madVR - high quality video renderer (GPU assisted)

[WuNgUn]

i'm trying smooth motion over the next few days for reasons I wont bore you with, so far its looking pretty good, no frame drops or glitches, what are the disadvantages using this, is there any loss in PQ at all?Makes films look, err, fake-ish in my opinion... When I have my TV do it, you can sometimes see artifacts in certain, fast motion scenes...
I prefer 24fps look in a movie.
For racing, 50 or 60fps :)

[huhn]

no is not comparable to that...

[mclingo]

I think you are talking about interpolation there on your TV, SMOOTH MOTION is different I think, you dont get the soap opera affect with that.

[el Filou]

is there much to gain PQ wise in 113?from madshi:- Dynamic shadow boost feature is now evaluated after HSTM, not before.
- Scene change detection metric logic modified slightly.
- Improved rendering speed when there are a lot of rendering steps (should be especially helpful for NGU). Please note that the measured average rendering times in the OSD will not change. However, you should now be able to get nearer to the theoretically max possible rendering times without getting frame drops.I agree with this assertion.lmao OK I get it. Enjoy your quest for perfection while the rest of the world enjoys content with the hardware and in the environment they can afford and manufacturers strive on making their experience better.You misunderstand what I'm talking about, I'm talking about the workflow being BLIND.That makes no sense. It's not blind when the display knows several variables (its own max brightness and black level, the content, and the viewing environment) and only adapts the rendering depending on those. Once again, there's a range between rubbish and perfect and this range is what manufacturers are investing in, even if you feel this doesn't concern you.BT1886 being shit is the assertion of color professionals. Even pro color house light illusion recommends against it.It was designed by the industry itself. Reading about BT.1886 on AVS Forum, many professionals have criticized certain calibrating solutions developers because they just can't get it right and have decided that it's bad because of it.The problem is, it looks bad, and almost always heavily distorts the creator's intent.It looks better when using a display with raised blacks and/or in a suboptimal viewing environment like a bright room, all while looking as good as gamma 2.4 on a display with perfect black and a dark viewing environment. Which was the exact goal it was designed for. Also, it cannot distort the creator's intent if the creator's using it. The industry doesn't care for your disdain for anything other than perfect hardware in ideal environment.

[VBB]

Where is the "like" button when you need it...

[tp4tissue]

What I can't figure out at the moment is shadow recovery.

I can't seem to find a scene where it makes a huge difference.

@ Filou

The process is very much blind. The majority of tvs come with really bonkers out of the box performance.

Even basic things like saturation targets are at the wrong angle.

And because consumer displays drift really quickly you can not assume it can hold a D65 white point for very long, or if it even came with one to begin with.

Very often they'll ship with movie mode in 6300 or even 7000+ in color temperature.

I've seen tvs ship with 5500k in movie mode.

They don't adhere to standards, because the Public iis ignorant.
THe public is ignorant because they don't have colorimeters.

Colorimeters make the world go round. it elevates consumer taste, and that will push Manufacturers to innovate, and not just sell people gimmicks.

[Msarc]

They don't adhere to standards, because the Public iis ignorant.
THe public is ignorant because they don't have colorimeters.

Colorimeters make the world go round. it elevates consumer taste, and that will push Manufacturers to innovate, and not just sell people gimmicks.
Before claiming anyone's ignorance, you might want to check the price of a somewhat-decent colorimeter - which is usually upwards of $250. Few people are willing to drop that much on some vague promise of better PQ.
Colorimeters need to drop 9/10th their price before anyone can even hope for them to become widely used, and I don't think that's going to happen any time soon. Wishful thinking and all.

[Tobiwan]

I'm not really understand what madshi did with his "madVRhdrMeasure", is it only a HDR thing or a real new updated version of madVR with bugfixes, tweaks, speedups etc.? I didn't need all the HDR stuff.

