< the rest of the graphs

The 'Reporting' option is not yet implemented, as the website info states.
But, it is just a Report of the information already provided in the graphs, etc., so will not add additional information.

The reason your results show a high dE (and the Red points in the cie graph) is the peak luma of the calibrated result is 163 nits, while the target is 100 nits.
Hence the large dE value, as all luma values are inaccurate, while the colour and gamma looks ok.
That suggests the 'Brightness' value you set via the 'Interactive Controls' has changed/been reset somehow...
You will need to define what changed, and why.

Steve

That is strange, the Interactive Controls do still show the value I've set up during the peak luma set up. And I can see on the display the brightness is still the same as it was before I applied the LUT.
Might this be related to the "Unity Bypass" function somehow?

If the peak luma is the same before/after the LUT is being applied, the LUT is not changing the colour temperature.
Something seems to be wrong, but I have no idea what.
Please upload the Before profile, the After profile, and the LUT you generated.

Steve

I have now uploaded a zip file containing the LUT, the profile "Eizo_CG274X_after" which is the Profile I did with the LUT applied, and "Eizo_CG274X_characterisation" which is the profile after the 17^3 Characterisation . I've also attached the profile before the Characterisation (Eizo_CG247X_initial) , I'm a bit confused what gets written into the profiles, not sure if you need this to assess.

Attached file: Eizo_CG274X.zip

What is the 'Eizo_CG274X_initial.bcs' profile?
That makes no sense at all, as it doesn't match any viable profile...

Regardless, the rest look ok.
The LUT is reducing the peak luma, down from 176 nits to 163 nits.
(Look at the 1D graphs of the LUT, and you can see green and blue are below red.)

That just suggests you did something wrong when setting the Brightness originally?
I would revisit that.

Steve

I think that was just the initial profile I set up where I just did some manual measurements and set things up.


I have now run through the entire process again, reset my monitor beforehand, selected a different Calibration slot just to be save as well.
But the result is the same, the peak luma is not set to 100. I took the liberty of screenshoting every step of my process. I would very much appreciate if you could take a look over my process and let me know if you see any obvious mistake I'm making. I feel like I've followed the guide and your advice from here closely, but the error obviously seems to be in the peak luma setting area ...
Do I now simply need to turn down the brightness again to reach 100?

Thank you for your support.

Attached file: EizoCG247X_ColourSpace.pdf

Unfortunately, not really possible to tell from the images.
But I don't understand why image 7 still shows inaccurate RGB Balance?
Something is not right there.
Especially as the suggestion in image 8 is the pre-cal peak luma needs to be 174 nits.
That is just way too high.
Based on the previous profiles you sent, it should be about 113 nits...

Steve

In image 6 I'm adjusting RGB balance, I'm getting the Zoom and Bar widgets almost to center / line up. What do you mean by inaccurate RGB Balance in image 7?
The RGB Balance graph never changes, regardless of what I set, blue is always off here.

Oh, wait!
Sorry - I've totally messed-up.
You can't use the 'sliders' in the way I've described!
The bit I have missed its that you need two Profile windows open.
I'll rewrite the information correctly.
But for now, just set the peak luma via the Brightness control, to about 113 nits - maybe 115.

Steve

Allright, so I'll just use the 100% white patch to measure to ~115 nits like in the screenshot?

Yes, that 'should' be more accurate.

But I've worked out the 'missing bit of info.
(Sorry, I confused myself trying to follow what you were doing....)
You need to use the CIE charts to set the correct white point colour temp, NOT the RGB & Bars Widgets!
They track the sliders 'colour', so will be chasing their own tail.
The CIE charts are absolute to the measured colour.

Steve

Absolutely no need to apologize, Steve. If anything I'm at fault for my lack of knowledge, otherwise I'm sure I wouldn't have confused you

Anyways, with the approach described above, using the 100% White patch and a Nits value of ~115 I'm now getting 106 Max nits after calibration and LUT, so much less deviation and overall much better result. I will attempt to optimize this further by adjusting to the CIE charts.

Out of curiosity, just so I better understand the process/the software: If I now, after having applied the LUT, turn down the brightness so I get back to 100 nits max (from the 106 the LUT calculated), I'm getting the correct luminance readings when doing measurements. But I can't simply do it that way, as I will shift white-balance then, if I understand correctly? I *have* to do this before applying the LUT / have it be done by the LUT? Correct? I'm confused as I'm relying on the measurements to tell me what is right and wrong, and if I can "trick" the software into telling me that everything is correct even though it isn't, that obviously would create false assurance ...

If the Verification profile shows the correct results, the results are correct.
(Changing anything after the calibration via the LUT will always negatively impact the calibration - but that may be so small as to be an unmeasurable impact.)
But a 6 nits error in peak Luma is basically irrelevant.
When verifying the final calibration set the Target Min/Max Luma to the actual measured luma of the display.
For all colour spaces, other than PQ based HDR, the colour space is relative to Min/Max luma.
(PQ HDR is absolute.)

Steve

Ok, that would be the values displayed in "Profile Luma" after the Calibration?