Home · Register · Join Upload & Sell

Moderated by: Fred Miranda
Username  

  New fredmiranda.com Mobile Site
  New Feature: SMS Notification alert
  New Feature: Buy & Sell Watchlist
  

FM Forums | Post-processing & Printing | Join Upload & Sell

  

Archive 2015 · Calibrate to 6000k ok? LUT vs Matrix

  
 
Aaron D
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #1 · p.1 #1 · Calibrate to 6000k ok? LUT vs Matrix


I seek the opinion of the FM tribal elders....

I was hoping to squeeze 6500k out of my laptops crappy, led backlit, screen. But the closest I can get is 6k. I can meet the that target, but the end result makes gray appear as olive green. :/

Now, its been a while since I tried calibrating. But building a profile with a target 6.5k will compensate for this, correct? Also, is it true that LR doesnt handle LUT profiles well and I should calibrate with a matrix?

Im using a Spyder4Express and dipcalGUI+Argyll




Jun 27, 2015 at 08:49 PM
Peter Figen
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #2 · p.1 #2 · Calibrate to 6000k ok? LUT vs Matrix


You should have no problems getting 6500K from an LED screen, but 6000K is close enough. A good LUT profile is always going to be better than a matrix profile, but it sounds like you're experiencing other problems as well. The greenish grays is not a good sign - very likely a sensor issue. What are you white and black point target luminance's? But if your laptop's screen is truly crappy, maybe it doesn't make any difference. My MBP's are both calibrated to 6500K with an i1Display Pro and the X-rite software and both are remarkably close to my Eizo CG277.


Jun 28, 2015 at 02:30 AM
howardm4
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #3 · p.1 #3 · Calibrate to 6000k ok? LUT vs Matrix


while certainly not decisive, it is another 'I'm having a weird problem and oh, I'm using a Spyder'. *Never* have gotten a warm fuzzy from those products.

I'd guess if the behavior of teh device is pretty linear, a matrix would be 'better' (in some way) but a LUT would seem to have to be more 'accurate', esp. when interpolating (which is all the time). The downside is a much larger (file size) profile.



Jun 28, 2015 at 09:50 AM
Aaron D
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #4 · p.1 #4 · Calibrate to 6000k ok? LUT vs Matrix


I let it profile over night, and left things on auto (highest quality, took 5hrs) instead of hopelessly trying to adjust rgb and getting them even. It just isnt possible on this laptop.

I set it to profile at 6500k and 120cd/m. The resulting LUT profile looks better than the default sRGB, to the eyes. But I goofed and set it to an sRGB TRC, as opposed to a 2.2 gamma. Im currently reprofiling it, with the LUT profile loaded, to a curves+matrix profile. We'll see how this one looks.

I had pretty good luck calibrating my Dell s2409W on my desk with the spyder4. So I haven't lost hope yet.

A site I used for comparing that calibration is http://www.iccview.de/ . It allows a 3d viewing of profiles for comparison. But so far, the LUT profile I did on the crappy lappy wasnt much better than standard sRGB. I think this has to do with that incorrect TRC setting I used. Approximately 80% coverage was reported...rather poor and disappointing.



Jun 28, 2015 at 06:32 PM
howardm4
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #5 · p.1 #5 · Calibrate to 6000k ok? LUT vs Matrix


The sRGB TRC and 2.2gamma TRC are *almost identical*

Laptop displays almost uniformly suck and thinking you're going to get some magic improvement by messing w/ LUT vs. whatever is not correct.

Here's some light reading.......

http://ninedegreesbelow.com/photography/srgb-profile-comparison.html



Jun 28, 2015 at 06:48 PM
Aaron D
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #6 · p.1 #6 · Calibrate to 6000k ok? LUT vs Matrix


Thanks Howard. Light reading....hehehe

I'm running one more calibration. But this time with a 2.4 gamma. I had good luck with that on my desktop.



Jun 28, 2015 at 09:35 PM
Aaron D
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #7 · p.1 #7 · Calibrate to 6000k ok? LUT vs Matrix


Well, after a couple of days of trying different calibration settings, heres what I got, A calibration I ran yesterday gave me slightly better than the LUT cal I ran when I started this thread. The basics: about 112 on white point, 6300k on temp/white level, 79% sRGB gamut coverage and 58% aRGB gamut coverage -

Luminance 111.73 cd/mē
Illuminant-relative CCT 6273K
GAMUT_volume 0.862519616608
GAMUT_coverage(srgb) 0.7883
GAMUT_coverage(adobe-rgb) 0.5762

What a fantastic laptop screen! (insert sarcasm). Just for info, it's a cheap hp 2000-2b19wm.

Just because, here's my thread from a 2013 when I cal'd my desktop monitor (much better I might add). https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1179807

Sigh.....I need to get back to my desktop obviously.



Jun 30, 2015 at 01:33 AM
Aaron D
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #8 · p.1 #8 · Calibrate to 6000k ok? LUT vs Matrix


Well...those 2 or 3 days of attempted calibration were for nothing. While walking with the laptop, one of my cats tripped me up. Screen is toast. :/


Jul 01, 2015 at 10:10 PM





FM Forums | Post-processing & Printing | Join Upload & Sell

    
 

You are not logged in. Login or Register

Username       Or Reset password



This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.