Blackmagic Forum

After calibrating my monitors I notice they appear a lot dimmer. They are set at a luminance of 120 cd/m2. This is supposedly the correct setting to have when grading. What's the benefit of this setting? It appears very dim IMO.

Thanks!

It's standard value. Yes, it's not very bright, but it was chosen according to existing technology capabilities many years ago. HDR brings is back to something more current and looking more realistic.

So, do most grade at that level?

Yes. It's not a random value.
In the same time if you do it for web etc than you can forget about it. Well, with modern TVs and user habits this value doesn't mean much, but when it comes to "pro" grading than this is correct number.

Almost all of the content I create is for the web. Is it safe to assume I should leave it at that setting for now as a good place to start from?

Bt1886 is Probably more like 100 in a dim light controlled room. 120 is for more ambient light.

Spectracal has a good explanation of what BT1886 means in the real world:

http://www.spectracal.com/Documents/Whi ... T.1886.pdf

100 nits (aka 100 cd/m2) is pretty standard in broadcast mastering, as far as I know. I think it translates fine to the web.

Yeah but pretty dim in a non controlled environment

Paul Provost wrote:Yeah but pretty dim in a non controlled environment

Eh, anybody who's serious about color correction has to control the environment. A coupla curtains and shutting lights off... not that big a deal.

Same as with many other things these recommendations are bit outdated and don't "properly" follow technology. If you take some monitor with HDR and than flip between 100nits and HDR than you very quickly realise how crap 100 nits is. It's so dull and lifeless and 80's It doesn't have to even be 1000nits, 500 is already much nicer.
As far as this around 100nits is safe I would not take it as a very hard rule for content which is going on the web, as maybe 5% (or less) will have their screens set that low. It's very "wild" environment so any strict rules make not much sense. If you have more than 1 device check your grade how it looks by the average, as this is some representation how it will look on audience screens. In this case this is better "test" than following some SMPTE numbers. At least this is my opinion. Always rise shadow details for web, otherwise people won't see them at all (specially on Mac screens).

Thing is, you don't get to choose. That's why they call it a standard. If you're grading for HDR, you need an HDR monitor calibrated for HDR and work strictly in that.
If you're grading 709/1886/srgb you need to set up for that (100-120).
If you think you want to choose your own custom luminance level, then go ahead - you're just goofing around at that point. Not color grading.

Your per book approach makes sense only when you grade for cinema or some other controlled delivery/viewing mechanism.
In case of web these standards are good (as at least they give some reference point), but in the same time they are sometime worthless.
I worked for place with Dolby monitors and almost every project with web delivery had the same story- all great until client saw it on "home" screen. Almost every case ended with correction to make things look good on average home monitor not Dolby, as people don't have Dolby monitors at home Colorists didn't like it/agree to it, but client is right and in this case I agree with client not colorists Great looking "Dolby's grade" was not so great for people whom this video was targeted to.
So what is better reference look or "web" look?

If you add on top of it Mac's screens with lack of shadow details you really shouldn't be bothered much if your web grading screen is set to 100 or 200 nits. How many people uses computer screens set to 100nits?

Do whatever the client wants

i also work with a PR4200, and also have a first gen Dreamcolor, Panny Plasma, and a h264 encoder feeding a mackbookpro.. i do switch on room lights and playback the advert through the encoder, onto the laptop's screen, usualy after we have a grade, and before the cleint signs off

the mbp is roughtly callibrated with a consumer probe and set to full bright

that's helpful for everyone's comfort level befoer they leave the suite, it's very rare i get a call about things not matching at the client's office when they signed off on the grade after watching it on a lappie with room lights on

this is manly for adverts, the dp's and post sups in features know the game far too well to bother with it.

Paul Provost wrote:Do whatever the client wants

that is a recipe for disaster.

there is a standard. use it. anything else is goofing around.

100 in dim environment, 120 otherwise. both controlled light in the room.