Version 0.92.17 is now old, is madVRhdrMeasure113 the newer version of madVR? It's kinda sad that there was no development for madVR anymore or in my opinion it maybe goes the "wrong" direction. I don't wanna be offensive to madshi or someone, I just wanna understand it.

[huhn]

as always he takes a topic like a scaling algorithm then works on that for 1-36 months without touching "anything" else.

currently he is working on HDR and HDR -> SDR conversation.
if you don't care about that topic so be it not everyone cared about error diffusion too that's normal but still a feature he want to add.
there are 113 major test builds i'm ignoring sub builds here this was a ton of work.

[SamuriHL]

Not to mention that he has simultaneously been working on the envy product launch which is now in the hands of Beta testers. The envy shares the same code base as madvr. Given that he's working to finalize that product release he's very focused at the moment. But dynamic tone mapping is far from done as he continues to improve it.

Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk

[nsnhd]

For me, as I watch a lot of 720/1080p on a 4k display, 113 has improved the upscaling significantly. And I think my gtx1060 can hold for longer time.

[ashlar42]

I'm not really understand what madshi did with his "madVRhdrMeasure", is it only a HDR thing or a real new updated version of madVR with bugfixes, tweaks, speedups etc.? I didn't need all the HDR stuff.

Version 0.92.17 is now old, is madVRhdrMeasure113 the newer version of madVR? It's kinda sad that there was no development for madVR anymore or in my opinion it maybe goes the "wrong" direction. I don't wanna be offensive to madshi or someone, I just wanna understand it.
One way to look at it could be: where's the superior Windows option? If the latest madVR release prior to all the development gone into HDR tonemapping and Envy is still superior to all other available options, what's the problem?

I mean, considering that it's all free there should not be a problem ever with this product's development roadmap but, considering that I don't see anything superior being made available... I'm glad that I can still use it, for free.

[Tobiwan]

I'm glad that I can still use it, for free.

madVR was always a great software and I would pay for it to use and support. Envy is now one year announced and still not available for public.

as always he takes a topic like a scaling algorithm then works on that for 1-36 months without touching "anything" else.

I don't get why he does focus one thing for years. I'm only a PC user and Windows change so much stuff, player changes, driver changes, features broke, new features are possible... for a TV user its not a big deal to work with stable but old software because it does nothing change.

I'm will testing now madVRhdrMeasure if it makes a difference for my system. Thanks nsnhd.

[huhn]

because he may like it(if you take the time to pick a around a bit is obvious why). it's free software nothing for us to bother with.

[chros]

I don't get why he does focus one thing for years.
It's easy: business = money :)

113 has improved the upscaling significantly.
Really? What do you reckon by how much?

[huhn]

the scaling isn't better it's cheaper.
the trick was (don't quote me on that) to do the scaling in one shader not in "alot" the transfer from one shader to another seem to cost quite some processing power.
the problem is the rendertimes are not correct anymore 23p may work with 42 ms don't think about it just take it.

[Siso]

I tested the 113 beta, and for me it increased the rendering times, with the last official build 0.92.17 the render times are lower.

[SamuriHL]

He claims the render times are more accurate in 113 than they were in the past and that even though they've "increased" they were in reality always that high. At least that's what madshi said on the avs thread.

[Siso]

He claims the render times are more accurate in 113 than they were in the past and that even though they've "increased" they were in reality always that high. At least that's what madshi said on the avs thread.

Well, I hope it is true.

[el Filou]

As always you need to check GPU clock and % usage to compare efficiency, not just rendering times in the OSD.

I assume a lot of madshi's time is taken up by the Envy and it's fine, he has a product to sell. HDR tone mapping is the rage right now like SD upscale was 10 years ago, and it needs to be as good as possible for the Envy to show a big advantage in the market. A lot of madVR's quality on the PC comes from doing 'foundation' steps in higher quality than the basic DXVA pipeline, but when compared to standalone pro video processors it needs to advertise killer features. NGU is one but other manufacturers have started to do machine learning upscale too (smooth motion is another but I'm not sure how many customers see it as a killer feature); its HDR tone mapping otoh seems to be a notch or two above everything else - especially with high-end projectors where a lot of the money is - and you need dev time to reach such a quality.

