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

[Manni]

When facing the screen the distance does not make a difference, unlike when facing the projector.

That may be the case, but JVC recommends placing the Spyder X at 30cm (12" or 1ft) from the screen.
I've just done an Autocal for my SDR BT2020 Gamma 2.4 calibration in high lamp with all the meters at 1ft and I got the best results ever, both for gamma (Spyder X) and color (i1pro2).
At the distance though, it's not always easy to position the meters so that they don't read their shadow. It's easier to pull back a bit. Usually I get good results with the meters at 1-1.5 foot.

[SirMaster]

That may be the case, but JVC recommends placing the Spyder X at 30cm (12" or 1ft) from the screen.
I've just done an Autocal for my SDR BT2020 Gamma 2.4 calibration in high lamp with all the meters at 1ft and I got the best results ever, both for gamma (Spyder X) and color (i1pro2).
At the distance though, it's not always easy to position the meters so that they don't read their shadow. It's easier to pull back a bit. Usually I get good results with the meters at 1-1.5 foot.

But how do you know they are the best results?

I assume that you are verifying the calibration with the meter from the same 1ft position and angle.

In that case all your are verifying of course is does the meter read a consistent value from what it read during calibration.  It doesn't help tell you how the calibration looks from your seating position.

For example my screen is 1.1 gain, and I can see there is a slight color shift when viewing the screen at an angle.

If I put my meter 1-2ft away from the screen, then it has to view the screen from the bottom at a really sharp angle looking up in order not to read the shadow, and this affects the accuracy of the color reading as compared to viewing my screen from my seats which are much more of a straight on angle to my screen.

Because of this I put my i1 Pro 2 about 6-7ft back so that it is perfectly in line with my eye from my seating position to the center of my screen.  Put another way, From my seat, I can "look through" my meter and see the middle of my screen.  At this distance I get no shadow whatsoever anywhere on my screen.

And moving it back like this has no affect on the meter's luminance reading or the position it shows in JVC's autocal window.

Later when I verify my calibration with my i1d3 trained to the i1 Pro 2 with both the training and the verification with the i1D3 from this same 6-7ft position, I get under 1.5dE for all measurements, so I know that the calibration is just as good and that it looks this good from my actual viewing angle from my seating.

If I autocal with my meter 1-2ft away looking upward at the screen and then verify with the meter from my actual viewing angle, the results are not nearly as good, 3-4dE in some cases at worst.

[Manni]

But how do you know they are the best results?

I assume that you are verifying the calibration with the meter from the same 1ft position and angle.

In that case all your are verifying of course is does the meter read a consistent value from what it read during calibration.  It doesn't help tell you how the calibration looks from your seating position.

For example my screen is 1.1 gain, and I can see there is a slight color shift when viewing the screen at an angle.

If I put my meter 1-2ft away from the screen, then it has to view the screen from the bottom at a really sharp angle looking up in order not to read the shadow, and this affects the accuracy of the color reading as compared to viewing my screen from my seats which are much more of a straight on angle to my screen.

Because of this I put my i1 Pro 2 about 6-7ft back so that it is perfectly in line with my eye from my seating position to the center of my screen.  Put another way, From my seat, I can "look through" my meter and see the middle of my screen.  At this distance I get no shadow whatsoever anywhere on my screen.

And moving it back like this has no affect on the meter's luminance reading or the position it shows in JVC's autocal window.

Later when I verify my calibration with my i1d3 trained to the i1 Pro 2 with both the training and the verification with the i1D3 from this same 6-7ft position, I get under 1.5dE for all measurements, so I know that the calibration is just as good and that it looks this good from my actual viewing angle from my seating.

If I autocal with my meter 1-2ft away looking upward at the screen and then verify with the meter from my actual viewing angle, the results are not nearly as good, 3-4dE in some cases at worst.

As I said, it can be more difficult in some situations to get the meters that close to the screen. I wasn’t saying that closer is always better, I was only saying that JVC recommends 30cm for the Spyder X, and that my gamma calibration at that distance was the best results I got. Therefore distance does matter, at least here.

At 1-2 ft, I don’t have to set the meters at a sharp angle in order for them not to read their shadows, but I did say that it could not be the case for everyone. Clearly, if that’s the case for you, then you can’t be that close.

By best, I simply mean the closest to reference. My results for gamma are simply worse if I put the Spyder X further back. By this, I mean that my average dE is higher, and that there are spikes that are not present when it is positioned closer to the screen.

It depends on screen size as well. At 6-7ft though from my Carada BW 88” diag 16x9, I would be reading a lot of black around the patterns as the Discus doesn’t have a very narrow FOV.

[SirMaster]

Yeah I am mainly just talking about the color autocal with i1 Pro 2 as the i1 Pro 2 has a very narrow FOV.

I wouldn't be concerned about viewing angle for a gamma autocal as relative gamma measurements shouldn't be affected much by the viewing angle.  Everything will either read a little darker or brighter, but so long as it's every pattern in the scale, the gamma values will come out the same.

I am still using the Spyder5, so I'm doing it off lens, but it's still nice to see that verification with my i1D3 from the screen, trained to my i1 Pro 2 measured from 6-7ft back is within 2.18 - 2.22 across the scale when the calibration was done from the lens and with a completely different meter.

[dcchan2]

If I put my meter 1-2ft away from the screen, then it has to view the screen from the bottom at a really sharp angle looking up in order not to read the shadow, and this affects the accuracy of the color reading as compared to viewing my screen from my seats which are much more of a straight on angle to my screen.