Tell this to the client, who pays your wage
Sometimes it's nice not to be involved in this "grey" area discussions.

waltervolpatto wrote:

Paul Provost wrote:Do whatever the client wants

that is a recipe for disaster.

there is a standard. use it. anything else is goofing around.

100 in dim environment, 120 otherwise. both controlled light in the room.

I completely redid a job once - a big one - because ceo didn't like how it looked on his iPhone.
Basically 8000k white point. Billed them. Everybody happy.

Paul Provost wrote:

waltervolpatto wrote:

Paul Provost wrote:Do whatever the client wants

that is a recipe for disaster.

there is a standard. use it. anything else is goofing around.

100 in dim environment, 120 otherwise. both controlled light in the room.

I completely redid a job once - a big one - because ceo didn't like how it looked on his iPhone.
Basically 8000k white point. Billed them. Everybody happy.

oh bother. ...... (Pooh)

Paul Provost wrote:I completely redid a job once - a big one - because ceo didn't like how it looked on his iPhone. Basically 8000k white point. Billed them. Everybody happy.

I have too many stories like this. I can think of a network sitcom that ran for 8 seasons where the producers' offices had a very bright monitor, so they constantly complained that our images were too bright. We finally wound up doing the show at like 50 ire, very dark for a sitcom, starting with the pilot... and they liked it. We stuck with that look for the duration of the series. It went on to win 3 or 4 Emmys for Best Cinematography, so go figure.

waltervolpatto wrote:there is a standard. use it. anything else is goofing around.

I think this is the best advice. One hopes that if you're using a calibrated monitor set to a known standard, you have a fighting chance that it'll translate well to other environments. If it's seen on an iPad that's 40% too bright, then everything will be too bright... and it might look OK. If it's seen on a consumer TV set that's much too cool, then everything will be too cool... and it might look OK (at least in context).

one of the problem for me is the "fighting chance": if a client came back and does not like it, if I'm calibrated they will pay to redo it. if I'm not they can ask to do it again for free because i was not "calibrated".

Produce to proper standards. If the client requires you to deviate from the standard then that is their problem. If you have work to standard then you can simply apply a filter / lut process on all output for the specific client. This maintains standards and gives the client what they want. It makes it much easier to go back and change the output filter if they change their minds. Doing the whole process to a made up, non calibrated reference point is just asking for trouble.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Brightness is so relative and related to environment that you can't so easily put a number on it.

Andrew Kolakowski wrote:Brightness is so relative and related to environment that you can't so easily put a number on it.

no, in a grading suite the environment is fully described and controlled as well.

All your work is watched outside of the grading suite

Andrew Kolakowski wrote:All your work is watched outside of the grading suite

that is irrelevant.

let say you have red walls and bright warm light in your room, your eye WILL BE polluted by it, forcing you to color with a tint to neutralize it, and it will look like poop in ANY of the other devices.

I'm just trying to say that any standard is good when it's applied to controlled environment. This is why cinemas deliver the best experience as it's the most controlled environment for the end user (even if 80% cinemas have way to low brightness due to savings). Outside this your per standard approach is not only half as good, but still keeps things in some controlled range.
If 10 monitors are not calibrated and you watch your "perfect" grade than average error will be smaller than if you would grade to one of this "wrong" monitors. In the same time brightness is one of these parameters which is less important and very relative.
Another thing- if you know that 95% TV/monitors out there are oversaturated and to blue than you can compensate for it (for the master which is targeting these devices) and I don't think this is a very bad think to do.

The biggest puzzle for me is fact that whole industry is still trying to compensate new display technology to the CRT "look". Sorry, but I find it totally pointless and see not a single reason for it. Why are you trying to "limit" (because at the end this is exactly what they do) some new technology to one from 30 years ago? Sony is adding special offset, so their OLED white point looks the same as on old CRT- why?? Who said this old CRT white point is the only correct and best thing in the world? It's not!
Are they going to "limit" latest laser technology to keep old CRT look also, because this is what industry veterans use to work to and have in their heads? Move on- it's time to forget Rec.709 and 100 nits- we are ready for better things

the bt1886 is specific to new TV technology, not crt anymore. ....

