Studio XPS 16 1080p RGBLED Settings?

I just received my Spyder 3 and I have recalibrated the screen using a gamma of 2.2 and a colour of 6500k (as per the documentation recommendation).

Attached is the 2009-11-09 Profile 1.icm.txt (delete the .txt file as usual)

Profile 1 is created using the bundled software which didnt seem to give me the option to choose between icc2 and icc4 profiles which I thought it would.

What does everyone think to that profile??

I am going to try and use the demo version of Coloureyes to see if that gives me a different profile.

 

i really dont understand why you guys keep on trying to calibrate this screen ???
i use stock profiles (just saturation on 80% instead of 100%...thats it)

im a photographer myself and print out pictures all time with my SXPS 16 and the result becomes great.
(Red, Green, Blue looks awesome after printing, no issues at all)

maybe (just maybe) Samsungs make this 5448-screens in different factory's around the world and there by the quality gets slightly different ??

 

Mark, thanks a lot for your try, but to frankly speaking, your spyder2express one looks better, as it has more contrast and brightness as to me...

But please, keep on trying with Coloreyes, I feel that it can create a different result. Keep in touch!

Oh, I don't think so. The hardware and firmaware (if any at all for these screens) should be the same. Your words would be right, should you have a screen from, say, LG, as it was the case with some SXPS, reported over here..

 

Don't be a party pooper KSMB.
Marks done great work, we have high hopes for him....

 

The new profile looks great and especially the blues are better (for example the facebook logo). But you should try out a version where you set the white point at it's native value. As discussed earlier, that will preserve the screen's brightness.

 

Mark I have to say that's the best profile to date. Yes the brightness is reduced slightly but wow everything is just spot on, I love it. The white balance especially is the best of any profile.

Thank you so much for all the time and money you've spent on this.

 

Ok its fine if your happy with your results, I just want to ensure my photo workflow is 100% correct and I dont want to guess if its correct. If you wanted you could actually calibrate your display as well as your printer, heres a great video from John Arnolds podcast who uses the ColorMunki:
http://www.photowalkthrough.com/2009/05/pw96-colormunki-video-review/
Its interesting to see the end of this video where he compares the results.

The built in software with the Spyder 3 Pro was run with the default 6500k white value that produced this latest ICC profile ("2009-11-09 Profile 1.icm" above).

I did try and use the Coloureye demo but it crashed. One neat feature of coloureyes is it will measure the white point and then use that as part of its calibration. It gives you a K, X and Y value as per this chart:
http://static.photo.net/attachments/bboard/00C/00C0CJ-23143884.jpg

I measure the actual white value and then use the Coloureyes software again tonight (when its dark) and generate two profiles, ICC2 and ICC4. Again the only settings I will change will be to set my brightness using the FN-UP/DOWN buttons to 7 bars out of 15 which seems to give me a decent level at all lighting conditions.

By the way - i am using 64 bit Windows 7 and I assume that the best colour managed browser to use on this platform is "Firefox-3.5.5.en-US.win64.installer.zip‎ (3.5.5)" from here:
http://wiki.mozilla-x86-64.com/Firefoxownload

 

UPDATE: Just found a good couple of articles about 6500k white and also about monitor calibration that are worth reading....

http://blog.alex-kunz.de/2007/10/6500k.html

http://blog.alex-kunz.de/search/label/calibration

 

UPDATE: Just as a test (will run it properly tonight) i checked the
"white point target" using coloureyes and it gave a reading of the following:

x: 0.3050 y: 0.3242 Y: 127.2450
CCT: 7029K dE: 2.02

 

Thanks for all your efforts, Mark.
I won't be able to run your latest profile till the weekend, looking forward to it.

 

Does anyone know how to change the calibration for windows 7?

 

Im getting this laptop soon.
So whats the overall census? Should I opt for the RGB?
I dont want to have headaches from trying to calibrate this thing. I see only a handful of people actually say its perfect.

 

it is a perfect display. with a little bit of tuning (namely, activation of respective color profile which you can find on this thread) you get outstanding colors, without oversaturation or whatever.

even if you're not a professional photographer, you might find RGB very much candy when watching movies, pictures on the web, or playing the games. i'd highly recommend you this screen, especially if there are any offers on it (lately i've seen it on dell's site for just $175 instead of $250). good luck!