That depending on the mounting position of the projector. Mine is mounted at close to the height of the screen frame top, and I have no problems positioning the meter 1-2 ft from the screen without reading its own shadow.  The shadow just needs to be 3” or more below the screen centre in order not to be read by the meter.
In any case, the point I was trying to make is that the meter position is unlikely to be the cause of the red push. 

[mikiela]

I zoomed in with the SpyderX and that eliminated the red push.  I assume that you do not zoom in using the i1Pro.  Is that correct?

[dcchan2]

I zoomed in with the SpyderX and that eliminated the red push.  I assume that you do not zoom in using the i1Pro.  Is that correct?

This seems to confirm that the meter sensitivity was indeed the cause of the red push. What were the peak white luminance levels, zoomed and unzoomed?

There shouldn’t be any need to change the zoom for colour Autocal.

[mikiela]

This seems to confirm that the meter sensitivity was indeed the cause of the red push. What were the peak white luminance levels, zoomed and unzoomed?

There shouldn’t be any need to change the zoom for colour Autocal.

I did not record the peak white luminance.  I will do that next time. 

Thank you for your assistance.

[CyberPaul]

I zoomed in with the SpyderX and that eliminated the red push.  I assume that you do not zoom in using the i1Pro.  Is that correct?

Didn’t you zoom out to make the image smaller and brighter? Zooming in makes the image bigger and less bright instead.

Anyway, you are confirming my suspects about inaccuracy of low lights readings and this is enforcing my conviction that it is preferable to use the spyder 5 to get a more accurate gamma. in addition, I would say that I’m not even 100% sure that measuring levels with zoom and iris positioned so differently from the normal usage is not impacting the gamma calibration.

[mikiela]

Didn’t you zoom out to make the image smaller and brighter? Zooming in makes the image bigger and less bright instead.

Anyway, you are confirming my suspects about inaccuracy of low lights readings and this is enforcing my conviction that it is preferable to use the spyder 5 to get a more accurate gamma. in addition, I would say that I’m not even 100% sure that measuring levels with zoom and iris positioned so differently from the normal usage is not impacting the gamma calibration.

I zoomed to make the image smaller and brighter...call it what you like.  I see no advantage from my perspective for a Spyder 5 facing the lens.  It is by far one of the most accurate Autocals for me.  This last go around I positioned the meter so the shadow just hit the bottom of a 1% window.  That resulted in a distance of 1.5'.  I will definitely use zoom for gamma in the future.  No downside as far as I can tell.

[CyberPaul]

Again, you are measuring something different from the image you normally project.
Spyder 5 can clearly improve the things for sure, because facing the lens you don't have issues with low lights for sure. And you don't have to position the lens and the iris differently from your normal settings. As reported in previous posts, iris aperture can impact gamma and we have to set it as close as possible to the level used during autocal.
if you had both (like me), which one would you use?

[mikiela]

Again, you are measuring something different from the image you normally project.
Spyder 5 can clearly improve the things for sure, because facing the lens you don't have issues with low lights for sure. And you don't have to position the lens and the iris differently from your normal settings. As reported in previous posts, iris aperture can impact gamma and we have to set it as close as possible to the level used during autocal.
if you had both (like me), which one would you use?

I think either meter works.  Having said that, I sold my Spyder 5.  I validated my results without zooming using log only with the i1Pro and it showed all the measurement points directly on top of the D65 point with the last low level measurement slightly protruding off to one side.  I then ran an initial white point using LightSpace without doing anything else:

[Asharma]

Hi folks, any help would be appreciated, as this stuff is waaaaay above my head...I’m not looking to be an expert, but would just like to improve my image with Autocal, if improvement is needed...I’d be happy with a 90 percent accurate calibration (I think)...

I corrected my gamma droop for 4K hdr with my Spyder X a couple weeks ago...I just received my EFI ES 2000 for my color calibration...

I ran several color runs on my NX7 last night, positioning the meter so as not to read its shadow...I will play with positioning again, if that’s the issue...I didn’t do any SAVE as I want to be sure I’m doing this correctly...

Here is what my color run produced...I’ve read many pages on this forum and it has been very helpful to me...one thing I need to change for my 4K hdr color calibration is I was using gamma 2.2 so “I think” I need to change that to hdrpq gamma but I’m unsure if that will help...here is my result with gamma 2.2...any suggestions to get the dots more clustered...? thanks

[Manni]

These are fine results, a little bit warm (6300K instead of 6500K) but fine. The i1pro2 isn't accurate in low light, so as the readings go darker, the dots look more scattered. This doesn't matter as only the 100% readings are used for the i1pro2. So only look at the 100% white results on a log after a color autocal with the i1pro2, that's really the only one that counts re the dots. Completely discard the darkest dots readings.

If you do a log only with your Spyder X, you should see all the dots in the same place, though most likely NOT at D65, given that the Spyder isn't accurate for color. What's important is that they are all grouped when you look at a log made by the Spyder.

You really need an external software and a colorimeter trained to a spectro to get the full picture. Or to use the unofficially supported i1d3, as it's reasonably accurate both for gamma and color. But you can relax and enjoy your PJ, you results look fine.

All the gamma curves are calibrated at the same time, even if you use the individual setting, for the same filter/lamp mode combination. So simply select gamma 2.2 whenever you do a gamma autocal, that way you'll be able to see easily if it went well (flat / straight line), then select the gamma you actually use. The gamma curve you select will not have an impact on the D65 readings (assuming you have done a gamma calibration as well).

Results can be slightly better if you use your actual gamma during calibration, but then it's harder to read the log if you don't use a third party software to check your results, as the log always shows the reference line as 2.2 and not as the target you have chosen during calibration.

[Asharma]

Thanks, would it be necessary to now re adjust black level with my R. Masciola patterns to slightly resolve 17/68?