So I calibrated my monitors...

[jallenlabs]

I have had these Acer 250hz screens for a bit now, but never really calibrated them past the gaming settings. As I am parting out my workstation at the moment, my gaming rig has become my main, which means I need to edit on it. Here are the settings I came up with.

Acer KG251Q Z settings​

Brightness 10
Contrast 55
Bluelight Normal
Blackboost 5
Gamma 2.2
Color Temp Warm
Overdrive Normal
Low Latency On

All other settings were set to OFF. Refresh rate 240hz for both screens (one on 4070 Super, one on Intel igpu).

 

[Space Lynx]

Yeah, it is worth spending some time calibrating. I use black lagom website as a way to calibrate more accurately.

Black level - Lagom LCD test

www.lagom.nl

Particularly I utilize the black level, white saturation, and contrast section from that website (click at top for each section) then I adjust monitor settings until it looks good

 

[jallenlabs]

Yeah, it is worth spending some time calibrating. I use black lagom website as a way to calibrate more accurately.

Black level - Lagom LCD test

www.lagom.nl

Particularly I utilize the black level, white saturation, and contrast section from that website (click at top for each section) then I adjust monitor settings until it looks good

Thanks for the link!

 

[Space Lynx]

Thanks for the link!

as you can see here in the contrast section my blues are blending a little too much at the end, but my greens and teals are spot on, this is because it is my work laptop though and I can't adjust it

 

[jallenlabs]

I calibrated in a somewhat dark room and with the lights on, of course the screens are too dim. Trying to find a happy medium. Brightness- 25

 

[Bill_Bright]

Calibrating monitors and TV is a peculiar task. We used to setup some very high-end home theater systems for clients. We would calibrate their big screen TVs or projectors with a professional colorimeter, only to have the owner say they didn't like the image. They would claim it didn't look "natural" to them. When a client just spent many $1000s (even 10s of $1000s) on their home theater systems, it needs to look right to them.

This happened over and over again. It was not just us. Talking to other techs and installers, it was the same with them too. Even on my own LG OLED TV, I did not really like the image after it was properly calibrated.

So what we ended up doing was displaying photos of real people - preferably people the clients knew; friends and family members. Not CGI or AI people, but real people. Then adjusted the display settings until the flesh-tones appeared accurate and "natural" (not green, not orange, not blue) to them. And then they were happy!!! And happy customers make happy installers. And to be truthful, the display images did indeed appear to be more "natural" to us too.

IMO, if gamers don't need to use calibration tools for their monitors because essentially, all the images are computer generated anyway. Who's to say what accurate skin tones of alien monsters (or the Uruk-hai on TVs) look like?

But professional photographers, for example, need accurate colors. And for that, I recommend using a quality monitor calibration tool. These are specifically designed to calibrate the display of monitors and TVs to ensure the "blue" sky and people's skin tones displayed on the monitor are the same "blue" and skin tones seen in real life AND the same blue and skin tones seen in the printouts of that image.

Oh, and BTW, the numerical values of your settings above really don't mean much. I have 2 identical Samsung monitors here that were purchased at the same time with 4 others. Even the 6 serial numbers are sequential indicating they came off the assembly line, one after the other. During calibration with the colorimeter and then again with our human eyes, all of the color, contrast and brightness settings had to be set differently to achieve the same image display. Now granted, these were not $1500 BenQ pro displays, but they were not $200 entry-level monitors either. I am just saying, don't expect identical numerical values with 2 different (even if exact same model number) to yield identical results.

 

[9087125]

Yeah you really want a good monitor and external tool or else its probably a waste of time or a few good effort. Many popular monitors are not very good, for example Dell 30inch and NEC 30inch are known for being very good color accuracy but for photo editing pros they are still bottom of the barrel. If you want my input, calibrating your monitor is a complete personal preference, yep, its like painting, you are literally free to whatever you want. I have seen photography and video that has been produced with insane budgets and to my eyes it looks crap. I played that new game demo Outcast on a nasty cheap 30inch Korean crossover monitor while testing my gpu, it would make photographers cringe, the reds looked pinkish, the greens and blues were oversaturated. And yet, the game looked absolutely drop dead gorgeous, the inaccurate colors actually gave it a kinda hdr vibrant look. How subjective is all this? Well i find myself enjoying some dvds more than their blu-ray counterparts, despite the BD being much higher mastering and objective quality.

