Though different from my previous Dell U2414H, I’ll assume that the calibration is doing its job. It seems gamma in the low end is consistent across subsequent calibrations. I ran a “medium” speed calibration on the Acer XB271HU using the colormunki, and the results are similar to calibration generated at “high” speed. On the Dell these were distinctly visible. On the Acer, the squares from 1-3 are almost invisible, I believe I can just BARELY see them in the dark with my face to the screen. Taking into account what you said about the lagom test patterns in the FAQ, I’m referring to the black level test on that site. Does this mean the colormunki device is able to detect the lower levels better on the display that has a lower black level? (and thus correctly apply the gamma function) I’m measuring close to 0.10, where on the Dell it was about 0.12. The Acer does indeed have a lower black level.
#Colormunki display lcd generic or refresh software
The X-rite software doesn’t seem to offer the options you are referring to.
It depends on the increment step size, but generally yes. Should lower level gray squares be pretty difficult to see on a display calibrated to gamma 2.2? If you want to match them, calibrate the lower black level display to the same (higher) of the other one (and same white level as well obviously). It probably comes down to a difference in contrast – I suspect the Acer to be capable of lower black level than the Dell (although probably not a big difference). The gamma appears lower on the Dell, with darker squares appearing more visible than on the Acer. If the effective bit depth is lower than 8-bit, this might affect the time taken during calibration and the attainable accuracy (although probably only negligibly), because it’ll become harder to match the delta E tolerances due to the coarser sampling. I would assume that when you set i1 Profiler up to create cLUT profiles as well and measure a similar amount of patches (which can be done in the advanced interface), that the differences would become small.įollow up question: does the bit depth of the panel affect the calibration in terms of low level, or near black gamma performance? Possibly, although that probably comes down to the amount of patches measured, and the type of profile created – Displa圜AL measures more than most other profilers and creates cLUT profiles by default. Which software should I trust? 🙂Ĭan I assume that “the more accurate one” means Displa圜al? haha Just wondering if these differences can be attributed to anything, since both programs are calibrating using the same colorimeter. Why would the two softwares be handling gamma so differently in the lower end? Is there a setting in displaycal I should be changing? I see there are settings for black offset and such. The displaycal calibration is lighter in these tones, and boxes 2-5 are distinctly more visible. Using the Lagom LCD test page ( ), calibration with the X-rite software is much darker from boxes 1-10, and in particular boxes 1-3 are barely visible. Is this normal?Īlso the two calibrations are vastly different in the gamma characteristics of the darker gray tones. I’m not surprised theres a difference, but I am surprised at how much of a visual difference there is. The X-rite software looks more green in the whites, while display appears more red.
Compared to calibration from the X-rite software using the same 6500K and gamma 2.2 targets, the displaycal calibration has a warmer white visually. All other settings were left at default, and colorimeter corrections were imported from the software. I configured the RGB balance in displaycal and calibrated to a 6500K target with gamma 2.2, using the “High” speed setting. I’m calibrating an Acer XB271HU (IPS, WLED). I felt like the X-rite software did a decent job, but I decided to give Displa圜al a whirl with the colormunki colorimeter. I’ve also used Displa圜al in the past when I previously had a Spyder4. I’ve been calibrating my displays with the X-rite software for the Colormunki display since I got it.
0 kommentar(er)
