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

[DLCPhoto]

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.

Thanks for the reply, Manni.

Anamorphic Mode C with the DCR Lens, for scope content, filling my 2.35:1 screen, is by far the brightest, since it is utilizing the full 4096 x 2160 pixels of the chip.  It should be providing a 38% or so boost in brightness versus the usual zoom method, and effectively using only 3840 x 1600 pixels of the chip.

I'll wait until tomorrow to do it, to see if anybody using the DCR lens posts with a rationale for doing it differently.

Not knowing the accuracy of my particular Spyder5 for color, and not having another meter to check it, I'm reluctant to use it for Color Autocal, as you and others have advised.  I have used it consistently with my prior RS400, and saw no obvious problems.  I think I have a fairly keen eye in terms of colors, proper color temperature, and so forth, from many years of editing Raw still DSLR image in Photoshop, with a calibrated monitor, but it's certainly possible there were inaccuracies I wasn't identifying.

[Manni]

Thanks for the reply, Manni.

Anamorphic Mode C with the DCR Lens, for scope content, filling my 2.35:1 screen, is by far the brightest, since it is utilizing the full 4096 x 2160 pixels of the chip.  It should be providing a 38% or so boost in brightness versus the usual zoom method, and effectively using only 3840 x 1600 pixels of the chip.

I'll wait until tomorrow to do it, to see if anybody using the DCR lens posts with a rationale for doing it differently.

Not knowing the accuracy of my particular Spyder5 for color, and not having another meter to check it, I'm reluctant to use it for Color Autocal, as you and others have advised.  I have used it consistently with my prior RS400, and saw no obvious problems.  I think I have a fairly keen eye in terms of colors, proper color temperature, and so forth, from many years of editing Raw still DSLR image in Photoshop, with a calibrated monitor, but it's certainly possible there were inaccuracies I wasn't identifying.

Assuming you don't have a known accurate meter to check your calibrations using a third party calibration software, you can still give a try to a color Autocal without any risk:
- After your gamma autocal, make a note of the backup file created
- Display a greyscale ramp to see if you can see any non-grey shifts
- If you do, run a color autocal
- Display the same greyscale ramp
- Better? Your spyder most likely makes things better rather than worse, keep the color autocal
- Worse? Simply restore the backup created after the gamma autocal, it should bring you back to before the color autocal test.

[DLCPhoto]

I'm having unexpected results with plain Gamma Autocal.  I've run this with the prior version on my RS400 many, many times, same Spyder 5, with excellent results.  Not sure what's going wrong here (although I wonder about the presence of the DCR Lens).  I started off with just the basic settings I'd use for SDR content.

I followed the usual advice:

• Screen Adjustment turned Off
• I selected the Factory set Natural Picture Mode
• BT-709
• Aperture at 0, Manual
• 6500K
• Gamma 2.2
• Low Lamp
• No gain adjustments to adjust, since none have been made.
• Active Video Signal going to the Projector throughout.

I've attached a couple of pictures of the physical setup, as well as the Gamma Graphic at the end.  Needless to say, I didn't Save this to the Projector, so it should still be in the baseline state.

The pictures are from the first run, and shows the tripod at a bit of a tilt (since the Projector is higher than the screen, the visual pathway would be angled down toward the screen).  When the results were poor, I went for a more vertical orientation, and the results this time were worse. (The attached images are reversed time-wise - the first one was the second one done, etc.).

Does the program actively utilize the Screen Size and Seating Distance data that can be entered?  I used 129", as that is the equivalent 16:9 size of my 160" diagonal 2.35:1 screen.  But with the DCR lens in place, this is not your regular 129" image, although that is the lens zoom the Projector is using.

As good as the actual image the Projector is throwing looks to my eye, it is hard for me to accept that this gamma data is accurate.  And the fact that it couldn't correct it fully makes me even more suspicious something funky is going on.  That's why I didn't save any of these runs.

Ideas welcome on what's going on here! 

[Manni]

Looks like your spyder is too close to the projector. Are you sure it is within the positioning box before calibration? The representation of the meter should be to the right of the box on the screen, but within it. Also you should make sure that the reflection of the lens off the spyder hits just above or below the lens itself. All this is in the basic section.