In pro photography, the whole point of calibration is so your customers get what you see on your screen and so what looks red to you isnt going to look pink to them, so that can only be done using expensive monitors and proper color profiles enabled in the editing, viewing software and image formats. Never send an image with a higher color space to someone unless you know they too have that color space or else if they view it on a average display it will look bland and bad.

Of course we can get into metaphysics, how do we really know what red is? how do we know if others see red? do we actually see colors or are they generated in our minds and if so can they really be said to exist?, how do these percepts arise? do they even exist? does Mary the brilliant scientist who knows every physical thing about sight and color actually learn something new when she first leaves the black n white room and sees red? science/psychology, neuroscience, neurocognitive science etc, is completely silent on these issues.

 

[Space Lynx]

Yeah you really want a good monitor and external tool or else its probably a waste of time or a few good effort.

It's not a waste of time at all in my experience to just use the black lagom website and calibrate it with in-menu monitor settings. Also, everyone has personal preferences, and my method allows for some flexibility in that arena.

 

[nomdeplume]

Yeah you really want a good monitor and external tool or else its probably a waste of time or a few good effort. Many popular monitors are not very good, for example Dell 30inch and NEC 30inch are known for being very good color accuracy but for photo editing pros they are still bottom of the barrel. If you want my input, calibrating your monitor is a complete personal preference, yep, its like painting, you are literally free to whatever you want. I have seen photography and video that has been produced with insane budgets and to my eyes it looks crap. I played that new game demo Outcast on a nasty cheap 30inch Korean crossover monitor while testing my gpu, it would make photographers cringe, the reds looked pinkish, the greens and blues were oversaturated. And yet, the game looked absolutely drop dead gorgeous, the inaccurate colors actually gave it a kinda hdr vibrant look. How subjective is all this? Well i find myself enjoying some dvds more than their blu-ray counterparts, despite the BD being much higher mastering and objective quality.

In pro photography, the whole point of calibration is so your customers get what you see on your screen and so what looks red to you isnt going to look pink to them, so that can only be done using expensive monitors and proper color profiles enabled in the editing, viewing software and image formats. Never send an image with a higher color space to someone unless you know they too have that color space or else if they view it on a average display it will look bland and bad.

Of course we can get into metaphysics, how do we really know what red is? how do we know if others see red? do we actually see colors or are they generated in our minds and if so can they really be said to exist?, how do these percepts arise? do they even exist? does Mary the brilliant scientist who knows every physical thing about sight and color actually learn something new when she first leaves the black n white room and sees red? science/psychology, neuroscience, neurocognitive science etc, is completely silent on these issues.

There is no single profile. Every job or every few days a new profile using an actual honest to goodness calibration tool goes far beyond any online tool. You will find there is an unbreachable divide on this site where topics of this sort arise.

At the very least, it can be wholly fulfilling to set up a color profile specifically for a single game which takes on new artistic dimensions with effort.

 

[sneekypeet]

I bought a colorimiter for my screens. Unless you have a made for it screen, most are way out of wack. It has paid for itself over time using profiles instead of settings.

Thing is, the Spider I bought was only like $70 at the time, some 7 or 8 years ago now. Went through a few monitors, and not only is it good for initial setup, but you can also go back as suggested by software like every 6 months and recalibrate.

https://www.amazon.com/Datacolor-SpyderX-Pro-Calibration-Photographers/dp/B07M6KPJ9K?th=1

Price has went up considerably, but again, recommended if feasible.

You could also look around for ICC profiles for your monitor. Asus for example hosts them to get the best from my screen. @OP, Acer does host the ICC profiles from what I see googling it.

 

[Ferrum Master]

From experience.

When you will get a complaint that her lingerie isn't the exact color as in the catalogue she looked in and ordered, you will think twice about the content you create and hardware you set, imagine the fuss she created lol.

Now with HDR it is complete shitshow either way, but in SDR, stick to the basics. You can color meter actually with your phone, there are color meter apps, you can create your pattern system on the budget, take same image a reference monitor and write down the hex values, later edit the wallpaper image. So you can recheck it fast. Using the same phone and fixed system you can do it pretty cheap.

