XoR_
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Jan 18, 2016
- Messages
- 1,568
Why incorrect?
CRT gamma (~2.5) is result of only natural phosphor response. This is common knowledge.
We can bring average gamma down somehow by increasing black level because of its shape (which BTW is hardly perfect, especially near pure black)
LUT adjustment is ONLY for gamma, to change it, to 'linearize' (or apply different shape)
Gamut cannot be corrected with LUT. For this you need to do 3x3 matrix multiplication (sufficient when combined with LUT) or 3dLUT
Gamma and gamut, there is nothing else reffered as 'color correction'
The fact that WinDAS asks you for calibration at "multiple IRE's" does not mean it can actually use these information to correct gamma in multiple places but because of limited precision of measurement devices with less light hitting it.
If it was possible to get different gamma just by using WinDAS then SONY would use such functionality and make sRGB mode not suck. Each Trinitron in sRGB mode have very high black level - have you ever wondered why?
To date you provided no good hard data to prove WinDAS can do anything else than set ranges for OSD control.
BTW. When I corrected G2 on my Dell P1110 I tested high G2 with low BRIGHTNESS and low G2 and high BRIGHTNESS and both produced exactly the same results and based on this test I remain skeptical of WinDAS magical properties and skipped the rest of the tests I intended to do including WPB.
If G2 and BRIGHTNESS are not basically the same setting then how do I know with 100% certainty which is more optimal for my CRT?
Maybe I should just make blacks to be pure black at BRIGHTNESS 90 and have G2 issue solved for more time by giving myself more range in OSD than aiming for 30?!?
Maybe even low G2 and high BRIGHTNESS is more healthy for my CRT tube in the long run? How do you know this is not the case?
If you believe in things like "WinDAS sets 'optimal' settings and prolongs life of the monitor" then faced with someone who dare to ponder about validity of such claims either show [h]ard facts or do not expect all people to agree just because you do.
I simply remain unconvinced.
Do not claim anything, just far from taking unproven 'facts' as reality just because it is convenient to believe in them.
CRT gamma (~2.5) is result of only natural phosphor response. This is common knowledge.
We can bring average gamma down somehow by increasing black level because of its shape (which BTW is hardly perfect, especially near pure black)
LUT adjustment is ONLY for gamma, to change it, to 'linearize' (or apply different shape)
Gamut cannot be corrected with LUT. For this you need to do 3x3 matrix multiplication (sufficient when combined with LUT) or 3dLUT
Gamma and gamut, there is nothing else reffered as 'color correction'
The fact that WinDAS asks you for calibration at "multiple IRE's" does not mean it can actually use these information to correct gamma in multiple places but because of limited precision of measurement devices with less light hitting it.
If it was possible to get different gamma just by using WinDAS then SONY would use such functionality and make sRGB mode not suck. Each Trinitron in sRGB mode have very high black level - have you ever wondered why?
To date you provided no good hard data to prove WinDAS can do anything else than set ranges for OSD control.
BTW. When I corrected G2 on my Dell P1110 I tested high G2 with low BRIGHTNESS and low G2 and high BRIGHTNESS and both produced exactly the same results and based on this test I remain skeptical of WinDAS magical properties and skipped the rest of the tests I intended to do including WPB.
If G2 and BRIGHTNESS are not basically the same setting then how do I know with 100% certainty which is more optimal for my CRT?
Maybe I should just make blacks to be pure black at BRIGHTNESS 90 and have G2 issue solved for more time by giving myself more range in OSD than aiming for 30?!?
Maybe even low G2 and high BRIGHTNESS is more healthy for my CRT tube in the long run? How do you know this is not the case?
If you believe in things like "WinDAS sets 'optimal' settings and prolongs life of the monitor" then faced with someone who dare to ponder about validity of such claims either show [h]ard facts or do not expect all people to agree just because you do.
I simply remain unconvinced.
Do not claim anything, just far from taking unproven 'facts' as reality just because it is convenient to believe in them.