[argyllcms] Re: EyeOne Pro Not Calibrating Properly
- From: Timothy Hattenberger <thattenberger@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: argyllcms@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Thu, 4 Dec 2008 18:37:21 -0800
On Dec 4, 2008, at 5:56 02AM, Graeme Gill wrote:
Timothy Hattenberger wrote:
I plugged in a recently re-certified Eye One and argyll recognized
it fine. I then calibrate on the white tile, and proceed to
setting the monitor luminance. I just calibrated this display last
evening with an I12 and set it to ~124 cd/m2, but the I1 Pro
measured it at approximately ~178cd/m2. So I used the EyeOne match
software with the I1 Pro to see what was going on, and that
measured properly (~125 cd/m2).
Which version of Argyll are you using ?
V1.0.3
I think the problem is that when I do a calibration of the I1 Pro
in EyeOne Match, it turns the light on and takes a reflectance
measurement of the white tile. The light does NOT come on when
calibrating using Argyll, which I think I can convince myself would
lead to the artificially high measurements.
You are doing an emissive measurement, and since there is no
absolute emissive reference available, the only calibration
possible is black level calibration. The light will only
come on when doing a reflective calibration, where there is
an absolute reference available (the white tile).
EyeOne Match is doing an (unnecessary) reflective
calibration, along with the dark calibration performed
for both emissive and reflective measurement, Argyll is not.
Right I understand that it's emissive, and there's not absolute
standard, but was not that sure of Gretag's calibration procedure. So
this makes sense.
I tried calibrating on a dark surface and also with no calibration
(-N) and got the same results. Any ideas? I pasted the dispcal
command below and also the data Argyll reads for the instrument
upon dispcal initialization.
Getting the absolute calibration right is tricky. It depends a lot
on the geometry (the direction of the light being measured, and
the sensitivity of the instrument to light from different directions).
I remember doing an experiment before measuring these LCDs with a
PR650 across the max tilt angles of the display and it not varying
that significantly. I suspect that then that if there's any
sensitivity to angle it may be with the instruments (radiometer vs.
irradiometer. )
I've seen different instruments disagree by += 50% when measuring
the same source of light. Certainly my i1d2 and i1pro's don't really
agree with each other, even when using Gretags drivers (see below).
True, but when you measure the same display with the i1pro using
Argyll and then i1pro using EyeOne Match it appears they give you <1%
difference. But when I do I was getting the >40% error.
The disparity might well be greater on LCD displays, since LCDs
have a much narrower emission angle, and the i1pro is much more
directional than the i1d2.
So if we're calibrating/profiling a bunch of displays in our facility
using Argyll, then we should pick one instrument or the other because
there's really no good absolute luminance with these instruments? I
guess I could come up with a fudge factor and normalize both
instruments to the PR650. Unless of course we're using the EyeOne
Match software, which somehow appears to give the same result. Which
is right? Any ideas?
The current Argyll drivers return results that are (as far
as I can tell) identical in absolute calibration to
the results using the Gretag/X-Rite drivers, so there's not much
more I can do but rely on their factory calibration.
It's not clear to me whether EyeOne Match is second guessing
the factory calibration (it may be, particularly if it marries
a particular instrument to a particular display), and/or whether
you are using an older version of Argyll. If the former is the case,
then they will be in trouble if X-Rite get their act together and
start calibrating their i1d2's and i1pro's against the same
standard :-)
I will try to call XRITE, but it will be tricky to navigate this since
Argyll is not supported. Any other ideas?
With the instruments I have, measuring the same spot on my CRT
using the Argyll drivers:
i1pro rev D: 58.20
i1pro rev A: 52.70
i2 disp 2 41.01
DTP94 42.11
Using the gretag drivers:
i1pro rev D: 57.72
i1pro rev A: 52.37
i2 disp 2 41.38
(Note that my display drifted a couple of cd/m2 over the course of
the measurements.)
Using an LCD display:
Using the Argyll drivers:
i1pro rev D: 258.56
i1pro rev A: 243.40
i2 disp 2 186.13
DTP94 186.74
Using the gretag drivers:
i1pro rev D: 262.70
i1pro rev A: 244.34
i2 disp 2 184.42
[ I did come across an interesting bug in investigating this, and
it's a bug I suspect that the Gretag/X-Rite driver suffers from as
well:
The threshold that is used to detect when the sensor is over range
(saturated)
is when an average of 10 spectral bands are over a threshold of
sensor
full scale. In the case of peaky light sources (such as displays),
it's
perfectly possible for a measurement to be under this number, and
yet for the measurement numbers to be quite measurably affected.
So it turns out that my automatic switch of display integration time
from 2.0 seconds to 1.0 second for bright displays isn't happening
when it should, and measurements of display brightness's around 275
cd/m^2
or over are being distorted. I will fix this by setting a zero
tolerance
for over-range, and allowing for 3 different display measurement
integration times in the future. ]
Graeme Gill.
Thanks,
Tim H.
_____________________________________________________________________
The information contained in this message and its attachments is
confidential and proprietary to LAIKA, Inc. By opening this email
or any of its attachments, you agree to keep all such information
confidential and not to use, distribute, disclose or copy any part
of such information without the prior written consent of LAIKA,
Inc. If you are not the intended recipient of this message, any use,
distribution, disclosure or copying of such information is prohibited.
If received in error, please contact the sender.
Other related posts:
