Need help for monitor Color Calibration soft-hardware on mac

So Resolve has built in support for CalMan and LightSpace. However, both programs mandate you have to use a windows computer. I contacted both vendors and CalMan Sales guy said it runs on Windows 7 only (which you can't even get anymore) and LightSpace emailed back:

"As per the information on our website LightSpace CMS is Windows only.
It will run on Mac under any form of Windows emulation.

The alternative option is to run it on a low-cost Windows laptop, networked
to the Resolve Mac."

I really do not want to partition run boot camp or VM and windows just to do this what should be simple ting. Since many post houses are Linux or Mac, are there any reliable color calibration software/hardware programs that you can use to calibrate a 4K UHD monitor like the two programs above do and run on a mac. I know there are others that do the computer monitor, but I am looking at calibrating myUHD monitor which has been tested as a reference monitor. Even if I were to do the above Mac sees color differently from windows. It just really seems weird that many artists use Mac mostly and yet there is no option for it.

Thanks in advance
My system, 12 core 2.7 Ghz Mac Pro Late 2013 running OS Sierra (Dual D700 cards and 128 gigs of ram). Running Thunderbolt 2 out that mac to BM Ultra Studio 4K Extreme, then HDMI 2.0 to LG OLED55B6P 55" Ultra High Def 4K (again panel was tested and considered a reference monitor)

So Resolve has built in support for CalMan and LightSpace. However, both programs mandate you have to use a windows computer. I contacted both vendors and CalMan is Windows 7 only (which you can't even get anymore) and LightSpace emailed back "As per the information on our website LightSpace CMS is Windows only.
It will run on Mac under any form of Windows emulation.

The alternative option is to run it on a low-cost Windows laptop, networked
to the Resolve Mac."

Since many post houses are Linux or Mac, are there any reliable color calibration software/hardware programs that you can use to calibrate a 4K UHD monitor like the two programs above do and run on a mac. I know there are others that do the computer monitor, but I am looking at calibrating myUHD monitor which has been tested as a reference monitor. Even if I were to do the above Mac sees color differently from windows. It just really seems weird that many artists use Mac mostly and yet there is no option for it.

Thanks in advance
My system, 12 core 2.7 Ghz Mac Pro Late 2013 running OS Sierra (Dual D700 cards and 128 gigs of ram). Running Thunderbolt 2 out that mac to BM Ultra Studio 4K Extreme, then HDMI 2.0 to LG OLED55B6P 55" Ultra High Def 4K (again panel was tested and considered a reference monitor)

How about running either software on Parallels or similar emulator. You still be able to connect through the network in the specified port. Right?

Wanted to not have to run bootcamp or have windows on my mac machine. Both programs state only VMWare Fusion and Bootcamp and does not mention parallels

Another question is can you run calman on a windows machine on a monitor and have the LUT it makes work on the mac. Again, my understanding is that mac and windows sees color differently

But the use of Ultra Studio should circumvent any changes imposed by the OS.
Question: where does the calibration load the LUTs? Into the interface or into the monitor?
It's useless if it's not loaded into hardware.

But the use of Ultra Studio should circumvent any changes imposed by the OS.
Question: where does the calibration load the LUTs? Into the interface or into the monitor?
It's useless if it's not loaded into hardware.

But to get video out of Resolve to a TV you have to go through BM hardware so the fact that they have the color calibration in the program and referencing Lightspace and Calman in the software means that It does store the LUT for video out. Again, my question is that the two options are windows only programs (one uses a version of windows you can not get anymore only)

Here is the Lightspace page showing Resolve intigration with the program for color calibrating a referrence TV
https://www.lightillusion.com/resolve_manual.html


It does show a Mac tower in the back but again my understanding is that Mac and Windows see color differently so calibrating to a windows machine may cause color problems when hooking it up to a Mac for doing the work

The calibration guys I know in LA use very cheap (like $300-$400) Windows laptops and Calman with Klein K-10A colorimeters. But I would bet many (if not most) Resolve users in the area are using Mac, with a lot of pro users on Linux. It doesn't matter as long as the monitor comes out right.

All of them are using self-contained systems that don't rely on the test signals within Resolve. If the monitor is set correctly, then it should be right regardless of input, assuming it comes in digitally and in the same color space (presumably Rec709).

