Home Theater Forum and Systems banner

21 - 40 of 77 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
4 Posts
From the update 2.2.12 :

ChromaPure 2.2.12 Release Notes
New Features
Added support for the basICColor Discus colorimeter.
Added support for the Spyder4 colorimeter.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
74 Posts
Looking at the new developments such as 125 pt cms and advanced auto calc and also Calman 5. What, in essence are the differences between the two products that matter, i.e. what has one got but the other doesn't, not just with this new feature but overall.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
178 Posts
Looking at the new developments such as 125 pt cms and advanced auto calc and also Calman 5. What, in essence are the differences between the two products that matter, i.e. what has one got but the other doesn't, not just with this new feature but overall.


Not a huge amount from what I see, though Chromapure have yet to add selectable gamma targets (such as BT1886) but Tom has already said this will be added in a future update. As I already have Chromapure Pro (recently added the autocal upgrade) and have been pleased with the support offered by Tom, I have no reason to change to Calman. For those starting from scratch I think the best thing to do would be to look on both websites and trial software/videos to see which you prefer. I know Calman 3 or 4 seemed much more complicated to me when I was looking and Chromapure just made it all seem so straightforward and demystified the process, but I think Calman 5 is improved in this area.

A calibration done on either software will likely not give any different results (selectable gamma notwithstanding), so it's more to do with how you like the look and operation of the controls, the pricing and which sensor(s) you might use.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
71 Posts
A calibration done on either software will likely not give any different results (selectable gamma notwithstanding), so it's more to do with how you like the look and operation of the controls, the pricing and which sensor(s) you might use.
While that may have been true prior to AutoCal, but now when you're looking at 125 point calibration, it makes a significant difference.

The control for calibrating the Cube is taken out of the users hands and is solely in the realm of the software, so the quality of the software used to manipulate the cube is extremely important. The radiance wasn't the first device CalMAN supported for cube calibration. We'd been working on 3D Lut support for the Film and Video industry were we support devices with many more calibration points, different gamut and gamma requirements, and PC and Video levels support. Not to mention the accuracy demands of those professional environments.

All of that work trickled down to the consumer product and radiance support.

Our software will consistently give the best results for 3D Lut creation.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
178 Posts
I thought I'd given a fairly unbiased post considering that this is a Chromapure thead and I'm a Chromapure user.


I'd be extremely surprised if Chromapure doesn't produce accurate results on the 125 point cube (or rather as accurate as the user's meter allows, which may well be the limiting factor for many of us amateur calibrators anyway).


I've never been a fan of any company putting down their opposition, however subtle...it comes across as unprofessional (to me anyway).
 

·
Plain ole user
Joined
·
11,121 Posts
I would expect that Joel can back up the statement with data. Can we see some test results?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
71 Posts
I thought I'd given a fairly unbiased post considering that this is a Chromapure thead and I'm a Chromapure user.


I'd be extremely surprised if Chromapure doesn't produce accurate results on the 125 point cube (or rather as accurate as the user's meter allows, which may well be the limiting factor for many of us amateur calibrators anyway).


I've never been a fan of any company putting down their opposition, however subtle...it comes across as unprofessional (to me anyway).
My main point was that now the software has taken over the calibration, the end result is out of the users hand.

If you believe chromapure is better I won't argue that, but doing 3D LUT calibration is entirely dependant on the quality of software used.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
71 Posts
I would expect that Joel can back up the statement with data. Can we see some test results?
What would you like to see test results for?

The panel being calibrated is a large component of the results, and I don't want to be said to be bringing in a ringer, but I only have access to so many sets as well.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
14,914 Posts
Discussion Starter #34
Version 2.3.2 is now available for download.

ChromaPure 2.3.2 Release Notes
New Features
  • Enhanced Support for DVDO Duo Video Processor. The Duo now supports window and field test patterns, 5% grayscale test patterns, and colors at multiple saturations and levels of intensity. You can now use the Duo with the Advanced Color Management module and the 75% of Rec. 709 Gamut in the Color Management module.
  • The Plasma mode now incorporates a new burst read mode provided by X-Rite that improves repeatability at low light levels on plasma displays. Our tests show that single readings on plasmas have very good repeatability down to 20% stimulus. To get good repeatability below that you may need to use Measurement Smoothing (but not on auto-cal). Continuous readings are fine at any level.
Bug Fixes
  • Some of the colors when using the constant APL mode in the AccuPel were wrong. This has been fixed.
  • The dE calculations in the Advanced Color Management module at levels of stimulus other than 100% were wrong. This has been fixed.
  • The gamma calculation at 75% in the Pre/Post-Calibration Grayscale module had been calculated incorrectly. This is fixed.
  • Auto-Calibrate was adjusting 5% and 10% grayscale levels correctly in the Lumagen, but it was not setting the Lumagen menus to correspond with this selection correctly. This has been fixed.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
178 Posts
There is an issue with the plasma display reading with this new version, which they are working on. There is a workround I believe, but I don't own a plasma, so I'm not sure what the deal is. Maybe better to wait for a further update for plasma owners. I can find out if anyone does need to know, but I think I can't link directly to the thread as it is on another AV forum.

The last bug fix for the Lumagen was possibly down to a question I asked Tom as I noticed that the 21 point greyscale didn't seem to be saved in the Lumagen after the autocal, just an 11 point one. So it's nice to see that they listen and they do act. :)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11 Posts
As a general rule, whenever someone makes a self-serving claim that invites the reader to draw inferences without any specificity, you should do exactly what you have done: ask for hard data.