 

Without question get the RGB. I've just ordered a WLED for a neighbour and it's not a patch on my RGB. Calibration takes a couple of minutes with these excellent profiles being posted so that's not a concern.

 

ok managed to create four new profiles as follows:

1) 2009-11-10 - Spyder3Pro 2 ICCv2.icm
2) 2009-11-10 - Spyder3Pro 2 ICCv4.icm
3) 2009-11-10 - Coloreyes 1 ICCv2.icm
4) 2009-11-10 - Coloreyes 1 ICCv4.icm

The names should be explainitory of what they are and how I created them. Just a note that profiles 1 & 2 where created with a 6500k white balance (i dont get the choice in the Spyder3Pro profile to measure actual value) but in the ColourEyes I do (it was measured with Fn-UP/DOWN set to 7 bars out of 15 and it came out at 6024k in a completely dark room).

I havent had time to check these yet but in theory for those of us that include web browsing as part of our photo workflow (and I assume that means firefox) then that means using profile 3 above.

I would be very keen to get feedback on these profile and this display to see if we are heading in the right direction here !?!!?

Thanks

Mark

 

The contrast seems too low on those Coloreyes profiles.

We have so many to choose from now!

Think I'll be sticking with those latest Spyder3Pro profiles.

EDIT: There's just something not right about the profiles with the cooler temperatures. Greys seem almost purple tinted compared to the native screen temperature profiles. It's very noticeable in the Windows GUI boxes. Does anyone else notice it? It's a shame as I prefer the cooler white balance.

 

Hmm - ok i might try and recreate the Coloureyes profile but hardcoding the white balance set at 6500k rather than the measured value. The odd thing was that this measured white value changed from 6000k to 7000k depending on if I had the light on in the room I was using.

I dont suppose this laptop has some kind of auto white balance that changes depending on the ambient light in the room?

I also noticed that when you touch the display on the RGBLED it moves in about 1-2mm (most normal LCD display have a hard surface) which tells me that he spyder sensor isnt getting a total seal around onto the display thus light leakage might be an issue (thats why I did it in a completely dark room).

 

Can a mod/admin edit the first post with the correct values? Going through 37 pages for that isn't really appealing for me...

 

Read the thread backwards then.

If it's not that appealing to you why are you on a forum exactly???

 

@mark.carline

How would I make these profiles work for Windows 7 64 bit? I'm just loading them directly into Windows Color Management profiles and its saying "The parameter is incorrect". Do I need to change the filetype?

Edit: Working I think. Hmm.

 

Are you removing the .txt extension so it loads as an .icm file?

 

Strange. None of the posted profiles are working in Firefox. It could be that they all are ICC version 4. From what I can see using ICC Inspector, at least "2009-11-10 - Spyder3Pro 2 ICCv2" is an ICC4 profile. I'm unsure about "2009-11-10 - Coloreyes 1 ICCv2", but since it's not recognized in Firefox I believe it's ICC4.

The color accuracy, from what I can tell using Lightroom, seems pretty similar to your first Spryder3 profile (6500k), i.e.spot on

It would be nice if you could doublecheck that the profiles you named ICCv2 actually are V2. Would be interesting to test the color accuracy in Firefox as well.

Does it work for you in Firefox? (I'm using 3.5.5)

 

lol.

10chars

 

yes I am using 3.5.5 but the 64bit version. I have enabled this:
https://developer.mozilla.org/En/ICC_color_correction_in_Firefox
and set gfx.color_management.mode to 1.

Your right about the profile:
2009-11-10 - Coloreyes 1 ICCv2.icm
in that it doesn't colour correct in FF but this profile works fine:
2009-11-10 - Spyder3Pro 2 ICCv2.icm

When I use "ICC Profile Inspector" on these two profiles the version details say the following:
2009-11-10 - Coloreyes 1 ICCv2.icm - 0x2000000
2009-11-10 - Spyder3Pro 2 ICCv2.icm - 0x2400000

EDIT: I double, double checked this last night and its correct. As a result of this the profile I am using (that I am also happy with the results with) is the "Spyder3Pro 2 ICCv2.icm". All my colour managed apps work fine with it. The only problem (i guess) is that this profile was produced with a fixed target white point of 6500k and there is some further tweeking we could do with the "hardware controls of your LCD monitor" to get us to 6500k before we then calibrate. I'm reading up about this at the moment (but ideally this should have been done using the Spyder 3 Ellite" rather than the "pro"

 

Hi! Have been away for a couple of days, will test the new profiles pronto. Looking forward to it

 

ok - suggest that if you want colour managed browser and your using firefox then this is the one to use:

2009-11-10 - Spyder3Pro 2 ICCv2.icm

 

This could be the explanation for the differing white balance results - the edge-to-edge glass is pretty thick and there may well be leakage because the colorimeter sits on the glass and not on the display itself - good catch! A totally dark room (as dark as possible) is probably needed.