The calibration guys I know in LA use very cheap (like $300-$400) Windows laptops and Calman with Klein K-10A colorimeters. But I would bet many (if not most) Resolve users in the area are using Mac, with a lot of pro users on Linux. It doesn't matter as long as the monitor comes out right.

All of them are using self-contained systems that don't rely on the test signals within Resolve. If the monitor is set correctly, then it should be right regardless of input, assuming it comes in digitally and in the same color space (presumably Rec709).

Hey Marc. I was hoping you would answer here but I did not want to pester you with a private message directly as I know you are a busy guy. Thanks for replying to my post. Okay cool. So what your saying is that with Calman you are adjusting the monitor on the monitor and not creating an LUT that Resolve sends out to the monitor so that the LUT setting sent from the computer make the monitor look correct? I have used color calibration programs and monkey before, but they always created a LUT that you set the computer system to use to send to the monitor to look correct, and you did not mess with the settings on the monitor. And my issue was since Mac and Windows see color differently, if it was an LUT then the translation would be screwed up on the Mac. But you just answered that question. Thanks again for taking the time out of your busy day to help with your insight on this. I appreciate it.

Have you looked into DisplayCal?

https://displaycal.net

So what your saying is that with Calman you are adjusting the monitor on the monitor and not creating an LUT that Resolve sends out to the monitor so that the LUT setting sent from the computer make the monitor look correct?

Well, it's a 2-step process: they adjust the hardware controls on the display to get all the usual parameters set as closely as possible, including individual R-G-B settings, then the software (Light Illusion or Calman) generates a LUT that can be used with an external device to get the monitor the rest of the way, usually with certain colors that are a little bit off. Some displays can store a LUT internally (like the FSIs and Sonys); all monitors can use an external LUT box. The advantages of not using a display LUT within Resolve are a) your scopes are unaffected, and b) it takes the additional processing load off your computer.

I have traditionally not seen gigantic differences with or without a LUT box, but if you really want to be precise, an external LUT box is technically the right way to go. I'm using a Blackmagic Mini-Teranex to store a LUT and provide an HDMI output for the display, and it's working OK -- I also find it seems to stabilize the signal and eliminates any momentary HDMI hiccups (due to HDCP), which happened previously.

yes -- it's really a problem, that resolve doesn't handle this kind of display filter handling in more flexible and operating system independent way for all the different display and output devices on your machine.

other application, which by design are more open in their output capabilities and are not so strict focused on live output via decklink cards, are usually providing much more satisfying and precise control in this respect.

a) your scopes are unaffected, ...

that's the case in resolve right now, but from a technical point of view it doesn't have to be like that!

e.g. mistika lets you choose, which kind of output path will be affected by an applied display filter. you can toggle for any of this filters, if it will be applied to the visualization on your GUI display / live output via decklink card / affecting the values shown on your scopes / translating the final render results. and of course you can use more of them in parallel to make different changes for distinct output devices at the same time (e.g. an sRGB translation for calibrated GUI monitors and a rec709 translation for the live output on reference broadcast screen vie decklink card), to get a consistent view on all of them.



it's practically demonstrated (even the toggling of it's effect on scopes!) in this tutorial at 53:10-55:12:

b) it takes the additional processing load off your computer.

no -- i can't agree on that. it's such a simple technical operation and very well supported/accelerated by GPUs, that the actual performance impact should more or less negligible, if it's properly implemented.

but that's all little bit off topic and just my usual discontentment about one of the most important and well known shortcomings of resolve.

concerning the original question, a link to DisplayCal is probably more useful.

Have you looked into DisplayCal?

https://displaycal.net

Came here to post this. I've calibrated using displayCAL, and used its 3DLUT generator to create monitoring LUTs for Resolve. You can do any kind of calibration; sRGB, Rec709, P3, even ACES, as long as you know what you are doing. Make sure to disable 3DLUTs for Resolve's scopes or else your scopes will be incorrect.

e.g. mistika lets you choose, which kind of output path will be affected by an applied display filter. you can toggle for any of this filters, if it will be applied to the visualization on your GUI display / live output via decklink card / affecting the values shown on your scopes / translating the final render results. and of course you can use more of them in parallel to make different changes for distinct output devices at the same time (e.g. an sRGB translation for calibrated GUI monitors and a rec709 translation for the live output on reference broadcast screen vie decklink card), to get a consistent view on all of them.

