Do It Like Tom's: Calibrating Your Monitor With CalMAN RGB

[stalker7d7]

Wow, an advertisement in article form. And for something hugely overpriced at that.Come on tomshardware, what are you doing?

 

[rholmes3]

Years ago I thought of Tom's Hardware as a reliable source of information. I don't know how much money Tom's was paid to publish this advertisement, but it is not a meaningful piece of journalism. It would be nice if Tom's returned to unbiased, well-researched reporting.

 

[wujj123456]

Do you have links where I can buy it? Why I see $150 on Amazon? I am not even sure if it's the same thing. These packages are so confusing...http://www.amazon.com/Video-Calibration-Starter-CalMAN-Software/dp/B0040MTJZ6/ref=sr_1_sc_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1395622205&sr=8-1-spell&keywords=Calman+sRGB

 

[cats_Paw]

This Article looks to me like pure marketing of CALMAN.THe before and after Image stunt is plain wrong (Guys, we are seeing both images from our OWN monitors, so nothing they show there actually helps).The Color gradiation is what makes the biggest diference there as someone already mentioned, and Id actually say i prefer the "before" image better in terms of realism.Also, there are FREE calibrating softwares (and simply slides/images) that will get you to 90%+ to that of an expensive software.Id ask Tom to stop treating us like we cant distinguish an ad from usefull information.It is rather insulting.

 

[ferooxidan]

"The rub is that we have thousands of dollars invested in our test gear, and that's totally impractical for you to match at home."challenge accepted!

 

[wiyosaya]

Calibration really only works when all sources are calibrated to the same standard. In a professional environment, or in the case of a user who calibrates against their camera, chances are that all sources will be calibrated to the same source.Video, however, is another story. Each different video may not be calibrated against the same source, and, therefore, one can only make a best guess as to what the best calibration point is. This is a well-known fact that is discussed on some audio/video calibration disks such as those by Joe Kane.If you are a pro, or a "pro-sumer" then calibration may be worth the extra effort, IMHO. Also, as I see it, it is worth it to buy a calibration disk for your TV, but I would not expect that for every video source, the colors will be as accurate as possible.

 

[DrMark1]

I know that this sounds expensive (especially considering that a cheap monitor is around the same price), but I've been using Calman for several years, and I can say that it does make a substantial difference. With Calman, you can make a $250 monitor look better (after calibration) than a $1000 monitor (before calibration).Will it make a difference to you? If all you do is play video games, probably not. The colors in video games aren't realistic to begin with. If you watch movies or want to do digital photography (e.g., Photoshop), then it makes a hell of a difference.If you can't afford the $$$ for Calman and a meter, get a video calibration disk like AVIA ($30 on-line). It will let you calibrate contrast, brightness, and a first stab at the color decoder. These settings alone make such a huge difference that IMO AVIA is a no-brainer. Warning: the color space for HDTV is different from SDTV, so don't use a DVD to calibrate an HDTV and expect Blu-rays to look good. If you watch only DVD's, then get the DVD version of AVIA. If you watch Blu-rays or HDTV (cable, satellite, etc.), then get the Blu-ray version.One thing you have to understand is that virtually all monitors and TV's are calibrated out of the factory to look good in a store (read: Costco) with the store lighting. They usually have the colors way over saturated so that people say "wow, look at the colors on that one!" With just a calibration disk, you can fix most of this and get a much nicer looking picture.Another important thing to understand is that all TV's and monitors are different, and the settings for one set do not necessarily come even close on another unit of the same brand and model. Instead of wasting your time trying to copy somebody else's settings, just put in some random values. They will be just as accurate, and it will take less time.

 

[mkowalski21]

I'd be very curious to hear your response to my questions. While I dearly value the idea of calibration, I've more often then not had very bad luck getting good color. Often times, I find the default profile to be most accurate for editing, as it doesn't create a strong hue/color shift.I've used the Eye1 pro, and a Colormunki. The Eye1 did a decent job, but I found the reds to turn more orange, and in general a shift towards warmer colors, much too warm, especially visible in the whites. The Colormunki created a color shift towards blue/purple.To my eye, the calibrations never seemed to create accurate color, and worse, the color shift between different repeated procedure icc profiles would vary a decent amount, killing off the notion of being "calibrated". Different screens would also react differently and produce different calibrated results, color anomalies, and hue shifts.The instructions in both basic and advanced versions of both hardware/software packages were easy to follow, just the results were all over the place. I would e-mail tech support, post on the forums, etc, etc to try and get some better result, or figure out what was wrong, but nobody had an answer or knew how to fix these problems.In the end, the default icc profile worked best, from a graphical standpoint, since post calibration the screen was just too tweaked to give any good representation of what I was seeing on the screen.Is this product worth a shot?