Well it is much better nowadays, with CCFL backlights the warmup period was pretty long, you had to re-calibrate it like in 30minutes again.

 

[Waldorf]

@jallenlabs
i personally wouldnt call changing/adjusting settings as "calibration", which is usually about having accurate reproduction of what you are working on,
and involves a sensor + sw, and if its for work, is something i would invest in.

one reason i switched to a (sony) tv, as their mid range (and up) is pre-calibrated, to the point where there is usually no visible difference between pre/post calibration done by reviewers.

calibration

btw, using warm for color will mess up stuff, usually neutral is better, plus, taking bluelight out of the screen (used during the day) will make you tired,
our inner clock needs it during daytime hours.

 

[Ferrum Master]

one reason i switched to a (sony) tv

Their price premium is so big it includes the calibrator itself... actually few of them... I cannot justify the price premium over like TCL miniled especially if you go for 75-85inches. There is another point, the Pentonic chipset does adjust dynamic color balance based on image, for example like skin tones, you cannot do anything about that, for TVs its more complex, also I mentioned the HDR mess, then it is a headache.

 

[sneekypeet]

@Ferrum Master Can I ask....what HDR mess?

with use of the ASUS ICC profile, when I select HDR, it seems fine, bright AF, but visually fine (I guess?)

 

[Ferrum Master]

@Ferrum Master Can I ask....what HDR mess?

There many types of it, so different reference peak brightness levels, basically for most content you will end up clipping, basically blow up the sky as one complete mess and loose much detail, if you lower brightness you clip the black levels then, eating up information and so on. Panels do exhibit dynamic behavior, different peak levels, for oleds it depends on bright area size, each setting and TV specific image enchancment feature can change the behavior also firmware contributes to it. You fix it, then you change profile, HDR to SDR gaming, some settings overlap, some become random, gray out, you cannot have both etc... Each TV model is like new story where you have to find out their quirks, so it is a headache.

 

[jallenlabs]

@jallenlabs
i personally wouldnt call changing/adjusting settings as "calibration", which is usually about having accurate reproduction of what you are working on,
and involves a sensor + sw, and if its for work, is something i would invest in.

one reason i switched to a (sony) tv, as their mid range (and up) is pre-calibrated, to the point where there is usually no visible difference between pre/post calibration done by reviewers.

calibration

btw, using warm for color will mess up stuff, usually neutral is better, plus, taking bluelight out of the screen (used during the day) will make you tired,
our inner clock needs it during daytime hours.

I see. So I guess from here on out, Ill call it "adjusting settings." Until I get some higher end screens that are more color accurate, this will have to do. If I edited more for an income, I would invest in that.

 

[Waldorf]

thats the nice part: if you calibrate with sensor, its not really relevant what screen you have (unless restriction with adjustments), and at least its accurate within its capabilities.

i say turn bluelight setting to lowest, switch color temp to neutral, and see if you can adjust output color depth 8 (10), and dynamic range to full.

 

[jallenlabs]

thats the nice part: if you calibrate with sensor, its not really relevant what screen you have (unless restriction with adjustments), and at least its accurate within its capabilities.

i say turn bluelight setting to lowest, switch color temp to neutral, and see if you can adjust output color depth 8 (10), and dynamic range to full.

Ill look into a sensor as it will come in handy as time goes on. I will try those settings, thanks.

 

[Bill_Bright]

Just remember, once calibrated by a colorimeter, you may not like what you see. The human brain tends to be fooled into thinking brighter colors are better and manufacturers know this. So they preset set their monitors and TVs at the factory to look brighter on the showroom floor and in our homes. And they have been doing this since the invention of color TVs so that is what our brains are used to, and expect.

Traditionally, consumers have been told to simply adjust for "natural" skin tones. But frankly, who really knows what Stephen Colbert's, Jimmy Fallen's, Tracey De Santa's or our local TV meteorologist's actual skin tones look like?

We are also told to adjust greens to achieve a natural green grass color. Have you looked at all the different shades of green in a lawn? And who's to say the green of the artificial turf used by the Cowboys is natural?