If I understand you correctly, Resolve has all of those functions built in as well.

If I understand you correctly, Resolve has all of those functions built in as well.

i think, different people her in the forum would answer this question in a contrary way.

i personally would say, resolve doesn't support this functionality in a satisfying way -- and i never understood, why a dedicated color grading application doesn't place more importance on displaying adequate colors on the GUI just as on the live video output via decklink cards?

unfortunately this development has it's historical and marketing political reasons.

it don't want to say, it's so much better solved in all other similar alternatives, but it's definitely handled in a different way in most of them. they are usually able to use calibrated computer screens as most basic form of operation and support this usage case quite well out of the box. utilizing dedicated live video output hardware on the other hand, is usually seen as a professional feature by their manufactures, which is not supported by entry level and free versions of those products. in case of resolve it's quite opposite. you don't get reliable GUI display support at any price, but external monitoring support comes for free.

the drawing up of a frontier between those two alternatives got so much attention and dogmatic intensification, that even the most simple requirements, like the mentioned interferences with the reliability of values on scopes, didn't stop this game.

i personally prefer solutions, which handle this kind of technical requirements just in a transparent, generic and simple fashion, which works on any connected display device quite the same, but if you want to use resolve, you simply have to accepts its obvious limitations and peculiarities in this particular respect.

I guess I'm confused as to what is limited and peculiar about this?

https://www.dropbox.com/s/gc9tkm8dvjugrtc/Screen%20Shot%202017-09-02%20at%2011.52.47%20AM.png?dl=0

I guess I'm confused as to what is limited and peculiar about this?

https://www.dropbox.com/s/gc9tkm8dvjugrtc/Screen%20Shot%202017-09-02%20at%2011.52.47%20AM.png?dl=0

sure -- i know this quite confusing section of the project preferences...
and even the the much more misleading documentation about it (p. 73ff in the actual b14 doku).

just take a look at this graph in the handbook and how the LUTs are chained:

ok -- if you read the associated textual description, you will understand, that the display LUTs for video monitor (=decklink card) and color viewer are in fact not chained after the output LUT, but represent two independent branches in parallel to the output LUT, and this graph doesn't show the truth.

But do the color viewer LUTs really affect all other viewers on your GUI and hold true for the gallery view as well?

sure -- i also think, this could be possible! ...and there is simply no technical necessity, why resolve shouldn't use your machines capabilities suddenly to realize a more convenient full screen display of acceptable accuracy in all working modes on the second screen of your computer...

but you're right, it's probably a little bit polemic, when i characterize this features as 'peculiar' and 'confusing'.
in fact most of the related solutions in similar software have a lot in common, and the way, how how it is handled in resolve, may simply work for you resp. the difference to other solutions (e.g. to OpenColorIO based workflows, like in nuke or natron, where you do not have do specify a 1D-LUT+3D-LUT manually, but choose from useful prepared sets, or the much more general handling in mistika, where you usually apply mathematical defined matrix-transformations and gamma corrections instead of plain LUTs for this purpose) may not be seen as very important in practice.

but we lost the original topic of this thread once again!
one of the reasons for this thematic shift my be seen in the fact, that this kind of LUTs may be [mis-]used for two different purposes:

* they may act as transfer function between different color spaces (e.g. Rec709 -> sRGB)
* or they can by used for a kind of application specific monitor calibration.

and because we have only one 1D-LUT+3D-LUT pair entry, it could also be a mix of both represented in an actual LUT pair in practice!

although i think, the later purpose (software calibration) should be better handled by your graphic cards driver and system capabilities, it's a really confusing topic and hard to decide, how this things should be handled in a best practice manner for resolve?

EDIT: i have to revoke my critics about the pipline graph!

one of the reasons for this thematic shift my be seen in the fact, that this kind of LUTs may be [mis-]used for two different purposes:

* they may act as transfer function between different color spaces (e.g. Rec709 -> sRGB)
* or they can by used for a kind of application specific monitor calibration.

and because we have only one 1D-LUT+3D-LUT pair entry, it could also be a mix of both represented in an actual LUT pair in practice!