 

[mkowalski21]

I'd be very curious to hear your response to my questions. While I dearly value the idea of calibration, I've more often then not had very bad luck getting good color. Often times, I find the default profile to be most accurate for editing, as it doesn't create a strong hue/color shift.I've used the Eye1 pro, and a Colormunki. The Eye1 did a decent job, but I found the reds to turn more orange, and in general a shift towards warmer colors, much too warm, especially visible in the whites. The Colormunki created a color shift towards blue/purple.To my eye, the calibrations never seemed to create accurate color, and worse, the color shift between different repeated procedure icc profiles would vary a decent amount, killing off the notion of being "calibrated". Different screens would also react differently and produce different calibrated results, color anomalies, and hue shifts.The instructions in both basic and advanced versions of both hardware/software packages were easy to follow, just the results were all over the place. I would e-mail tech support, post on the forums, etc, etc to try and get some better result, or figure out what was wrong, but nobody had an answer or knew how to fix these problems.In the end, the default icc profile worked best, from a graphical standpoint, since post calibration the screen was just too tweaked to give any good representation of what I was seeing on the screen.Is this product worth a shot?

 

[ceberle]

I'd be very curious to hear your response to my questions. While I dearly value the idea of calibration, I've more often then not had very bad luck getting good color. Often times, I find the default profile to be most accurate for editing, as it doesn't create a strong hue/color shift.I've used the Eye1 pro, and a Colormunki. The Eye1 did a decent job, but I found the reds to turn more orange, and in general a shift towards warmer colors, much too warm, especially visible in the whites. The Colormunki created a color shift towards blue/purple.To my eye, the calibrations never seemed to create accurate color, and worse, the color shift between different repeated procedure icc profiles would vary a decent amount, killing off the notion of being "calibrated". Different screens would also react differently and produce different calibrated results, color anomalies, and hue shifts.The instructions in both basic and advanced versions of both hardware/software packages were easy to follow, just the results were all over the place. I would e-mail tech support, post on the forums, etc, etc to try and get some better result, or figure out what was wrong, but nobody had an answer or knew how to fix these problems.In the end, the default icc profile worked best, from a graphical standpoint, since post calibration the screen was just too tweaked to give any good representation of what I was seeing on the screen.Is this product worth a shot?

It sounds to me like you're having difficulty managing different look-up tables rather than actually encountering problems with your monitor or instruments. ICC profiles can differ depending on the application you're using them with as well. My recommendation would be to use CalMAN to calibrate using your monitor's controls only and disable any LUTs used by applications. Then you will know just what your monitor and meter combination are doing. I also suggest living with the calibration for a week or two even if it looks wrong. It does take time to acclimate to the new settings especially when you've had lots of variation as you describe.The i1Pro is the most accurate meter out there that doesn't cost five figures. With CalMAN, you should be able to get the results you're looking for. Good luck!-Christian-

 

[Karami]

i have a Panasonic TH-P50ST50A HDTV (HDMI) and BenQ XL2420T (Display Port) hooked up to my GTX660ti (GV-N66TWF2-2GD) i only ever use one display at a time, i dont extended or duplicate the display.
my question is would i need the Spyder4tv hd upgrade for the panasonic?
Or because my panasonic is hooked up to the pc will it just be classified as another monitor?

 

[ceberle]

i have a Panasonic TH-P50ST50A HDTV (HDMI) and BenQ XL2420T (Display Port) hooked up to my GTX660ti (GV-N66TWF2-2GD) i only ever use one display at a time, i dont extended or duplicate the display.
my question is would i need the Spyder4tv hd upgrade for the panasonic?
Or because my panasonic is hooked up to the pc will it just be classified as another monitor?

You shouldn't need the Spyder HD upgrade to calibrate your Panasonic TV as a computer monitor. Just make sure it's set to receive PC (0-255) signals rather than video (16-235). That way your black and white levels will be set correctly.

-Christian-

 

[Karami]

i have a Panasonic TH-P50ST50A HDTV (HDMI) and BenQ XL2420T (Display Port) hooked up to my GTX660ti (GV-N66TWF2-2GD) i only ever use one display at a time, i dont extended or duplicate the display.
my question is would i need the Spyder4tv hd upgrade for the panasonic?
Or because my panasonic is hooked up to the pc will it just be classified as another monitor?

You shouldn't need the Spyder HD upgrade to calibrate your Panasonic TV as a computer monitor. Just make sure it's set to receive PC (0-255) signals rather than video (16-235). That way your black and white levels will be set correctly.

-Christian-

Thank you Christian, i set the following:
nvidia control panel > Video > Adjust video colour settings > ticked "with the nvidia settings" > Dynamic range: Full (0-255)
is that what you where referring to? or will there be a setting on my TV?