Don't hold your breath until you get it.

BTW, other than gamma, there is no inherent difference between calibrating 6 colors at the edge of gamut and calibrating 124 colors throughout the gamut. Color is color. Each has a precise definition and for each error is measured by dE. Mysterious, vague assertions about the magic properties of the "cube" are just marketing hype designed to mislead and manipulate.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
71 Posts
Don't hold your breath until you get it.
Since nobody wanted to give me a specific display to calibrate here's hard data from a VT25. I asked for input 3 posts and month ago and nobody gave me any so I assumed that they didn't care to see the results.

BTW, other than gamma, there is no inherent difference between calibrating 6 colors at the edge of gamut and calibrating 124 colors throughout the gamut. Color is color. Each has a precise definition and for each error is measured by dE. Mysterious, vague assertions about the magic properties of the "cube" are just marketing hype designed to mislead and manipulate.
The Color Cube is a marketing term, because we initially encountered quite a bit of confusion about stereo scopic 3D, so when we'd say 3D LUT they we had many people assume it was for stereoscopic 3D.

The other assertion I'm making about the Calibrating 125+ points is that it's too much to do by hand. Both packages can visualize data well enough that a calibrator should be able to get identical results calibrating 6 points. When you move to 125 points you've turned the calibration over to the software package and their respective algorithms. So the results for a cube calibration are no longer a by product of calibrator skill, but rather the software package they select.
 

Attachments

·
Registered
Joined
·
178 Posts
When you move to 125 points you've turned the calibration over to the software package and their respective algorithms. So the results for a cube calibration are no longer a by product of calibrator skill, but rather the software package they select.
What in particular are you claiming is better (or worse) than Chromapure's 125 point calibration? I have to confess that I don't fully understand the Calman charts, or rather quite what they are trying to convey. [Actually getting my head around the older Calman was the reason I went for Chromapure myself as back then Calman just seemed to make things more complicated, though I believe you've improved that in recent versions].

I suppose what I would want to see is two calibrations on the same display done by Calman and Chromapure, then measured afterwards to show the differences. How this could be done is beyond me (it would be so many measurements too if it had to be done by hand) as the argument would then be which software should be used to check (HFCR? ;) ). Then there could be small inconsistencies from one batch of readings to the next (meter drift?), so could make it hard to tell where the errors/differences are really coming from.

I suspect that in practice it would the meter's accuracy that causes a bigger error anyway, as good as the i1 display Pro is (I'm very pleased with it) that is probably more significant than which software is used. So FWIW I'll stick with the one that I'm happy with as I can't see any point changing now and paying twice and personally I prefer the way that Chromapure do business and conduct themselves on the various forums I visit.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
71 Posts
What in particular are you claiming is better (or worse) than Chromapure's 125 point calibration? I have to confess that I don't fully understand the Calman charts, or rather quite what they are trying to convey. [Actually getting my head around the older Calman was the reason I went for Chromapure myself as back then Calman just seemed to make things more complicated, though I believe you've improved that in recent versions].

I suppose what I would want to see is two calibrations on the same display done by Calman and Chromapure, then measured afterwards to show the differences. How this could be done is beyond me (it would be so many measurements too if it had to be done by hand) as the argument would then be which software should be used to check (HFCR? ;) ). Then there could be small inconsistencies from one batch of readings to the next, so could make it hard to tell where the errors/differences are really coming from.

I suspect that in practice it would the meter's accuracy that causes a bigger error anyway, as good as the i1 display Pro is (I'm very pleased with it) that is probably more significant than which software is used. So FWIW I'll stick with the one that I'm happy with as I can't see any point changing now and paying twice and personally I prefer the way that Chromapure do business.
The big numbers from above are the

dE 2000 average for all 125 points: 0.4
dE 2000 max of the 125 points: 2.4 (for an undersaturated blue)
Total time: 32 minutes.

I would never suggest that someone go out an pay twice, and everyone has their favorite companies.

It is a fact that the software is now the determining factor of the cube calibration, wereas previously it was the skill of the calibrator.

In my opinion, CalMAN produces better results and has more customization options for those targets. I'm willing to post hard data to back that opinion up. CalMAN and Chromapures results should be able to be cross checked with each other, no need for HCFR.
 

·
Plain ole user
Joined
·
11,121 Posts
As a general rule, whenever someone makes a self-serving claim that invites the reader to draw inferences without any specificity, you should do exactly what you have done: ask for hard data.

Don't hold your breath until you get it.

BTW, other than gamma, there is no inherent difference between calibrating 6 colors at the edge of gamut and calibrating 124 colors throughout the gamut. Color is color. Each has a precise definition and for each error is measured by dE. Mysterious, vague assertions about the magic properties of the "cube" are just marketing hype designed to mislead and manipulate.
The point, Tom, is precisely that gamma may vary over the dynamic range of individual colors. The question is how much better is it to use the 125 point system than to use a 6 point system. As Joel pointed out, this would vary with displays. I would like to see the difference between a 6 point calibration and the 125 point calibration, with the data on the points not calibrated from the 6 point method compared to the adjustments that the 125 point system makes. A measure of variance across the points on each color might be meaningful. It would demonstrate the value, if significant, of the 125 point system, and/or be a measure of color accuracy (or lack thereof) in a display.
 
21 - 40 of 77 Posts
Top