A single 3DLUT can and should do both, that is it should colorimetrically map the output colour space to the monitor's colour space and gamut (for instance, desaturating Rec709 on a wide gamut display) while simultaneously applying monitor calibration (aka vcgt).

although i think, the later purpose (software calibration) should be better handled by your graphic cards driver and system capabilities, it's a really confusing topic and hard to decide, how this things should be handled in a best practice manner for resolve?

False. Graphics cards only have a hardware 1DLUT (which is what calibration software uses), not a 3DLUT, so a monitoring 3DLUT configured in Resolve will yield superior results. I'm not sure what kind of additional transformations Apple's ColorSync does aside from setting the hardware 1DLUT but I doubt they're as good as a precomputed 3DLUT.

A single 3DLUT can and should do both, that is it should colorimetrically map the output colour space to the monitor's colour space and gamut (for instance, desaturating Rec709 on a wide gamut display) while simultaneously applying monitor calibration (aka vcgt).

that's indeed the way most video applications and computer games handle this kind of problem. this approach is also very well supported by DisplayCAL. but i wouldn't go as far and argue, that it should be done exclusively this way.

i personally still prefer a clear division between a mathematical clean and precise colorspace transformation and the additional software calibration stage.

False. Graphics cards only have a hardware 1DLUT (which is what calibration software uses), not a 3DLUT, so a monitoring 3DLUT configured in Resolve will yield superior results. I'm not sure what kind of additional transformations Apple's ColorSync does aside from setting the hardware 1DLUT but I doubt they're as good as a precomputed 3DLUT.

it doesn't matter, that actual graphic cards still do not handle more advanced color management routines -- especial ones, which are not only based on the physical regularities of CRT monitors -- in hardware. the necessary calculations can be anyhow handled by them quite well and effective.

the real benefit of system provided solutions for software calibration should be more seen in the fact, that one single setup provides a consistent solution, which works for all applications on the machine on multiple different screens and avoids nasty interferences between compensation strategies on different layers. apples system wide solutions to this problem is just the most well known, but there are quite similar efforts on the X11 and wayland development front as well.

but i wouldn't go as far and argue, that it should be done exclusively this way.

i personally still prefer a clear division between a mathematical clean and precise colorspace transformation and the additional software calibration stage.

I would argue exactly that. Doing it in separate stages needlessly reduces performance and precision by introducing additional floating point rounding errors.

but i wouldn't go as far and argue, that it should be done exclusively this way.
i personally still prefer a clear division between a mathematical clean and precise colorspace transformation and the additional software calibration stage.

I would argue exactly that. Doing it in separate stages needlessly reduces performance and precision by introducing additional floating point rounding errors.

no -- you simply overestimate the accuracy of 3D-Luts and their distribution of deviances.
handling colorspace transformation by degamma-matrix-regamma processing is a much more precise solution. this kind of operation, which nowadays should bes seen as the standard procedure, can be also very well accelerated by specific means in the gpu hardware. it's a quite different task, than compensating display rendering flaws on base of empiric measurement data.

but there are some other fundamental technical reasons concerning color managed display output, which are in fact much more important in practice. the main challenge has to be seen in the fact, that different drawing methods utilized by an application may imply quite different requirements and capabilities to handle display profiles. using fast low level graphic access, e.g. via OpenGL, simply behaves different in this respect, than widgets drawn by high level GUI libraries. the OpenGL variant simply bypasses all the system wide color management settings, if you do not take care for the needed refinements yourself. this can be realized by asking the system for its display correction settings and applying them as a fragment shader on top of of your OpenGl texture processing resp. drawing -- that's at least what apple suggests in its TN about "Best Practices for Color Management in OS X and iOS"

it's in fact much less related to any obscure low level hardware features on your graphic card, but just a very similar processing step as all the other color related processing we do in resolve all the time. and because of our familiarity with sophisticated color related work, we should be well aware, what benefits and shortcomings 3D-LUTs as an abridgment bring along and why some of us may prefer more precise and clear structured alternative approaches.

the same can be argued for the relevance of a system wide color correction, which affects all different drawings in your application in a consistent and homogeneous way. it's like ignoring the impact of the ambient light in a colorists studio and its consequence for the adaptation of the human eye, if an application doesn't care about uncorrected parts of the operating surface.

i really understand, that we have to face a huge heritage involved in this topic and that quite limited approaches became a common practice over time, but this doesn't imply, that high end grading solutions shouldn't take care about doing it better and more sophisticated. therefore i'm still unsatisfied with all the mystery and ambiguity hidden behind resolves "Color Viewer Lookup Table" entries and the way, how they are often used in a mixed purpose manner. i don't think, this kind of solutions, which on second sight look more like workarounds, shouldn't be overly glorified and uncritically recommended as best practice.