 

Thank you, I will try all icc2 profiles (Firefox currently cant use icc4 but may support it again soon.)

Also, I use Firefox 32bit (not the 64bit version) on windows7 64 because many ubiquitous plugins such as flash and quicktime are 32-bit only at this time. If you want to see flash or quicktime content, you'll need to stick with the 32bit version for now. Which is par for the course btw, many popular apps are still not 64bit native but the 32bit versions run well on a 64bit OS.

 

My first impression: Of the recent profiles, I like 2009-11-09 Profile 1 the most; I get very similar results with 2009-11-10 Spyder3Pro 2 ICCv2 but the contrast is a little better with Profile 1.

 

I believe all profiles posted by Mark over the last few days have correct icc version tags. I see the same as Mark in ICC Profile Inspector and it matches up with the version details in the windows 7 color management control panel (you can check the icc version by going to "All Profiles", then select any individual profile. Some metadata including the version info appears underneath)

2009-11-09 Profile 1: v2.4.0 (inspector: 0x2400000)
2009-11-10 Spyder3Pro 2 ICCv2: v2.4.0 (inspector: 0x2400000)
2009-11-10 - Coloreyes 1 ICCv2: v2.0.0 (inspector: 0x2000000)
Both of these should work properly with Firefox 3.5x; please double-check your settings if they do not.

2009-11-10 - Coloreyes 1 ICCv4: v4.0.0 (inspector: 0x4000000)
2009-11-10 Spyder3Pro 2 ICCv4: v4.0.0 (inspector: 0x4000000)

Can someone try the following and give me a (subjective, totally unscientific) report of what they see?

- While using your preferred icc profile, make a new file in Lightroom, Photoshop or other color-managed app tagged with the sRBG color space. Fill it with the hex color #7A714F.
- Would you describe the color you see as more brownish/gray or more olive-green?

Perhaps if a manual white point calibration was done with ColorEyes in a completely dark room?

 

One thing to watch out for with the windows 7 CMM controls: make sure you add the color profiles only to the system-wide device tab, not the user-account-specific device tab. If you have color profiles in both the user account and the system-wide tabs, it's easy to get confused over which profile is currently set. If you are testing for CMM in the browser, don't forget to restart Firefox every time you switch profiles.

The first tab you see when you open the color management control panel is the Device tab for your user account. The Device tab for the system-wide settings is accessible from Advanced » Change System Defaults. When you go there, you see the System wide Device tab in a new window. Add the color profiles here and remove any additional color profiles from the user-account specific tab. Set your default profile in the system-wide tab and close both control panel windows.

 

After looking at this video, I believe the third value in the first row is the measured white luminance value in candelas (127.2450 cd/cm2). The measured color temperature is quite a bit cooler than 6500K (7029K).

The first two values in row 1 (x 0.3.50, 0.3242) are the x/y values that correspond to the color temperature (7029K) (i.e. the Plankian Locus shown in the CIE chromaticity diagram Mark added to his other post).

The last value is deltaE, the difference between the calibrated white point and the target white point. Any value less than 3 is acceptable according to the video, but smaller values indicate better performance of the white point calibration applied by the software.

 

It's hard to describe exactly the color, but it seems like a washed out olive green (lacking some green). Brownish/gray is not a good description since there's not much brown to it. A muted olive green with a tiny touch of brown seems to be a better description. But of course I'm not an expert on describing colors, and I might be completely wrong.

But why did you pick exactly this color? The reason why I react is because it looks almost identical in non-color mangaged applications (full screen Windows image gallery).

PS. I'm using the first Spyder 3 profile he posted (6500k, Win 7), but did the test with the others as well. They all seem pretty similiar, except the one's with native white point which are a little warmer.

 

Ive been lurking in this thread for some time and I do not have calibration system yet (xmas is coming-yea).

But I read photography mags every month. I do know the optimal setting before calibrating a screen is 90cd/cm2. If you have it any higher printing will be a major problem.

