The main difference between the Spyder 5 and the Spyder X is speed, but the results shouldn't be much different for gamma autocal otherwise, except maybe in the low end.

If you have a brightness hit at 100% white, it's most likely because you did a color autocal, or a gamma+color autocal, and it's the color autocal that has cut the brightness to bring 100% white to what it thinks is D65. A Spyder X could do better or worse, it's a lottery based on each unit, not on the model.

However, if your spyder 5 does overcorrect when doing a color autocal, a Spyder X might improve things. Or make them worse... Still, you could try and either return it if worse, or keep it just for gamma (it's much faster than the Spyder 5, and more importantly works facing the screen, which is a lot more convenient IMO).

If you think you might have run a color autocal by mistake, you can simply restore your INIT file and run a gamma only autocal. This should restore your brightness (unless the loss is due to something else, for example a long calibration session in high lamp). Sometimes the next day that brightness is back.

If you mean that the picture looks less bright but 100% white has not dropped, then it might simply be the correction of the gamma droop (as gamma in the high end was probably too low, making the picture brighter than it should at 50-95% white).

If the picture is darker everywhere, and especially in the low end, you could try a lower gamma in SDR (it doesn't matter in HDR). You don't have to choose between 2.2 and 2.4, you can select 2.3 or any other value selecting custom and whichever value feels better. However, I know you are in a dedicated room, so I would highly suggest you keep 2.4. 2.2 would look washed out.

By the way, we're talking actual gamma, not selected gamma. Often times, even after an autocal, you have to select 2.5 to get 2.4, or 2.3 to get 2.2, so it's worth checking or adjusting by eye, as the value selected isn't necessarily accurate, although it should look fairly flat after an autocal. You can also fine-tune using picture tone in the tri-band gamma adjustment, as it lowers/raises the whole curve with a single setting.

Hope this helps!


Greetings,

Thanks guys. Yeah, I am aware that a gamma cal really shouldn't impact peak brightness and while I generally find the results to be within tolerances, the image appeared flatter (for lack of a better term) than I was accustomed to. I was curious to get some input and appreciate your responses.

I may give the SpyderX a shot just to see how it handles things in general.

Regards,

Yeah it's a little odd as your picture should look like it has more depth after gamma autocal as it will in my experience always raise the gamma slightly to correct the droop.

Manni

  • *****
  • 423
Re: Feedback to JVC / Suggested improvements
« Reply #726 on: January 14, 2020, 08:14:11 AM »

Greetings,

Thanks guys. Yeah, I am aware that a gamma cal really shouldn't impact peak brightness and while I generally find the results to be within tolerances, the image appeared flatter (for lack of a better term) than I was accustomed to. I was curious to get some input and appreciate your responses.

I may give the SpyderX a shot just to see how it handles things in general.

Regards,
Can you post measurements with your i1d3 showing your gamma and rgb balance measurement after autocal, as well as the peak white before/after? Hard to make any further comments without the actual data.

Hi Manni,

Thanks again for this great thread.

I am pretty sure I know the answer to this question but just want to confirm.

If I do a two part autocal - Gamma - Spyder5Pro and then Color - i1pro2 - I end up with two files.

If I then subsequently reload the init file.

If I want to get back to my calibrated settings then I just have to reload the second (color) file because it already has the gamma settings from the first file plus the color settings.

Is that correct?

Thanks again.

Stephen

Manni

  • *****
  • 423
Hi Manni,

Thanks again for this great thread.

I am pretty sure I know the answer to this question but just want to confirm.

If I do a two part autocal - Gamma - Spyder5Pro and then Color - i1pro2 - I end up with two files.

If I then subsequently reload the init file.

If I want to get back to my calibrated settings then I just have to reload the second (color) file because it already has the gamma settings from the first file plus the color settings.

Is that correct?

Thanks again.

Stephen

My understanding is that the only difference with the INIT file is that it's saved BEFORE any calibration is done. Otherwise, every .cbd file has the same size (25Kb), so as far as I know it saves and restores the same amount of data. I have no idea why restoring an INIT file would take longer.