As far as I understand LUTs are just a simplification of math which GPU can do. They are yet another legacy of the "old way", but I may be wrong.
I still think the most accurate preview is over direct GPU pipe to hardware calibrated monitor (eg. Eizo internal pipe is 16bit as far as I understand) over e.g. OpenGL managed surface.
If your monitor can't reproduce some colors from eg. Rec.709 gamut then LUT in Resolve is not going to fix it. You should try to get the best possible result with monitors calibration. Adding 2nd layer of Resolve preview LUT may help a bit or not at all. At least this is how I understand it.

All of them are using self-contained systems that don't rely on the test signals within Resolve. If the monitor is set correctly, then it should be right regardless of input, assuming it comes in digitally and in the same color space (presumably Rec709).

I think this is key point- you want your monitor be perfectly calibrated with its internals (or additional LUT box which travels witch it). Then you can take it to any system which provides accurate preview signal and it will work regardless of OS, software etc. Key point here is that your preview has to be accurate, not affected by software or OS color management system. It can be BM card or other solution like OpenGL managed surface.
In the same time if you preview is affected by OS management system then on each system you use your calibrated monitor you can then compensate it with additional (unique) preview LUT (assuming that OS "adjustment" is constant).

yes -- it's really a problem, that resolve doesn't handle this kind of display filter handling in more flexible and operating system independent way for all the different display and output devices on your machine. other application, which by design are more open in their output capabilities and are not so strict focused on live output via decklink cards, are usually providing much more satisfying and precise control in this respect.

Well, this is a Resolve forum on a group owned by Blackmagic Design. I don't think it's fair to troll on the group with what you can or can't do in a competing program. As has been discussed on LiftGammaGain, it's kind of like posting on a Chevrolet user group and saying, "you guys are crazy -- you should all be driving Porsches." It's kind of not the purpose of the group, and it doesn't solve the o.p.'s problem.

I don't trust any operating system worth a damn and would never, ever want to have to trust what it displays vs. a color-managed output feeding a color-calibrated display. And that goes for every color correction program I've used in the last 35 years. To me, that's a road that could potentially lead you right off the cliff.

Key point here is that your preview has to be accurate, not affected by software or OS color management system.

it's a very interesting question, if high end video processing software should ignore/bypass OS color management capabilities, just to archive [at best] a more accurate output for one single application by other incompatible means?

this approach may work for specialized setups, where all relevant work is done just one one single software product, and nobody cares about the color rendition in other applications. but for more general purpose workstations it's much more desirable, that color rendition works for all applications in a equally reliable and jointly manageable way. i don't think it's an exorbitant expectation, if users just want to start a photo editing program, a simple video player or a NLE on nowadays machines, and always want get the same acceptable accurate results, without any application specific color profile related setup and customization efforts.

sure -- i also see the technical difficulties and insufficiencies of existing system wide color management support solutions. nevertheless it's worth striving for improvements in this direction.

this kind of satisfying usability and interoperability shouldn't be seen as much less important than sufficient support for uncommon accurate display hardware or connectivity via proprietary output devices.

yes -- it's really a problem, that resolve doesn't handle this kind of display filter handling in more flexible and operating system independent way for all the different display and output devices on your machine. other application, which by design are more open in their output capabilities and are not so strict focused on live output via decklink cards, are usually providing much more satisfying and precise control in this respect.

Well, this is a Resolve forum on a group owned by Blackmagic Design.
I don't think it's fair to troll on the group with what you can or can't do in a competing program.

no -- i have to disagree!
i think it's very important to criticize obvious shortcomings in BMD products in this forum occasionally.
and pointing to other existing alternatives -- free ones just as competing commercial products --, which handle some aspects in a significant more satisfying way, is just a useful way to emphasize the actual differences and technical feasibility of desired features.

yes -- it's really a problem, that resolve doesn't handle this kind of display filter handling in more flexible and operating system independent way for all the different display and output devices on your machine. other application, which by design are more open in their output capabilities and are not so strict focused on live output via decklink cards, are usually providing much more satisfying and precise control in this respect.