[tp4tissue]

Before claiming anyone's ignorance, you might want to check the price of a somewhat-decent colorimeter - which is usually upwards of $250. Few people are willing to drop that much on some vague promise of better PQ.
Colorimeters need to drop 9/10th their price before anyone can even hope for them to become widely used, and I don't think that's going to happen any time soon. Wishful thinking and all.

That price is trivial .

After every calibration, consumer displays can only hold accurate for 300-500 hours of usage. The image quality of TVs begin rotting the moment you turn them on.

The Bottom line on ALL display products is, if you don't have it calibrated, you Don't get what you paid for. All the work the colorist did, the engineering behind the equipment, everything is wasted..

These facts are hidden from the public.

Calibration is like an oil change for your TV. Now that people have multiple devices , computers, tvs, monitors, laptops, A single $250 colorimeter (i1 display pro on sale for $135 during blackfriday, every year for 3-4 years in a row now), An owner can fully calibrate all of his devices. The typical family with 2 Tvs, 2 Laptops, 1 Desktop, that's $135/5, $27 to calibrate each devices + recalibrate at any time, and they'll stay in shape as long as the backlight holds.

How is that not worth it. This is clear cut, people don't buy colorimeters because they're ignorant of the benefits, not because they can't afford it. :D

[tp4tissue]

One way to look at it could be: where's the superior Windows option? If the latest madVR release prior to all the development gone into HDR tonemapping and Envy is still superior to all other available options, what's the problem?

I mean, considering that it's all free there should not be a problem ever with this product's development roadmap but, considering that I don't see anything superior being made available... I'm glad that I can still use it, for free.

THERE are no other options. Madvr is the Only end to end solution for PC playback that supports 3DLut. This is the single most important feature of video playback.

He's cornered the market I tells ya... :D

Movie director says red
Costume design makes red
Actor wears red
Camera captures Red
Editor cuts RED
Colorist Adjusts RED

Without calibration , the TV Goes, I'm pretty sure you mean't Green, wait, how bout orange, Green or orange, I'mma flip between these two colors every once in a while. < this is what people are watching >

[SamuriHL]

NGU is one but other manufacturers have started to do machine learning upscale too (smooth motion is another but I'm not sure how many customers see it as a killer feature);

I believe he also said at one point that when HDR dynamic tone mapping is done he had some thoughts on new scaling algorithms that might take advantage of the RTX cores. He did mention that he wasn't sure if that'd make it into madvr (at least the free version, possibly reserved for pro) or not. None of this should be taken as fact as it's usually madshi just laying out what he hopes will happen from time to time. But that could be fun to see.

[tp4tissue]

I believe he also said at one point that when HDR dynamic tone mapping is done he had some thoughts on new scaling algorithms that might take advantage of the RTX cores. He did mention that he wasn't sure if that'd make it into madvr (at least the free version, possibly reserved for pro) or not. None of this should be taken as fact as it's usually madshi just laying out what he hopes will happen from time to time. But that could be fun to see.

Definitely see an advantage to buying a seperate device that's uniform and easy to support for madshi.

It's the total package of madvr that makes it great, not any single feature.

That said, 3DLut color correction is the cornerstone of Madvr's absolute dominance.

[SamuriHL]

You know, I see you beating on the calibration drum an awful lot. Which is fine and all. But you'd think if you were so passionate about it, you'd invest in a real colorimeter like a Klein instead of the i1d3 toy most of us are using. After all, if accuracy is the end all and be all of video watching, then having a real meter to measure and calibrate your display with should be paramount. Not to mention you bring up panel drift while measuring....well, if you want to avoid that, you need a FAST, accurate meter. Otherwise, while you're improving things with the i1d3, it's not nearly as accurate as it should be. :)

[huhn]

there is at least one player i know that can use 3D LUT too...

