We've tried the 3D LUT Calibration Workflow you recommended for the same monitor.STEPS TAKEN
1) Warm up probe and display which is connected to the Linux workstation via Display Port or DVI.
2) In Lightspace set max brightness to 104Nits and calibration settings to RG Phosphor under options.
3) Factory reset the monitor
4) Change the monitor preset to BT-Rec709
5) Set Gamma to 2.4 on monitor
6) Switch Off uniformity on the monitor
7) Run Pre Profile Primaries and Secondary Profile & generate report
8) Run Pre Profile Gamma 100% with Secondaries Profile & generate report
9) Adjust the brightness to 104Nits (but do not move the White point)
10) Check the brightness and contrast using provided charts
11) Run a 10 side display characterisation profile & generate report
12) Use the display characterisation to generate a colorspace.
13) Apply the colorspace & run a post primaries & secondaries profile & gen report
14) Apply the colorspace &run a post gamut100%+Secondaries profile & gen report
15) Apply the colorspace & run a post profile with gamut 75% & generate reportREPORTS AND BCS FILES
Google Drive with Reports and BCS Fileshttps://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1T9An2s8d_8de1fe5qmubN-hBefnkiZzI?usp=sharing
Lucidchart Link with Reportshttps://www.lucidchart.com/documents/view/0fedd25a-8258-4cff-865e-f2b5d12ae3e0/2* In addition to the pre/post reports there is also a report for the 10 side display characterization that may or may not be useful.
GAMUT COVERAGE RESULT: PRIMARY AND SECONDARY VS GAMUT SWEEP QUICK PROFILES
We chose to run gamut sweep as well as primary and secondary quick profiles for both pre and post profiles as we're getting very different results for gamut coverage between them. In both cases the primaries and secondaries produced considerably worse results for gamut coverage compared to the gamut sweep quick profiles.
We thought this could be because primary and secondaries are measuring at the 7 specific points only. If the monitor is unable to display one or more of those points it'll quickly drag down the gamut coverage results.
Is that a correct interpretation?
In our quest for better gamut coverage should we be using one profile type over another?GAMUT COVERAGE: GAMUT SWEEP 75% VS GAMUT SWEEP 100% POST PROFILES
We got quite different results for gamut coverage for the different gamut sweep quick profiles. Gamut sweep 75% resulted in a higher gamut coverage of 99.4% compared to the Gamut 100% and secondaries quick profile, which was recorded 97.1% coverage. The guide explains that "Gamut Sweeps maintain the same 'colour' level (100%, or 75%), and change the saturation level in progressive steps."
Please could you explain what is meant by "'colour' levels" here?
Please could you tell us if one gamut sweep is better than the other or if they both should be used to get a better understanding of the the display?GAMUT COVERAGE: PRE VS POST RESULTS
We created a LUT within lightspace and we applied this for our post profiles to perform LUT verification. The gamut coverage with the LUT applied is pretty similar to the pre profiles, without the LUT applied.
* Primaries and Secondaries - Pre 88.8% - Post - 89.1%
* Gamut Sweep 100% + Secondaries - 97.2%, Post - 97.1%
* Gamut Sweep 75% Pre - N/A, Post - 99.4%
How should we interpret the similarities between the gamut coverage results between pre and post results for same type of profile? Also how should we read the differences between the post results for gamut coverage for the different types of profiles ? The guide recommends "Select the desired 'Quick Profile type', such as a Gamut Sweep', or 'Memory Colours' which will verify the LUT Calibration." Should we not be using primaries and secondaries for LUT verification at all?
Many thanks in advance,