In any case, you 100% white reading is seriously wrong for both calibrations (it even says error on one) so until you resolve this there is no point going further.

If you still have issues after following the instructions for meter placement in the basic section, please take a screenshot of the aiming screen, and a picture of where the reflection of the lens (off the spyder) shines on the PJ.

[jj-34]

The 16/9 equivalent diagonal of a 160" 2.35 scope screen is 169", not 129", unless the calculation with a DCR lens is different ?

[DLCPhoto]

Looks like your spyder is too close to the projector. Are you sure it is within the positioning box before calibration? The representation of the meter should be to the right of the box on the screen, but within it. Also you should make sure that the reflection of the lens off the spyder hits just above or below the lens itself. All this is in the basic section.

In any case, you 100% white reading is seriously wrong for both calibrations (it even says error on one) so until you resolve this there is no point going further.

If you still have issues after following the instructions for meter placement in the basic section, please take a screenshot of the aiming screen, and a picture of where the reflection of the lens (off the spyder) shines on the PJ.

Thanks for the reply, Manni.

Having been through this many times before with my RS400, as well as reading and re-reading those posts in this thread, I am very aware of the recommendations for the representation of the meter in the Autocal software, and took considerable time to get it so that it was definitely *within* the box, as far to the right as possible, without crossing the line.

A screenshot would look 100% like the one you posted in Reply #7 in this thread.

I will say, though, that it was extremely difficult to get proper placement - very slight adjustments in the tripod's position would often result in large changes in the sensor position in the software.  That was true when tilting the assembly to try and get the angle correct, as per your recommendations.

But with the DCR lens directly in front of the Projector's lens, I couldn't really make out where the reflection from the Spyder actually was.  And to be honest, I had trouble identifying it even when using it with my RS400.  I've looked at the picture you posted, so I fully understand what you're talking about.  I'm just having difficulty duplicating it, especially with the DCR Lens there.

[DLCPhoto]

The 16/9 equivalent diagonal of a 160" 2.35 scope screen is 169", not 129", unless the calculation with a DCR lens is different ?

Major brain-fart! 

You are of course correct.  I went to the 129" figure, because that is the effective 16:9 size I get for 16:9 content.

Manni - or anybody else - does the Autocal software actually use this data in its calculations?  If so, it seems this could be the source of my problems.

[David Vaughn]

Thanks for the reply, Manni.

Having been through this many times before with my RS400, as well as reading and re-reading those posts in this thread, I am very aware of the recommendations for the representation of the meter in the Autocal software, and took considerable time to get it so that it was definitely *within* the box, as far to the right as possible, without crossing the line.

A screenshot would like 100% like the one you posted in Reply #7 in this thread.

I will say, though, that it was extremely difficult to get proper placement - very slight adjustments in the tripod's position would often result in large changes in the sensor position in the software.  That was true when tilting the assembly to try and get the angle correct, as per your recommendations.

But with the DCR lens directly in front of the Projector's lens, I couldn't really make out where the reflection from the Spyder actually was.  And to be honest, I had trouble identifying it even when using it with my RS400.  I've looked at the picture you posted, so I fully understand what you're talking about.  I'm just having difficulty duplicating it, especially with the DCR Lens there.

With those readings I would suspect the DCR lens is the issue. How big of a pain is it to remove it for the autocal process?

[DLCPhoto]

With those readings I would suspect the DCR lens is the issue. How big of a pain is it to remove it for the autocal process?

It's pretty quick and easy, Dave, and which would also require re-zooming the Projector for a 16:9 image.  Given that I've got all of this very well-tuned, especially with the DCR Lens, I'd rather avoid that, unless it is necessary.  Small differences in physical positioning and orienting of the lens can have an impact on the picture size, placement, etc.

I also wonder if it would in fact be "better" to do with the DCR lens in place, since that is how I actually use the Projector.

So it's certainly a possibility, once we're able to identify with some degree of certainty, what in fact is causing the problem.