[SirMaster]

madVR was always a great software and I would pay for it to use and support. Envy is now one year announced and still not available for public.



I don't get why he does focus one thing for years. I'm only a PC user and Windows change so much stuff, player changes, driver changes, features broke, new features are possible... for a TV user its not a big deal to work with stable but old software because it does nothing change.

I'm will testing now madVRhdrMeasure if it makes a difference for my system. Thanks nsnhd.


The Envy is available to the public. Some public have one already right now.

https://www.avsforum.com/forum/37-video-processors/3053602-madvr-envy-anticipation-thread-63.html#post59273432

[huhn]

it's not they are test models and still under NDA.
wrong thread BTW.

[tp4tissue]

You know, I see you beating on the calibration drum an awful lot. Which is fine and all. But you'd think if you were so passionate about it, you'd invest in a real colorimeter like a Klein instead of the i1d3 toy most of us are using. After all, if accuracy is the end all and be all of video watching, then having a real meter to measure and calibrate your display with should be paramount. Not to mention you bring up panel drift while measuring....well, if you want to avoid that, you need a FAST, accurate meter. Otherwise, while you're improving things with the i1d3, it's not nearly as accurate as it should be. :)

It's not just the meter, the consumer panels themselves can't hold a tight tolerance.

You have to buy the tools to match the job, I can't afford a $40,000 colorist panel, I'm not going to buy a $7000 colorimeter + $10,000 spectro.

@ the level of home movie watching, i1d3 is perfectly placed, affordable, and it works.

To get any more accurate, and STAY accurate, you need a temperature controlled system for the tv and tools.

[mclingo]

Hiya, this is the same as everything we buy really, the more your spend and the more time you have to set things up the better it will be, however with something like PQ this is so subjective it can often render the calibration process meaningless to most people. And I'm not just talking about people who turn their TV on, dont change any settings and think it looks great, my mates got his OLED calibrated and to my eye it looks no better than mine.

I think you are in a ludicrously tiny minority here what you appear to require an insanely anal level of accuracy which if were compared side by side to fairly high end TV uncalibrated like the recent panny's or 2019 LG OLEDs you'd see little difference, or the difference would not justify the time and money spent to close the gap.

This isnt too say I dont agree with everything you're saying and there is nothing wrong at all with aspiring to get the best out of your equipment, its just the way your are communicating this I cant agree with where you are essentially saying we're all watching TV's like look like sh*t.

:)

[SamuriHL]

Let's put it this way, in the Calman thread there's a couple people who, when asked about calibration and whether it's worth it, have basically said it all depends. The LG OLEDs are a lottery. You could end up with one that comes tuned from the factory and not need any calibration. Others deviate quite a bit and can really use a good calibration. But without measuring it you can't really know what you have. The general advice from these people is this....if you are happy with the results you get out of the box, leave it alone. When I measure my C8 with factory settings, I see a deviation error of 5 or 6. Meaning yes, it's visible to the human eye. But to the majority of people out there? Throwing that thing in technicolor mode and leaving it alone is going to be more than sufficient. So while I get that calibration is useful, and I calibrate mine, for a majority of people it's likely overkill on a decent panel. But that's just my opinion. To me, madvr's algorithms are vastly more important than a flawless calibration.

[mclingo]

well i guess if we all agreed this would be a very dull thread, its certainly good to thrash these issues out as long as we can all keep it friendly :)

[tp4tissue]

There's no such thing as Good out of the box. It's only OK because the buyer wishes to remain Ignorant of what Good is.

That's their right as owners, but it doesn't mean the Panel is doing right, the panel is still wrong.

Even if it was the case with luck, and you win the lottery on a good panel, it doesn't STAY accurate. The first 100 hours it changes ALOT,

Then at 300-500 it stabilizes somewhat (having already drifted quite a bit).

You're not paying for the drill bit, you're paying for the hole.

You don't pay for the TV, you pay for the tv to get the MOVIE to you in the way that it's intended to be seen.

