Or is there maybe a better EDR to calibrate 2019 LG OLED displays ?

Thanks

Please buy a ColourSpace/LightSpace license if you want support from us.
Our records show you have not purchased anything as yet...

Steve

Hello! I purchased your WOLED EDR in order to use it with my i1 Display Pro plus, Calman for LG and my new LG G1 TV. I get really bad results when trying to calibrate HDR & DV with it. It is supposed to work only for calibrating SDR?
Thanks

Using the EDR will have no impact on calibration quality in any standard.
It just provides colour accuracy for the measured value.

So having bad calibration results means you have problems elsewhere - such as using Calman....

Steve

Unfortunately, the topic of this EDR's usefulness has recently been called into question again. This is despite the data already posted here, and the substantial amounts of data posted on other forums by myself and several others comparing an i1 Display Pro using both its factory Generic CMF calibration and the EDR, against consumer 10nm X-Rite Spectro's, and high end 5nm Spectro's in the past.

So I have once again repeated some more measurements in an attempt to show the benefits of using the WRGB OLED EDR over the factory Generic CMF calibration when access to a Spectro to profile your meter is not an option.

Comparison measurements were made against a Jeti 1501 5nm Spectro that had its yearly recalibration/recertification in early August 2021. Each set of measurements were made in ColourSpace using the Remote Control function, allowing two profiling windows to drive two probes simultaneously, with the Extra Delay setting timed so that each meter read the same patch at the same time.



The WRGB OLED display was put into an uncalibrated state. The white point was "roughly" adjusted to be somewhere close to a D65 white point, and the internal 3D LUT was reset to ensure the display was in its native widest gamut in an attempt to replicate how the display would be in a standard OOTB condition prior to performing a Pre-Calibration, profile and LUT generation.

This comparison was then run three times, producing six measurement profiles (three pairs). First, comparing the Jeti to the I1d3 using the factory Generic CMF setting. Second, comparing the Jeti to the i1d3 using the WRGB OLED EDR setting. And finally, comparing the Jeti to the i1d3 after performing a FCVM probe match to the Jeti.

The results of these three sets of comparison measurements can be seen below.



In the results shown above, you can see the xyY of each profile which has been directly converted from the XYZ tristimulus values stored in the profile BCS. It also shows the +- xyY error, followed by the dE2000 of the colour difference of each patch read. This error value was calculated by using the reference white of each profile to convert the measurements from XYZ into L*a*b* space, allowing each colour patch measured in each pair of profiles to be compared directly against each other and return a colour difference error value. The dE2000 error value is not comparing to any specific colour space/gamut, it is directly comparing one colour against the other (e.g. White vs White, Red vs Red, etc.).

It is well known among anyone who has done any serious testing with the i1 Display Pro on a WOLED display that the probe has some issues using its Generic CMF factory calibration, especially reading the red primary. So the results there are expected.

The results of the WRGB OLED EDR comparison profile show a clear advantage, especially in White & Red, as well as the Magenta & Yellow secondaries. Again, this is expected due to the EDR significantly improving the way the i1d3 reads the Red primary.

Also as expected, the comparison when using a dedicated FCVM probe match is far, far superior than the other two, producing a highly accurate match, not just in White and the Primaries, but the secondaries also. This gives confidence that when you do perform your profile/LUT, that it will be as accurate as possible.

Clearly, anyone who has access to Spectro would always perform their own probe match. But it is just as clear that not everyone has that luxury, and in this case, the WRGB OLED EDR is far from being considered worthless because it does provide some improvement. Especially in the Red primary and its associated Secondaries.

With the measurements provided above, it also shows why it can be considered useless to use "shared" alternate white points. Whilst I admit I was actively participating in testing and sharing AWP's in the past, the more I looked into it, the more I discovered it can actually cause more harm than good when providing an AWP for someone to use if that person does not have a reference (Spectro) to compare against.

