I calibrated my Panasonic TX-P55VT50E (which is a plasma) using lightspace and a i1Display Pro (C6 really) following roughly this guide:

http://displaycalibrationtools.com/display-calibration-guides-and-workflows/panasonic -65vt60-lightspace-eecolor-3d-lut-calibration/
(Thanks a lot for this great piece of information)

The generated LUT is applied by a lumagen radiance (17 point LUT) which was also used as pattern generator.

A quick profile report with the LUT active in the radiance can be found here:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/vtnd55pqzaa5xa7/Test_with_LUT_in_lumagen-Post.pdf?dl=0

According to the report the Delta-E values for the 1976 (which should be considered "default Delta-E"?) and the 2000 formula are very different. Where the 2000 values are acceptable but some of the 1976 are not (for example blue has a value of roughly 7). Therefore i have some questions:

Should i consider the Delta-E 2000 values (which are ok, i guess) and just ignore the 1976 ones?
Is there anything i can do to improve my calibration workflow here in order to get a better result?

Any other thoughts / suggestions / remarks / anything is welcome

Thanks

dE 2000 is considered more realistic when compared to human vision.
But, both 2000 and 1976 are valid reports.
At the end of the day you need to research both and decide which you would rather uses as your personal target.
But, your report shows potential clipping issues in the highlights.
I'd check that.

Steve

Hmm,

Where did you find this information in the report? The sensor was used in BURST mode and the integration time was 1 second (some readings have shown that dark patches are off sometimes, even outside the gamut, with this value where an integration time of >2.5 gave better results but would took far too long to profile over 9k points with it).

Holger

Sorry - just spotted you reply!
(Normally try to respond far quicker...)

Anyway, the Gamma curves show the clipping.
If you look ta the main Gamma graph, you can see how the measurements move away from the target, and then join at the top.
That is because the data is 'normalised', and the separation from the target show the peak white is clipped.
The DifGamma shows this in more detail.

And in the next release the 'Clipping' graph will also be in the PDF report - that will obviously show the clipping.

You should also be using 'Intelligent Integration' with the i1D3.
See the i1D3 page on the website.

Steve

No problem, better late than never (as i am a calibration "semi-noob" this questions might seem a bit strange to you)

Thanks for the clarification, i also tried another "mode" on my TV and calibrated that where the dE values looked better maybe because the raw gamut is a bit wider than Rec. 709 to start with, unfortunately the max brightness is limited in any other mode than THX on this model, no idea why panasonic implemented it that way. So i am kind of stuck with it, also this mode does not allow to configure any white or grey points on the display. About the clipping in the color highlights .. i did not recognize any clipping but that surely doesn't mean anything. Thanks for the tip with the "intelligent integration", what nits value do you suggest for the i1D3 here? 5/10 ? Also the webpage states that "With the addition of Intelligent Integration, for many display types the use of Frequency Mode may prove to provide the best possible measurements". So should i use ABL or Frequency mode with intelligent integration time?

Thanks,
Holger

Logic dictates that the way to define the intelligent integration threshold is to establish the lower nits level at which the probe works ok/correctly on your display, and use a value slightly higher than that...

But, as the i1D3 is 'certified' by X-Rite to 0.1 nits, then a value of around 0.1 nits (or slightly higher) makes sense...
See: https://www.lightillusion.com/i1_display_pro.html

And I'm not sure what you mean about "should i use ABL or Frequency mode".
ABL is a display power saving issue.

If you mean 'Burst' or 'Frequency', then Frequency, as the instruction suggest.

Steve

This, of course, make a lot of sense. I will try to find out what the threshold is.

What i meant was AIO mode, not ABL .. silly me. Another question that came to mind is what cube should i use to profile the display in the first place. The guide i mentioned in the first posting does not use the integrated 21^3 cube but a custom generated set of points. Is there really a difference, or in other words, will the custom set provide more valuable / usable information for the engine during 3D lut generation than the integrated one would?

Holger

We always use 21^3 profiling (or possibly 17^3 if time is an issue).
We never use 'alternative' patch sequences, as we have really not found any benefit, and have found issues with sequences that have far too many points in one location/section - such as grey scale.
On unstable display/probe combinations that can cause non-monotonic issues (data fold-back).
The same can be true of the 'Hybrid' mode within LightSpace - in reality that is a last resort option (and we may remove it, as it can be confusing!).

Steve