Without calibration, you don't get all of what you pay for, you're getting a crooked hole that's not drilled through all the way.

With all the money for madvr hdr, it's $500-800 computer + $500-1500 TV, it's silly to stop short at the $150 colorimeter (sale price i1dp) ?

Without which the image is 100% borked.

[SamuriHL]

Don't get me wrong, I think calibration is important as obviously I spent the money to get the equipment and software to do it myself. But to say that it's the end all be all of video watching is a stretch. There are a LOT of factors that go into the picture quality that you get on the screen. Calibration is simply ONE of those factors. Raising it up to be above all others is, IMO, not helpful. Calibration is a tool. But so is buying a decent panel or projector, the size of your room, the amount of ambient light you're dealing with, and a 100 other realities that people deal with. EVERYTHING we do in the video world is a set of compromises. It's a matter of picking which things to compromise more on than others. There's nothing wrong with saying calibration can help in a lot of areas...as that can be true. But saying that if you don't calibrate anything you watch is wrong, well, I'm not buying that. Especially given what I've seen with my own equipment. This goes back to what I said in the OLED thread....generalized statements that don't account for ALL the variables often lead to the wrong conclusions.

[tp4tissue]

But saying that if you don't calibrate anything you watch is wrong, well, I'm not buying that. Especially given what I've seen with my own equipment. This goes back to what I said in the OLED thread....generalized statements that don't account for ALL the variables often lead to the wrong conclusions.

It Begins and Ends with calibration.

It is by far the most critical step. Without which the world has no order.

I've already said, OK, if anarchy is the choice of the viewer, that's fine.

However, His choice does not alter what's right and wrong.


You're tasked to drill a hole, do you get paid for not completing this task.

Maybe in this case, you get a fee for just showing up and lifting some boxes, but to get full payment, You have to drill the hole.

So, the guy buys the tv, and he just watches it, OK, he's lifted some boxes. Fine, if he's content with just that, again fine.

It doesn't change the fact that this person didn't go all the way, and skipped a critical step to the day's work. He showed up, but didn't finish.

[mclingo]

if you truly believe what you're saying I genuinely feel sorry for you, if must be very debilitating to be this anal about your TV accuracy, the rest of us are just doing our best with what we have and happily just getting on with enjoying our movies.

[VBB]

The funny thing is that the rest of us at least have OLEDs, which makes the most sense, if you really care about picture quality. That's basically step one right there. Then comes the i1D3, but without a spectro to match, you still have no idea how accurate your calibration really is.

tp4tissue, do yourself a favor and go over to AVS and read some of the recent posts by liberator72, jrref, mrtickleuk, and even our own SamuriHL. Talk about passion...

[SamuriHL]

I go back to my point that if you care that much about calibration then you should NOT accept the results of a 250 dollar meter. Because that meter is not accurate enough to calibrate to the professional standards you claim to care about. Then you say it's not worth it on a consumer display because they are also not able to represent the accuracy of a professional studio quality screen. Yea. No kidding. That's kind of the point we're making here. That for all your talk of calibration, you're still not 100% accurate and never will be with the equipment you're using. But yet you tell others that if you don't calibrate they're wrong. Calibrating with the wrong tools isn't exactly right. :)

@vbb yup lol

[mclingo]

after some time you will start seeing the ghosting it creates.

Hi, you were right, I lasted about 30 mins with it, its very subtle but its there, its not present with tru motion, I actually find this works really well for my Lg OLED, its likely just be a personal taste thing though.

[SamuriHL]

Yea I don't use it either. I find a LITTLE tru motion goes a long way. Some people love SM though.

[tp4tissue]

The funny thing is that the rest of us at least have OLEDs, which makes the most sense, if you really care about picture quality. That's basically step one right there. Then comes the i1D3, but without a spectro to match, you still have no idea how accurate your calibration really is.

tp4tissue, do yourself a favor and go over to AVS and read some of the recent posts by liberator72, jrref, mrtickleuk, and even our own SamuriHL. Talk about passion...