The way I see it, any calibration file takes you back to the projector state at that time (as per the date/time on the file). It doesn't only restore the calibration you've just made, but all the tables.

So it doesn't make sense to restore the INIT file (delete everything) then to restore another calibration. You should get the same result by restoring the calibration file directly. I know the file puts the calibrated setting in the file name, but that's just a way to help you remember what you were doing.

To answer your question, yes, if you restore your color calibration, it should also restore your gamma calibration (and all the others if applicable).

I haven't tested this recently, so it could be different with this software version, but that's the way I approached my calibration files in the past.

It's a good test to run: restore the init file, then only the color calibration file, and check if your gamma (as well as all your other calibrations) are restored too.

Thanks Manni,

I will give it a try tonight.

Stephen

Re: Feedback to JVC / Suggested improvements
« Reply #730 on: January 15, 2020, 11:26:37 AM »
Can you post measurements with your i1d3 showing your gamma and rgb balance measurement after autocal, as well as the peak white before/after? Hard to make any further comments without the actual data.
Greetings,

Will try and get to that when time permits. Thanks Manni!


Regards,

Hi Manni,
I own an i1pro2 and both spyder 5 and x. Which spyder would you use for gamma? In one of your posts you suggested the newer model (i.e. X), because it is quicker.
My only doubt is about accuracy, especially on lower stimulus. Isn’t the meter facing the screen affecting the ability to read low levels of luminance? With what combination did you get best results?

Manni

  • *****
  • 423
Hi Manni,
I own an i1pro2 and both spyder 5 and x. Which spyder would you use for gamma? In one of your posts you suggested the newer model (i.e. X), because it is quicker.
My only doubt is about accuracy, especially on lower stimulus. Isn’t the meter facing the screen affecting the ability to read low levels of luminance? With what combination did you get best results?
I can't talk for your set-up but the Spyder X is a lot more sensitive in low light than the Spyder 5, so that makes up (at least partially) for reading off the screen vs reading off the lens.

Here, the SX with V12 doesn't return any zero reading during gamma autocal, and the results are very good, comparable to the S5 with V11, just delivered a lot faster. It's also a lot more convenient to have all the meters facing the screen (I have the Discus and the SX on the same tripod, on a dual head). So for me it's a no brainer to go with the SX: same results, twice as fast, more convenient.

It's no replacement for the Discus though, I've run verifications and the level or errors with the SX is much higher than with the Discus, both trained to the i1pro2.

Anyway, personally, I prefer to use the SX for gamma only, but I've done my homework and checked the results.

Given that you have both the S5 and the SX, you need to do the same and decide based on your data. You might have a much larger screen, with less gain hence a lot less brightness, and in your case the S5 might be a better choice as you can move it closer to the lens to get it in the right range.

I don't think I've seen this question addressed before.

I'm ready to do a Gamma only Autocal on my NX7, using a Spyder5 Pro, and Version 11 of the JVC Software.

At this point, I watch exclusively with the Panamorph DCR Lens in place, using Anamorphic Mode C for scope content, and Mode D for 16:9 content.

When doing the Autocal, can/should it be done with the DCR Lens in place, or does it *need* to be removed to do a proper autocal?  And if I can do it with the A-lens in place, should I be using Mode C or Mode D, or does it not matter?

Manni

  • *****
  • 423
I don't think I've seen this question addressed before.

I'm ready to do a Gamma only Autocal on my NX7, using a Spyder5 Pro, and Version 11 of the JVC Software.

At this point, I watch exclusively with the Panamorph DCR Lens in place, using Anamorphic Mode C for scope content, and Mode D for 16:9 content.

When doing the Autocal, can/should it be done with the DCR Lens in place, or does it *need* to be removed to do a proper autocal?  And if I can do it with the A-lens in place, should I be using Mode C or Mode D, or does it not matter?
It shouldn't matter for gamma, but if the Autocal lets you, I would do it with the lens in place and whichever mode is the brightest with the iris fully open.

Maybe someone with a DCR lens can confirm how they do it and if it makes a difference.

  Go Up