Well, this is a Resolve forum on a group owned by Blackmagic Design. I don't think it's fair to troll on the group with what you can or can't do in a competing program.

Please let moderators to do their work. They can remove posts if they are not happy with them.
Funny enough that Martin did not even mention any other software name.

I've run a decklink output and full screen GUI output to the same monitor, and toggling between the two, there is no difference in color. Monitor is hardware calibrated, so the OS (win10) does not have a monitor profile applied.

So you can get accurate colors (thou 8-bit with Windows) on the GUI. The video/data levels need to match in the GPU settings and in monitor of course.

I've run a decklink output and full screen GUI output to the same monitor, and toggling between the two, there is no difference in color. Monitor is hardware calibrated, so the OS (win10) does not have a monitor profile applied.

So you can get accurate colors (thou 8-bit with Windows) on the GUI. The video/data levels need to match in the GPU settings and in monitor of course.

I suspect this will be a bit more complex on Mac because of ColorSync complicating things, unless Resolve bypasses that.

It may be, but also that's why you have "Use Mac Dispay Color Profiles for Viewers" setting.

So you can get accurate colors (thou 8-bit with Windows) on the GUI. The video/data levels need to match in the GPU settings and in monitor of course.

I suspect this will be a bit more complex on Mac because of ColorSync complicating things, unless Resolve bypasses that.

i don't think the operating systems capabilities to mange the usually needed rec709->sRGB transformations for adequate rendering on computer monitors should be seen as inferior and unsatisfying a priori. it's in fact a quite simple task, which can be handed by common color space conversion routines even in a more precise way than using LUTs.

operating system and graphic driver support some interesting possibilities, which were never able in traditional video output solutions, because computer monitors can communicate with the graphic card in a bidirectional manner and can tell them the active display properties via EDID protocol. this can be used for automatic color matrix transformation and gamma correction e.g. by nvidia hardware (http://on-demand.gputechconf.com/gtc/20 ... -range.pdf)



sure -- this kind of elementary monitor adaptations resp. color space translations can't replace the befits of proper monitor calibration(!), but it's at least a much better approach, then just ignoring necessary color space transformations at all, and display unmodified rec709 data on sRGB computer screens by default.

as long as we only need this kind of relative simple transformations between well defined standard color spaces for a compliant and more accurate output on computer screens, i would really prefer simple automatic solutions handled by operating systems color management or even a simple rec709->sRGB default rendering, instead of confusing application specific workarounds and customization necessities to archive useful rendering on the computers GUI.

[Peter Chamberlain]

Some interesting if somewhat irrelevant discussion about an implementation that has debatable benefits. Let's not debate them here but try to focus on solving the original users questions using what's in Resolve today and help everyone use what's there now to get the best results possible. Start your own thread if it's something new you would like to request.

I can add, the two cal apps link to Resolve, they send patch definition data so Resolve can generate the color patch, which passes through the DeckLink/UltraStudio pipeline to the monitor where the probe measures and compares to the patch spec. This way the full pipeline, Inc in line processing, distribution Amps, routers etc etc are accounted for.

Generate the lut and put it in Resolve.

My advice for Mac/Linux users is use an inexpensive Win PC or emulator. It's likely cheaper than the probe or monitor you should be using.

I just re-re-re-re______read this thread ... and I wonder how many people have already "analyzed" how the calibration process takes place?

use an inexpensive Win PC or emulator. It's likely cheaper than the probe or monitor you should be using.

Pretty much.

LookUp compensation for displays that just can't get there in the first place are a fool's compensation. It would be hard to find a contemporary manufacturer whose brochure didn't state that it covered all kinds of colorspaces and gamuts... but in the end, "one acre" or "hectare" just describes one dimension, and it could be a baseball field, a soccer pitch, or open desert. Because it says it can do something, doesn't mean its doing it accurately. That's why we run these probes, and even they need to be calibrated and sensitive enough to discriminate among tiny variances at very low levels.
Currently I'm running Calman for Business on an older Sony VAIO (Win7Pro) through a BMD Intensity Shuttle sourcing Virtual Forge OR Resolve as a pattern generator - and that's what's running on that Mac in the background, NOT Calman- depending on situation -- measuring with the SpectraCal C6 (modded for HDR). There was a license of Virtual Forge that needed to be swung over to this Windows laptop so I could run it out to clients' approval monitors to ballpark their calibrations. That said, diving into their consumer "Advanced User/Expert" setups can yield surprisingly good results. Some of the later consumer sets have specifically built in a calibration handshake (Direct Device Control)...
Here's a tutorial if you've got 15 minutes:

and if you search around the related links, they spend 1.5 hours on Netflix recommended calibration approaches... calibrating computer monitors (Client3 color management within OS...) and so on.
You can do this.. although for professional grade, it seems like a triumph of technology over common sense, especially when you do a holistic assessment of how much it costs to achieve a "cheap" installation vs. one that just works.

jPo, CSI

I use Lightspace running in Parallels, and it works flawlessly.

I tried Calman Studio in the past, but I had too many problems. For starters, Calman doesn't work in Parallels, gives USB issues.

Some interesting if somewhat irrelevant discussion about an implementation that has debatable benefits. Let's not debate them here but try to focus on solving the original users questions using what's in Resolve today and help everyone use what's there now to get the best results possible. Start your own thread if it's something new you would like to request.

I can add, the two cal apps link to Resolve, they send patch definition data so Resolve can generate the color patch, which passes through the DeckLink/UltraStudio pipeline to the monitor where the probe measures and compares to the patch spec. This way the full pipeline, Inc in line processing, distribution Amps, routers etc etc are accounted for.

Generate the lut and put it in Resolve.

My advice for Mac/Linux users is use an inexpensive Win PC or emulator. It's likely cheaper than the probe or monitor you should be using.

Hey Peter. I am the original poster. Thanks for replying. Appreciate it. Just so I understand, it sounds like this works because both the calibration system and Resolve operate independent of the operating system and the GPU regarding color science specifically on the Calibrated Monitor?

I use Lightspace running in Parallels, and it works flawlessly.

I tried Calman Studio in the past, but I had too many problems. For startes, Calman doesn't work in Parallels, gives USB issues.

Okay cool. So which version of Lightscape do you use. Also do you use the color Munki they sell or do you use another3rd party munki like the X-Rite color Munki? Steve from LightSpace messaged me this "The basic version for use with Resolve is LightSpace LTE, combined with the i1 Display Pro OEM probe."

Also can I run parallels/windows and the lightspace on a usb drive instead of the main OS drive. I am told that unlike windows you can do that on a mac. Or does parallels have to be on your main OS drive?

thanks for replying Winfried.

as allready mentioned a few times in this thread, DisplayCAL is another very common free monitor calibration solution, which natively runs on all three platforms.

it's able to produce 3D-LUTs for for decklink output and GUI viewers in resolve, just as IIC-profiles for other applications and system wide color management.

it think, you will get pretty much the same accurate results utilizing this tool as running one of the the two commercial alternatives. i don't see, why it should be done in a more troublesome and expensive way, if your actual needs can be satisfied quite easy?

https://hub.displaycal.net/wiki/3d-lut- ... r-resolve/

as allready mentioned a few times in this thread, DisplayCAL is another very common free monitor calibration solution, which natively runs on all three platforms.

it's able to produce 3D-LUTs for for decklink output and GUI viewers in resolve, just as IIC-profiles for other applications and system wide color management.

it think, you will get pretty much the same accurate results utilizing this tool as running one of the the two commercial alternatives. i don't see, why it should be done in a more troublesome and expensive way, if your actual nesds can be solved quite easy?

https://hub.displaycal.net/wiki/3d-lut- ... r-resolve/

Thanks. Sorry. Did not see those posts

Thanks. Sorry. Did not see those posts

sorry -- it's my fault... i'm always loosing the thread and elaborate about difficile side issues...

but if you watch the second one of the linked youtube clips till the end, you will probably understand better, what i wanted to address as a sideline.

Thanks. Sorry. Did not see those posts

sorry -- it's my fault... i'm always loosing the thread and elaborate about difficile side issues...

but if you watch the second one of the linked youtube clips till the end, you will probably understand better, what i wanted to address as a sideline.

Cool. No worries. All good. I watched both of them. It seems in the second video when he color corrected his video monitor, which was all the program was set todo, his display monitor when to crap.