I owned an oled for a short amount of time. I really like the picture too.

What I couldn't accept is how fragile they are, there was clearly bad retention for me in the month i tested it out. It made no sense to stay on oled, when LMCL is right around the corner, and makes oled obsolete.

It doesn't come down to price, even a $3000 tv, over the course of 5 years, that's really nothing.

But Every waking moment at the PC, I gotta add an extra few steps to my usage routine just to not burn in the menu, or take time to consider if a UI would affect the uniformity, That's truly insane.

Picture quality is the most important thing, but OLED is not the solution, it never was, and probably won't be for 10-15 years.

Meanwhile, LMCL this year, all day panel.

[tp4tissue]

I go back to my point that if you care that much about calibration then you should NOT accept the results of a 250 dollar meter. Because that meter is not accurate enough to calibrate to the professional standards you claim to care about. Then you say it's not worth it on a consumer display because they are also not able to represent the accuracy of a professional studio quality screen. Yea. No kidding. That's kind of the point we're making here. That for all your talk of calibration, you're still not 100% accurate and never will be with the equipment you're using. But yet you tell others that if you don't calibrate they're wrong. Calibrating with the wrong tools isn't exactly right. :)

@vbb yup lol

You're wrong, i said it's not worth it to buy $10000 meters on a consumer screens because they're not able to HOLD the accuracy of a studio screen.

There's a difference, YES you can make them more accurate with better measurement tools, but they can't hold that accuracy for long enough to make usage practical.

I've said you need the right tools for the right job.

For any consumer panel, va, oled, any of um', i1d3 is the right tool. And it works within the usage tolerance of these panels.

[SamuriHL]

For any consumer panel, va, oled, any of um', i1d3 is the right tool. And it works within the usage tolerance of these panels.

I'm sorry, but, it's nonsense. You absolutely CAN NOT know that you've improved things with an i1d3 that has not been properly profiled. Period. Full stop. You can absolutely make the picture FAR worse with a bad calibration than if you just left it alone. This is a fact. And without profiling your meter against a spectro, you don't know for sure whether you've made it better or worse. So you can sit here and talk about the magic of calibration and accuracy all you want, but, the tool you're using doesn't allow you to know for SURE that you're more accurate than it was before. This is one of the topics we've been discussing in depth in the Calman thread.

[tp4tissue]

I'm sorry, but, it's nonsense. You absolutely CAN NOT know that you've improved things with an i1d3 that has not been properly profiled. Period. Full stop. You can absolutely make the picture FAR worse with a bad calibration than if you just left it alone. This is a fact. And without profiling your meter against a spectro, you don't know for sure whether you've made it better or worse. So you can sit here and talk about the magic of calibration and accuracy all you want, but, the tool you're using doesn't allow you to know for SURE that you're more accurate than it was before. This is one of the topics we've been discussing in depth in the Calman thread.


It comes down to what you're trying to improve. The goal of calibration is not to acheive lab accuracy. It's to replicate the artistic intent of the deliverable, (if possible make it look nice).

You fundamentally misunderstand the application of colorimetry if your goal is absolute accuracy.

It'd be nice, but that's not the point of including calibration in the loop.

Having calibration, as i've said in the beginning, is to at the very least remove the blindness of the output devices.

And your statements are blatently false. You can not make a panel worse, unless the spec correction is for the wrong panel.

Maybe back when we had CCFLs and very unstable phosphors that was the case, but in the case of the LEDs, and the Newer generation quantum films, they're very very stable over time, in fact probably OLED is the least stable among all the panel techs out..

Whether or not we know it's accurate is irrelevant. This is the limit of what is possible with consumer devices, these are the product options, and that's that, we do the best with what we've got.