Sort of.
Why Sony needs to add special "adjustment" so when you look at their band new 4K OLED monitor white point looks the same as on old CRT? (regardless of D65 numbers). It's 21st century, so who cares how D65 white point did look on CRT? Why do you still have to come back to it as it would be some perfect thing? It looked some way, based on current technology etc, but this was 30 years ago Why OLED D65 white point is worse, so it needs to be adjusted to look as CRT one?

Sometimes I create a version adjusted solely for this client's viewing environment (CEO's computer monitor) but deliver it without the adjustment. Don't ask me what I went through to make the producer understand it. It wasn't easy.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Andrew Kolakowski wrote:Sort of.
Why Sony needs to add special "adjustment" so when you look at their band new 4K OLED monitor white point looks the same as on old CRT? (regardless of D65 numbers). It's 21st century, so who cares how D65 white point did look on CRT? Why do you still have to come back to it as it would be some perfect thing? It looked some way, based on current technology etc, but this was 30 years ago Why OLED D65 white point is worse, so it needs to be adjusted to look as CRT one?

I thinks you're missing the point about the standard. Without one, we will never see the pictures how the creator intended to be seen. So it is TV manufacturers' mistake to make every TV look different and assume they have better picture.

Let me say it again. It's not about how good it displays, but it is about how accurate it displays what content creator want to show.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I agree that standards are needed, as other wise it would be total mess.
In the same time brightness is very relative and when we talk about reference setting for web than I woukd not be that crazy about 100 or 120 nits requirement.

Even Today a Sony Bravia XBR-65X900E is only 550 cd/m2
and the Samsung series 6 NU6900U is only 324 cd/m2

medicfl1 wrote:Even Today a Sony Bravia XBR-65X900E is only 550 cd/m2
and the Samsung series 6 NU6900U is only 324 cd/m2

Not when they're calibrated to Rec709.

I thought I read once that when targeting cinema, that a Rec709 monitor in a dark room with low surround should/could be about 80. I actually have mine set to 60 right now and it is comfortable to my eyes when typing on this forum with it's white background full screen in my browser (and when working in Resolve). 100 would seem really bright to me, but I'm about to recalibrate/profile, so I may try it. Would 80 be an impediment to proper grading for cinema (and web if properly targeted in delivery format)? Or is 100 as low as I should go, and work equally well for film/TV/Web. I keep seeing the 100-120 range, but not sure if that is mostly for TV/Broadcast, or for film.

Unless you have a very high end monitor you won't get good color accuracy or contrast at low luminance levels. As our eyes can adapt to different luminance levels it's arguably justified to work at brighter luminance levels where a cheaper monitor can perform better and in a brighter environment where our eyes can adapt to the brighter screen without too much eye strain.

A calibration for rec.709 for broadcast would always be 100 cd/m2.
120 cd/m2 is not really a standard AFAIK.

Portrait Displays advises a target brightness of 120-160 cd/m2 for office environment sRGB.

The average consumer display is 350 cd/m2 with the standard setting usually set pretty high and consumer rarely tone that down.
Mobile phones are also increasingly bright. Roughly 500 cd/m2.
So the consumer will almost always view your content on a brighter display than your reference.
But it's something to keep in mind not to calibrate to.
You should calibrate to a comfortable brightness within that range that fits your viewing environment.

At least this is how we approach it and it works perfectly fine. We calibrate to 120 cd/m2 around winter days because it gets darker quickly and to 150 cd/m2 during summer.
This is for web content only, our broadcast is still referenced to 100 cd/m2.

Never calibrate to a different white point though that's just utter rubbish. both rec.709 and sRGB have a fixed whitepoint of D65. If you shift your reference just for 1 particular device you offset the entire picture even more for devices that are reference or even more towards the opposite. Very bad practice.

Educate your client. Don't lick his boots because he pays the bill.

shebbe wrote:Educate your client. Don't lick his boots because he pays the bill.

