Suggestions for some things that contribute to a better user experience on ColorSpace

When viewing EOTF in HDR in graphs the graphs are curves which makes it difficult to see and magnify near-black errors unlike in Calman where you can view a single line graph showing near black problems accurately

Numbers are not enough between measurement and the Target in Nearblack calibration in HDR

Linear graphs allow you to report and estimate the size of the problem to calibrate some signal in HDR for example with nearblack

This is the most important thing I attention to the linear graph of the EOTF in HDR as a Priority

Also if you add the possibility to match the max nits of the ST.2084 with the TV automatically by enabling it with a button
Instead of the user having to adjust the brightness value of the ST.2084 every time within the Pre set

Sort suggestions

1- Ability to use a linear EOTF chart instead of a curve to see near-black problem

2- Matching the max ST.2084 nits with the TV max nits Without modifying the preset st.2084 and creating a new preset

i can send a picture to illustrate what I mean by the HDR EOTF linear Graph via email

If you use the 'Absolute' option, you can view EOTF as an absolute graph.
And for your other comments, please update your ColourSpace to the latest version, and be sure to read the 'Changes' document.

Steve

Hi Steve

True today I checked it thank you i Use absolute error and i see absolute graph

But some point in thee nearblack are not visible and are clustered together. I hope to find a way to display them, perhaps because of the large number of point in graph. Need to adding the possibility to specify sub points to display them

Even though I zoomed in to the maximum, some points were hidden and collected.
For the second point

I saw the update details on the X app and told TED about it. I liked the feature, but TED apparently didn't test it and said the feature was to display the code value for HDR,

The both features are currently available

Great update

If any points are clustered together, it means the probe is reading them as the same colour - usually means the display is clipping, or the probe just can't read the low-light patches

Steve

Steve

The probe is CR-100 the best low light reading probe on the market

With maximum zoom Four points are collected, I don't know what they correspond to in the video signal ratio

the point 0 = 64,64,64 Target 0,0000 nits is normal to be at the lowest level

The point 1 = 68,68.68 the target is 0.0006 nits The probe read 0.0040 nits

The point 2 = 77,77,77 Target 0.0049 The probe read 0.0082 nits

The point 3 = 107,107,107 Target 0.0575 The probe reads 0.0241 nits

The difference appears in numbers, but I think it should appear in a Graph. That is, if I have a certain degree of Crush shadow details , the Graph should show the extent of the deviation from the reference line for correction

Perhaps a way could be found to represent the point error graphically through a feature even if the reading is close

Like Calman in Nearblack it shows the amount of shadow crushing up to 2.5% video signal in HDR

It's obvious that EOTF graph zoom is inadequate in Absolute mode. Looking at ST2084 Rec2020 10-bit Legal code points 64-128 measured with Virtual Probe, here's normal mode at min zoom and Absolute mode at max zoom, both with point 128 selected.

Normal min zoom

Absolute max zoom

As you have not used the point info dialogue to show the values, there is nothing that can be deduced from your screen grabs.

Steve

If you can't see the individual points even with perfect measurement accuracy, the zoom level isn't sufficient ...

As above, As you have not used the point info dialogue to show the values, there is nothing that can be deduced from your screen grabs.
If you want us to take such feedback seriously, you need to provide valid information.

Steve

Steve

Hello Steve

I am the writer of the topic, different from the other person who is talking to you

I wanted to complete his words after checking Using a peak brightness of 1030nits for St.2084 Rec.2020 as a target with a virtual probe With absolute error enabled And zoom in to the maximum

In perfect condition for measurements

Points are collected from point 0 to 3 and at 4 the graph starts to separate the points clearly. Point 3 is just a little far away but cannot be seen clearly because it is crowded with the lower points

I'm trying to upload pictures to the site to show

Point 4 is clear and separate from the rest

https://ibb.co/PcP7VhR

point 3 close and unclear To a certain extent

https://ibb.co/kGQphz9

Point 2 It is aggregated and not clear at all in the Graph

https://ibb.co/mhDhxtN

point 1 Same thing

https://ibb.co/Kxf5Bss

Point 0 does not need to be displayed, it is at the lowest level

This is the same thing I see when taking real measurements using a real probe

We conclude from the graph that it is not Enough So if it was improved or a way was put in place to be able to see those points clearly, it would be good

That all suggest you are actually looking for Luna errors, not EOTF.

Better to use the Absolute option in RGB Balance.

Steve

Steve

I Look at the Luma errors in the EOTF Graph It is also used for this To see the EOTF track of the TV

I don't focus entirely on a flaw in the EOTF chart, it's correct, but the last points in Nearblack are not clear in the chart, and many use it to correct Luma errors on TV

I don't know exactly what you mean by Luma. Does it mean brightness errors with RGB balance? Both together. In general, Luma refers to brightness

To clarify I am looking for the TV tracking deviation from EOTF in the EOTF graph. This is used by reviewers to see how much the TV is deviating from EOTF tracking and fix it. The graph in Color Space is not sufficient to show this compared to Calman

It is useful from point 4 and above, but points below 4 do not show their deviation accurately in Graph

This is what the EOTF graph looks like with my LG G2 TV measurements and absolute error enabled

This is with zoom Everything is fine except that points less than 4 do not appear

https://ibb.co/55xJFHM

Thank you for showing me another way to see Luma errors on TV It's good for fixing EOTF with RGB balance errors but points 3 and below are a mess to represent as they show a big drop in the Graph

https://ibb.co/cxWr1jK

Different from the EOTF Graph where the deviation is shown in a logical and judgeable way

But thank you this helps me for calibration purposes more but it is not enough

I know Color Space is better than Calman in every way, but I strive to provide better and better experiences for users

But I think Calman accurately shows the EOTF deviation on a Graph down to the 2.5% video signal and you can see that deviation on the Graph

example

https://ibb.co/7bHc19M

https://ibb.co/TY2DCrQ

I always follow Vincent as he points out TV near-black problems either by 10% or more or a lot when pointing out near-black problems by 2.5% video signal and shows the amount of deviation in the EOTF graph

I think you are missing the point that any EOTF error is a Luma error, and will also be different in the three RGB channels - so the Absolute RGB Balance errors is basically the error you are looking at in the EOTF graphs.

Steve

Steve

No, I'm not missing the point but I told you that because you told me you weren't looking for EOTF errors, you were looking for Luma errors so I thought you meant that as if I was referring to Color Space errors in EOTF ST2084 in the reference drawing while I was talking about Luma representation errors and their deviation from EOTF

Thats The deviation is not shown on the graph due to the collection of points That's what I meant

So I know in advance that any errors in Luma are errors in EOTF

But you made them seem separate when you told me "That all suggest you are actually looking for Luna errors, not EOTF"

But thanks for telling me another way to see EOTF errors using the absolute error in RGB Balance it also doesn't need manual zooming to see the problems Compared to HDR EOTF Graph

Everything works but I just said my opinion that maybe improving the display of points in the EOTF Graph would be good for us

Showing The Nearblack Point lowest than 4 point is exaggerated when using absolute error in RGB Balance

No, the near black points are not exaggerated.
They are exactly correct for the Y axis scale.
If you have relatively large errors, the graph will show that.
But, we are thinking of altering the Y axis scale for Absolute plots.

Steve