[SamuriHL]

Oh you definitely CAN make it worse. These meters are all over the place in terms of accuracy. So if you think your 250 dollar meter is as accurate as a 7000 Klein you're simply wrong. There's a reason they sell the Spectracal C6 for 700 bucks even though it's literally a rebranded i1d3. It's because they've certified the accuracy of it. When you buy a retail i1d3, until you profile it, you simply don't know how accurate it is. If you calibrate with a meter that is not profiled, you absolutely can make a TV worse. We have tons and tons of posts in the Calman thread to prove that point. This is why most people who care about accuracy get their meter profiled against their tv with a spectro. I have not, so, even I can't trust my calibration results. To me it definitely looks better but I've no way to validate that other than my own eyeballs. There's another whole discussion about whether to use the Lightspace generated EDR for the i1d3 with Calman or to use raw. Because the EDR was profiled against a WOLED panel that is identical to the C8. That's what I use, and I definitely have better results using it. But, what would be better is to profile the meter with a spectro against my C8 directly. Then I'd know for sure that the results I get are accurate. Otherwise, we're just hoping the meter is "close enough". And the retail version of this meter is another lottery. Some are quite accurate. Some aren't.

[tp4tissue]

You're projecting your own poor comprehension. I never said a 250 meter is as accurate as a Klein.

You absolutely CAN NOT make a TV worse as long as the right spectro correction is used, even with a $150 meter.

Even in the cases where the spectral distribution has drifted or is inaccurate, using only a colorimeter will still dramtically decrease the Average error.

We don't NEED TO KNOW how accurate it is. This is not possible or necessary, I don't know why you're stuck on this point, because I never claimed otherwise.

I never said anything about validation, because we don't have the tools or the panels to justify it.

I've only ever said, we need calibration in the loop. Without which it's a mess due to factory tuning. And along the way, I've corrected some of your ramblings.

Nothing you've been harping on conflicts with what I've said. You've created some invisible enemy in your mind, I have no idea who you're arguing with.

[SamuriHL]

Maybe I'm "stuck on that point" because I've been working on calibrating my C8 with people who are considered very experienced in doing it for the past several months. But hey, what do I know. What exactly does calibration mean without knowing what the results are? Let me give you just a small example of what I mean....this meter is not very good at handling low light level situations, which really SUCK for calibrating an OLED because there's no backlight to measure again. So if you just blow through an autocal like they tell you to do, you're going to have very messed up levels in the lower end of the grayscale. And when the 3DLUT is calculated based on that screwed up grayscale measurement and adjustment, guess what happens to the picture quality? My only point that I'm making is that not all "calibrations" are equal. Just like you're not accepting someone manually adjusting a TV with their eyes because that's error prone, I'm saying using a meter that isn't profiled against reference equipment is also error prone. But if you don't want to believe and accept that, it's perfectly fine.

[tp4tissue]

I'm saying using a meter that isn't profiled against reference equipment is also error prone. But if you don't want to believe and accept that, it's perfectly fine.

All meters are profiled against referenced equipment, if they weren't they wouldn't be meters.

The spectral correction from a different meter, is to tailor the colorimeter even closer to the true value.

What exactly are you saying I don't believe, I've gone through the same work flow and talk to the same people you have.


I'm sorry to hear autocal didn't work out for you, it seems like you're mad at me, for LG's incompetance.

I never said all calibrations are equal. Why are you saying that I've made all these arguments I haven't made.

[SamuriHL]

What I'm saying is that you keep beating on people that calibration is the end all be all of everything video. And what I'm saying to you is that it's NOT that simple. You can screw things up with a bad calibration, whether you want to believe it or not.

[tp4tissue]

Nothing is screwed up by the calibration.

The panel itself, its software, and its black roll-offs are at fault. Not the meter or the calibration process in it of itself.

And at the end of the day, if the calibration doesn't work, Nothing is worse, it's still as good or bad as you've bought it. settings could be changed back.

So again, you are incorrect in insinuating that a calibration can make a panel worse, it clearly has not and CAN NOT.

And a spectral correction also would not help with your issue. because those corrections don't affect the black roll offs. LG is going to implement the new 1-3% gamma adjust to address this exact issue.