I think that is good advice.

I ended up settling on 80 nits since I work almost exclusively in a dark room with faint D65 surround, much like in a good theater without the 20 distracting 500W EXIT signs washing out the screen! Full screen white Windows backgrounds (like this forum) feel like the white screens in theater, and I'm getting a contrast ratio of 660 with a black of 0.12 cd/m2 at 80. Not too bad for my ageing Dell U3011.

For me, this translated well to the theater via DCP when I did my tests on a short horror film shot in a wooded valley with the sun below the mountains and graded to a low-key, early twilight. I suspect 100 would work as well, it's just not as comfortable to me in this setting. Just another data point.

GrizzlyAK wrote:

shebbe wrote:Educate your client. Don't lick his boots because he pays the bill.

I think that is good advice.

I ended up settling on 80 nits since I work almost exclusively in a dark room with faint D65 surround, much like in a good theater without the 20 distracting 500W EXIT signs washing out the screen! Full screen white Windows backgrounds (like this forum) feel like the white screens in theater, and I'm getting a contrast ratio of 660 with a black of 0.12 cd/m2 at 80. Not too bad for my ageing Dell U3011.

For me, this translated well to the theater via DCP when I did my tests on a short horror film shot in a wooded valley with the sun below the mountains and graded to a low-key, early twilight. I suspect 100 would work as well, it's just not as comfortable to me in this setting. Just another data point.

just keep in mind that a theater DLP projector should be able to do 2000:1 contrast ratio, you might add too much visual contrast in your setup in comparison to the final projection.

Flanders Scientific monitors standard calibration is 100 nits. Studio mode is 200 nits. Outdoor mode is around 200 nits.

I don't think it's wise to go below 100 nits in a controlled viewing environment. I use a custom 150 nits setting if I'm viewing in a slightly brighter 'customer screening' session.

I have always set up the ambient light conditions in the room to correctly support the calibrated monitor brightness setting. For me the issue with changing the monitor setting is that the perception of the image gamma varies with the ambient light intensity. What most people don't research is how human vision works and how we can be fooled by our own perception. In my world (broadcast/film grading) the ambient light intensity and colour temperature in the viewing room is an absolute that should be adhered to whenever possible.

waltervolpatto wrote:just keep in mind that a theater DLP projector should be able to do 2000:1 contrast ratio, you might add too much visual contrast in your setup in comparison to the final projection.

But isn't that the point of color management after all? In reality, my own DCP tests in several theaters all looked and sounded completely different. The only way to be sure your film will look right is to grade it in the theater you want to show it in, or... take off and nuke it from space. Even theater standards are rarely met today, especially in sound. Picture is better, unless the enterprise tries to get the very last hour from that old lamp that is no longer close to color spec.

That 2000:1 contrast that Christie and Barco lists is Sequential (on/off) contrast and is the DCI standard for projectors. However, the real (perceptual) contrast is around 500:1 (as listed in Christies CP Series specs). Even going from a black frame to full white frame at 2000:1 would blind most people in a dark theater, as our eyes do not adjust to that kind of change fast enough (IIRC, the human eye has a static contrast capacity of about 600:1, taking 30 or more seconds to adjust to drastic scene changes, e.g., from a dark room to bright daylight). DCI also set a 150:1 intra-frame contrast ratio, which according to studies, given theatrical tolerances, becomes about 100:1.

Peter Cave wrote:I have always set up the ambient light conditions in the room to correctly support the calibrated monitor brightness setting.

You do this by measuring the ambient light when you calibrate/profile your monitor?

For me the issue with changing the monitor setting is that the perception of the image gamma varies with the ambient light intensity.

I calibrated/profiled my monitor (and use it) in the same ambient light always in a dark room. My room is slightly darker than your typical studio, because I don't need to have customers walking around finding their seats. That's the primary reason why I chose 80 over 100. Granted, if I had more light in my room, then I would definitely go to 100, and agree that the ambient should match and be consistent with your monitor state when working.