So setting for natural skin tones and green grass is perfectly fine for the vast majority of us to view and edit Word documents, webpages, Ents and Hobbits, TV shows and movies because that is what our minds are used to. But as a tech who at times gets a little anal about being technically accurate, I completely understand the desire to ensure the colors produced by our monitors and TVs are technically accurate. But as a tech who has actually calibrated many TVs and monitors using proper calibration tools, I have learned most users, including me, just don't like that sort of accuracy - it no longer looks "natural" . And we end up resetting for what our minds think are natural greens and flesh tones - undoing all the calibrations we just made.

Ill look into a sensor as it will come in handy as time goes on.

Maybe, maybe not.

Unless you are an ISF certified tech hired to calibrate TVs and monitors, a professional photog, or a specific type of "artistic" designer who depends on color accuracy (especially when transferred to print, fabric, paint or other colored materials), or if you just are OCD anal about technical accuracy, I would not worry that much about color accuracy to the point of spending money on calibration tools. It most likely will be used once or twice, then spend the rest of time at the bottom of a drawer.

Alternatively there's this: Spears & Munsil Ultra HD Benchmark

 

[ir_cow]

It's weird to see correct colors at first because you're so use to them being always wrong.

 

[unwind-protect]

I find that a used color meter is worth it. Big improvement especially for photo editing.

Now, if I could just fine mine...

 

[sneekypeet]

I find that a used color meter is worth it.

For shits and giggles I looked on ebay. You can get a Spider X Pro there for as low as $42 used, $60 for an open box, and $85 new.

 

[unwind-protect]

For shits and giggles I looked on ebay. You can get a Spider X Pro there for as low as $42 used, $60 for an open box, and $85 new.

Yeah. I had (hopefully still have) a basic Huey for about that money and it did a wonderful job.

 

[Ferrum Master]

It's weird to see correct colors at first because you're so use to them being always wrong.

I asked once one mate who just did Lasik for his eyes, how it is to look at his wife now , along the lines the same thing lol

For shits and giggles I looked on ebay. You can get a Spider X Pro there for as low as $42 used, $60 for an open box, and $85 new.

But those buggers also die and get weird... I have to recheck many panels after replacing screen in RMA, seriously we do that, sometimes they just cant get pass in automated tests, take a different one and bam test PASS... so they turn bad... just my warning...

 

[Wirko]

View attachment 373461

as you can see here in the contrast section my blues are blending a little too much at the end, but my greens and teals are spot on, this is because it is my work laptop though and I can't adjust it

Sorry but your screenshot shows me how my screen is miscalibrated, not yours.

Yeah, it is worth spending some time calibrating. I use black lagom website as a way to calibrate more accurately.

Black level - Lagom LCD test

www.lagom.nl

Particularly I utilize the black level, white saturation, and contrast section from that website (click at top for each section) then I adjust monitor settings until it looks good

Also look very carefully at the Gradient screen. It's useful for estimating grey scale uniformity but there's more to it. No part of the gradient should have a colour hue that looks different from the hue of the pure white. If you have a grey scale without flaws, you're already halfway to good colour reproduction. It's common with low quality monitors to see a range of dark greys, for example, turn a little blue or whatever.

Of course we're discussing barefoot calibration here. No instruments. But it's valuable nevertheless, and Lagom is of great help.

But those buggers also die and get weird... I have to recheck many panels after replacing screen in RMA, seriously we do that, sometimes they just cant get pass in automated tests, take a different one and bam test PASS... so they turn bad... just my warning...

Every precision measuring tool needs periodic calibration, so I'd assume colour calibrators aren't an exception... What do their manufacturers specify?

I see. So I guess from here on out, Ill call it "adjusting settings." Until I get some higher end screens that are more color accurate, this will have to do. If I edited more for an income, I would invest in that.

The way you described it in your initial post, it's just setting contrast and brightness, with little regard for colour. You set the colour temp to warmbut that was probably just to make it look nice under warm artificial light.

To make things less simple: using a calibrated monitor assumes working under standard ambient light, 5000K or 6500K, with a specified illuminance (intensity). No daylight. Studio photographers fear daylight as much as gremlins.

So what we ended up doing was displaying photos of real people - preferably people the clients knew; friends and family members. Not CGI or AI people, but real people.

The issue I see here is that the photos were likely taken with phones if you did that in the recent years. The skin tones and grass and sky colours had already been chewed up by phone's "AI". But nevermind, if it looks good, it should be called good.