Sidenote:

If you don't want the calibration LUT to affect the internal scopes you'll need to set the scope LUTs under Color Management - Lookup Tables to "No LUT selected".

An interesting video about calibration.

Creating Corrective 3D LUTs for DaVinci Resolve Webinar

Thanks. Sorry. Did not see those posts

sorry -- it's my fault... i'm always loosing the thread and elaborate about difficile side issues...

but if you watch the second one of the linked youtube clips till the end, you will probably understand better, what i wanted to address as a sideline.

Cool. No worries. All good. I watched both of them. It seems in the second video when he color corrected his video monitor, which was all the program was set todo, his display monitor when to crap.

If you watch he has no clue what he is doing so no surprise. I remember this guy. He does many videos just for his youtube channel. Don't take it as reference

OMG, so much crap on YT!

If you watch he has no clue what he is doing so no surprise. I remember this guy. He does many videos just for his youtube channel. Don't take it as reference

Ahh okay. LOL

I think he has money, time and passion. He tries many things, so this is cool. I would just not take his videos as reference.

If you watch he has no clue what he is doing so no surprise. I remember this guy. He does many videos just for his youtube channel. Don't take it as reference

yes, andrew, i can perfectly empathize, how you think about his videos.

when i watch his adventures, i also often feel like i have to cry: "hey man, you can not just choose the color space setting on your screen in an arbitrary way!" etc. , but at the end it's often quite interesting, what he finds out by his very strange approaches.

i really don't know, if the findings in this particular video are just caused by a non-fixed whitepoint setting on the control camera or a similar stupid side effect *), but it's really interesting to watch his astonishment and discontentment concerning the real world results.

in this respect i really feel some sympathies to his strange demonstrations. it somehow reminds me of socrates strategy in platos dialogues: searching for truth by asking seemingly stupid questions and analyze towards what end they may lead in the further argumentation. it's a very interesting and powerful approach, to fight the arrogant attitude of respectable experts and their habit, to repeat just the same δόξα (= common belief) on and on, without watching for the real impact and consequences anymore.

in this respect his unbiased findings in this video look really great to me!

none of us would be brave enough to claim, that monitor calibration could lead to unpleasant results. we are all just uncritical believing, that it's and indispensable presupposition to get better results. but as much as it makes a lot of sense to tune your instruments and play in harmony with others resp. admire the long tradition of development in music history, tuning efforts do not bring you closer to your intended final goal, as long as just one single utterly unimportant voice in your orchestra isn't able share this efforts in an adequate way.

and it's indeed a very important question, if it should be seen as acceptable and of practical benefit, if the colors on your perfect calibrated reference monitor and on your [completely unimportant] GUI display differ in a very discordant way?

sure -- this shouldn't be the case in practice, and there may be useful strategies to work around this kind of issues as well, but as a matter of fact most instructions, how to calibrate your screen for resolve, just stop at this quite unsatisfying stage. and in this concern i really like daves funny demonstration and his perfectly justified astonishment and doubts about the obvious consequences.


*) edit: the fellows at LGG proposed a different solution to this puzzle -- which also tells us a lot about resolves default settings/behaviour and their questionable usefulness.

Yes, when you watch his other videos he always has "practical" approach and finds many "problems" and asks many "good" questions. Sometimes he just lacks bit of knowledge in the subject, but he does ask questions, which is good

Okay cool. So which version of Lightscape do you use. Also do you use the color Munki they sell or do you use another3rd party munki like the X-Rite color Munki? Steve from LightSpace messaged me this "The basic version for use with Resolve is LightSpace LTE, combined with the i1 Display Pro OEM probe."

Also can I run parallels/windows and the lightspace on a usb drive instead of the main OS drive. I am told that unlike windows you can do that on a mac. Or does parallels have to be on your main OS drive?

I use Lightspace LTE. As far as I know that is the cheapest version that connects to Resolve. I bought the Xrite I1 Display Pro OEM probe, also via the LightIllusion website.

I have the Windows virtual machine installed on another drive than my OS drive. It doesn't matter where you install that, external drive will be fine as long as it has reasonable speed. Parallels itself is installed in my Applications folder. I haven't tried to install the Parallels application somewhere else, but it isn't very big (~ 600 MB), so not really worth it IMO.