I would like to know if these icc profiles in this thread are at 90cd/cm2 or higher?

 

Thank you for testing this limstift, your observation makes sense to me - this color looks, just like you say, sort of muted olive on my RGBLED screen; there is a small but noticeable change when I compare a color-managed and non-color-managed version (say, using windows preview and a color-managed graphics editor) but they are both definitely greenish/olive, not on the brownish/gray side. However I have a bunch of other (non-wide-gamut) monitors that show me a much more brownish hue, with far less green to it in the sRGB color space. I seems that this color shows up as more 'brownish/gray' on a standard monitor when compared to the wide-gamut after it has been color-calibrated and maps to sRGB. This could simply mean that whatever standard monitors I have here to compare it with (none of which are uncalibrated/profiled) are showing me the 'wrong' brownish color, either because they can't display it properly or because they haven't been calibrated, or both.

I have settled on 2009-11-10 Spyder3Pro 2 ICCv2 now.

 

This almost certainly depends on both the screen type and the ambient light conditions. We are trying to create a general-purpose icc monitor profile for the RGBLED screen on the studio xps 16. For that, 120cd/cm2 is great value to start with.

Unfortunately, the particular white point measurement we are discussing here had some problem, apparently caused by the fact that the sensor is sitting on a piece of glass that caused it to measure the white point incorrectly, but the white luminance level seems perfect.

It's also important to note that no two screens are the same; you'll need to calibrate your monitor yourself if screen-to-print matching is critical for your workflow. Here are DataColor's recommendations:

http://spyder.datacolor.com/learn_expert.php#0707

 

So, what is the best color profile finally ?
Is it 2009-11-10 Spyder3Pro 2 ICCv2 ?

 

thats the one I am using until firefox bug is sorted out and then we're able to use icc v4 profiles. (not sure what thats going to gain us mind you)

 

Thanks mark.carline, I ll take both ICC2 and ICC4 and will wait for the firefox bug to be sorted. We'll see if there's any difference...

 

Is there any profiling work that can still be done on this screen? In other words, my friend has a Spyder3 Elite that I could borrow (once my 1645 arrives, heh), if there's any reason for me to do. I've never used a screen calibrator though, so I'd need help/instructions on what to do and what we specifically need.

 

that would be awesome, if you could. i mean, Marc's profiles are great, but not perfect and it's always interesting and useful to see what can do another hardware in somebody's else's hands.

i'm sure Marc can instruct you on how to proceed.

 

I've got a 1640 with a RGBLED screen running Windows 7 x64.

Am I correct in assuming that there's no driver for the screen and that the default LCD monitor Windows driver is fine? I haven't been able to find something called GPU-scaling using the Catalyst Control Center (grayed out or otherwise).

I'm also not really satisfied with the display's performance and its brightness. Even with the profiles posted here, white colors appear muddy and black isn't much to talk about either. I had expected it to beat or at least equal the screen in my late 2008 MacBook Pro.

 

Yeah blacks levels are the main downside to this screen. The WLED screens have much better blacks. Worth the trade for the stunning colours though IMHO.

 

Is your Dell using the default Windows LCD monitor driver?

 

Yes it is, why do you ask?

 

Can someone please enlighten me as to how/where one makes the firefox color correction configuration --> gfx.color_management.mode? I can't seem to find anything within the browser's settings or program dir.

 

type about:config in your address bar.

 

I can't find the settings for GPU scaling in the (completely horrible) Catalyst Control Center and was wondering if a proper monitor driver was needed.

 

I've realized that Blu-ray movies in PowerDVD (the only blu-ray playback that comes with the system) will be oversaturated unless you turn down the saturation in both places of the Catalyst Control Center:

-> CCC
-> Graphics (top right corner)
-> Avivo Video
-> Basic Color
-> uncheck "Use application settings"
-> turn down saturation slider to whatever you want (I like 70)
-> Apply

Then match that saturation number to the saturation in:

-> Graphics
-> Desktops & Displays
-> right click on display icon (bottom right corner) and choose configure
-> Avivo Color
-> turn down saturation slider
-> Apply
-> OK

I don't know if anyone else has noticed this but I'm kind of a fascist about my colors so I was glad to have figured this out

 

You can use this guide (nr. 4) to get somewhat color managed video playback:
http://forums.overclockers.com.au/showthread.php?t=723315

It works OK, but it's not perfect.