For example, if I had no Spectro myself and was restricted to using the i1d3 in conjunction with the WRGB OLED EDR and targeted the default standard of D65 (0.3127/0.3290), what I would actually be getting is 0.3073/0.3248, which is already somewhere in the ballpark of what others have suggested when using a Spectro. So if you do target that AWP that someone else provided, you would just end up adding more and more blue.

This defeats the whole point of using an AWP, which is to match to a non metameric display at D65!!!

So, this is the primary reason I stopped "recommending" an AWP to anyone some time ago, and always advise that without a Spectro to create a reference meter profile, first try D65 (using the EDR to correct the issues using the Factory Gen CMF calibration), and if that doesn't look right, try performing your own perceptual match, as outlined in the Light Illusion guides pages.

https://www.lightillusion.com/perceptual_match_guide.html

Of course, using an AWP is always going to be a subjective thing and can/will vary from person to person, so use what you want at the end of the day. As long as it looks good to you.

Anyway, the main point of this post was to show there is benefits in using the WRGB OLED EDR over Generic CMF, and that it is not useless, worthless, or any of the other things its been called again recently. And if you don't have a Spectro, it absolutely is a good choice.

Measurement data (BCS) and Excel with results attached at the bottom.

Sorry for the rambling rant, I just get annoyed when I see some of the statements I've seen again recently without any data to back those statements up.

Happy New Year everyone. Let's hope this one is better than last!!

Attached file: EDR Files

Great post And a Happy New Year everyone from me too!

Happy New Year, Leon, Mike, and Steve.

On the i1Pro3 page we added a modal with information on the X-Rite i1Pro Bandwidth.
Unfortunately, the probe has not kept-up with display technology.
And the page you link to on the old Chromapure website is indeed very old, and contains no new wide gamut displays.

Unfortunately, there is no real answer:

-- Spectros need to be narrow bandwidth
(Not 3rd party changes that may induce issues)
-- Finer controls when perceptually matching
(Using the ColourSpace sliders is preferable to a display's own controls)
-- All colour calibration, and the defined standards, are perceptual based.
(It is how we see the world...)
-- Any RGB display effectively has a poor CRI, and that means there will always be some metameric disagreement.
(Time for more primary colours?)

Steve

I remember the seeing the results on the Chromapure in the past, and yes, when I had an i1 Pro2, the tests I did produced very similar results. Note that the Chromapure results are using dE 94.

But my post above was not about the i1 Pro2. At the time there was a lot of "chatter" on other forums and by some on YouTube calling into question the effectiveness of using an EDR when a Spectro was not available. The comparison measurements I tried to show were comparing the factory Generic CMF calibration of the i1 Display Pro 3 vs the WRGB OLED EDR vs a 4.5nm Jeti to try and highlight the significant advantage of using the EDR in place Generic CMF, and show that it was not useless and would not make things much worse, as some were claiming.

The EDR has minimal impact on how the i1 Display Pro will measure white (as expected), but significantly improves how it measures the primary and secondary colours. It is not perfect by any means, but there is a definite improvement (without the EDR, the i1D3 records Negative Z values for wide gamut red on WOLED, for example).

For what it's worth, when I still had the i1 Pro2 and compared it to the Jeti, primary and secondary colours were very close in xyY. Much closer than when using the EDR. But white was off, with a dE 2000 of 2.36 IIRC. Luminance readings for white were very, very close, but xy coordinates were definitely off.

I still have all the data somewhere but I am not about to go digging for it now.

So, IMO, provided you understand that the i1 Pro2 will provide a less than perfect measurement for white on many displays and are willing to do something accommodate or overcome that, then using the i1 Pro2 to perform a probe match is still better than using the EDR. But there is nothing fundamentally wrong with using the EDR if that is all you have at your disposal (contrary to what was being claimed at the time and is why I provided the measurements).

Alternate WPs is not a topic that I will discuss as it is entirely subjective and varies from person to person.

liberator72
Given the out-of-the-box accuracy of today's OLEDs (and QD-OLEDs for that matter), do you think it makes sense to calibrate if you only have an i1D3 at your disposal?