Gamma Calibration

[dlparisi]

That chart looks wrong when compared to this one...http://www.footootjes.nl/Various/Mon...st_charts.html or your original post. I'm confused.

[glorybound]

On that one than 1.4 looks correct, which is what I originally wrote. The second one I looked at, in the last post, 1 looks correct.

[Deflaminis]

Calibration is such a pain in the ass, I don't understand why it has to be this hard.

[dlparisi]

On that one than 1.4 looks correct, which is what I originally wrote. The second one I looked at, in the last post, 1 looks correct.

But shouldn't it be 2.2 if properly calibrated?

What I meant about the chart looking wrong in the previous post (where it aligned with "1") is that that chart doesn't tonally match up with the linked one I posted. In general the image you posted looks way to washed out.

[glorybound]

Yes, my monitor is calibrated 2.2, or at least that is what it says. I am using the chart to double check and each chart does look different. The first chart, which is probably accurate, the 1.4 gamma blends when I squint. The screen looks way off, but on the chart, 1.4 is where I am at. When I use my hardware device and check using Windows built-in calibration, the gamma is off there, too. Should I trust my hardware or Windows? I would think that the hardware is more accurate, otherwise, why waste my time and money.

[glorybound]

Calibration is such a pain in the ass, I don't understand why it has to be this hard.

Maybe it's easier when you spend 3-4 grand on a real good monitor.

[dlparisi]

Maybe it's easier when you spend 3-4 grand on a real good monitor.

Something is definitely wrong. I have a dual monitor setup, each is calibrated to 120 cd/m2m, 6500K, 2.2 gamma and the match eachother very well and any chart I look at gives me a reasonable 2.2 visible gamma. If I do a profile verification I get a pretty good result to the calibration target (within a couple of delta E's). It's not super perfect but I'm confident that what I'm looking at on my screen is generally correct rather than some overlay saturated, color casted, overly bright display that might come out of the factory. The Dell 2415's I have are definitely not particularly expensive but calibrate reasonably well IMO.

One thing that I noticed is that once I have the DisplayCAL profiles setup I can no longer change the gamma in the NVIDIA Control Panel without forcing it to not used the measured calibration. Are you sure that the gamma in the NVIDIA control panel is not influencing everything?

[glorybound]

Here are some screenshots. The first image is the start, before calibration. The second one is after the target is met and the third one is the default, before adjustments.

[glorybound]

Also, here is an after calibrated report

[dlparisi]

It does seem odd that on your calibration report it lists the calibrated brightness as 177.9 which is no where close to the 90 target. The calibrated gamma at 2.24 seems good though.

[glorybound]

It does seem odd that on your calibration report it lists the calibrated brightness as 177.9 which is no where close to the 90 target. The calibrated gamma at 2.24 seems good though.

Yeah, a few strange things there.

[glorybound]

I don't think that web link, with the gamma chart, is good for anything. On my 2017 MacBook Pro, which has an awesome screen, looks correct at the top (gamma 1.1).

[dlparisi]

Shot in the dark....maybe some issue with 4k monitors or any high dpi monitor that's scaling the images? The gamma test charts only work if the images are displayed at a 1:1 pixel relationship.

[glorybound]

Shot in the dark....maybe some issue with 4k monitors or any high dpi monitor that's scaling the images? The gamma test charts only work if the images are displayed at a 1:1 pixel relationship.

Could be. I'll have to look into that. I think my images are coming out good, so I am fine with how it is.