[David Vaughn]

It's pretty quick and easy, Dave, and which would also require re-zooming the Projector for a 16:9 image.  Given that I've got all of this very well-tuned, especially with the DCR Lens, I'd rather avoid that, unless it is necessary.  Small differences in physical positioning and orienting of the lens can have an impact on the picture size, placement, etc.

I also wonder if it would in fact be "better" to do with the DCR lens in place, since that is how I actually use the Projector.

So it's certainly a possibility, once we're able to identify with some degree of certainty, what in fact is causing the problem.

Totally understand why you wouldn't want to remove it. 

[Manni]

Manni - or anybody else - does the Autocal software actually use this data in its calculations?  If so, it seems this could be the source of my problems.

AFAIK these values are not used unless you use the environment adjustments (p16 of the manual), which is not recommended anyway, at least not in a bat cave.

You could try to get the lens out of the path but I can’t see why it would be a problem for gamma autocal, unless the sensor is not correctly positioned.

If you get the autocal to work without the lens, then you can try to put it back in the path.

[DLCPhoto]

AFAIK these values are not used unless you use the environment adjustments (p16 of the manual), which is not recommended anyway, at least not in a bat cave.

You could try to get the lens out of the path but I can’t see why it would be a problem for gamma autocal, unless the sensor is not correctly positioned.

If you get the autocal to work without the lens, then you can try to put it back in the path.

Thanks Manni.

I'm not using the environment adjustments.  I will go ahead and change to the proper 169", even though it's likely not creating problems.  Wouldn't hurt anything.

I do have an email into Shawn Kelly of Panamorph, on this question, and see if he has any knowledge or experience on the optimal way to do this.

I agree that it seems to be a sensor positioning problem, but as I'm following the guidelines, and doing this the exact same way as I did with my RS400, I can't understand where I'm going wrong.

I'll try again later today, and see if there's some way I can identify the reflection of the Spyder5, and see where it's falling.

If nothing else works, I guess I'll have to just remove the DCR temporarily to get this done.

[dcchan2]

I'll try again later today, and see if there's some way I can identify the reflection of the Spyder5, and see where it's falling.

If you have difficulty identifying the reflection of the Spyder5, try to adjust the meter orientation (vertically and horizontally) while monitoring the reading.  The highest reading (meter closest to the right in the Autocal diagram) should correspond the meter facing the lens directly; then offset it slightly.

Also, change the setting to Log Only mode while you're trouble-shooting as that's much faster.

[DLCPhoto]

If you have difficulty identifying the reflection of the Spyder5, try to adjust the meter orientation (vertically and horizontally) while monitoring the reading.  The highest reading (meter closest to the right in the Autocal diagram) should correspond the meter facing the lens directly; then offset it slightly.

Also, change the setting to Log Only mode while you're trouble-shooting as that's much faster.

Good suggestion, Dominic.  When I was playing around with this on Saturday, I did notice that changing the orientation (trying to get the right 'tilt') did result in significant variations.  I think Manni was definitely on the right track, in that I need to be further back overall.  I think I was using a similar starting point as I did with the RS400, but with nominally more lumens, and the DCR in place adding another 38% or so more light, I'll need to go further away.

I was also thinking about going to Log Only mode, for the exact same reasons, so appreciate your reminding me of that.

On the 'other' forum, there was an excellent suggestion of getting a Tripod extension pole, which might make it a lot easier to get stable and easily adjustable placement, since my projector is up a bit higher than average.  I think this was the same guy who had apparently successfully run his Autocal with the DCR in place.  He did use the SpyderX, but I would think that if it worked for him, it should work fine for me with the Spyder5.

It may be a few days until I have the time to play around with this again, but I will report back.

[jj-34]

As the autocal application does not actually measure the distance between the lens and the spyder, I think that the shown placement of the spyder relative to the yellow rectangle is only in relation with the amount of light that is sensed, thus DCR lens or none will not change the fact that the lens should be as near as possible to the right boundary of the rectangle but still inside it.
The last time I tried with a spyder 5 to make it easier to spot the sensor's reflection I used a piece of black paper with a hole stuck in front of the PJ and centered over the lens so that I could see the shadow of the spyder on the screen in the middle of the paper's hole shadow, then moving the sensor's reflection just to the rim of the paper's hole.