16" MBP Color Calibration Conclusion & Profile Sharing

[jerryk]

I'm not an expert but most are in the agreement xrite is much better

Agreed. I use an i1 Display Pro. Does a nice job.

But to use any calibrator correctly you need to aware of your surrounding. External light matters a lot. So you want to do your calibration in the same place where you use the system, and where you can control the ambient light.

 

[macfrik]

【Conclusion】
I've got a spider X for calibration, and below is the conclusion:
1. Original color temp of Samsung screen(Using default ColorLcd, in which color temp is 6500k, gamma is 2.2, below the same) is around 7459k. This means the color temp of the Samsung screen is cold-prone, and the real color temp is about 950 higher than the literal value.

2.Original color temp of LG screen(Using default ColorLcd, in which color temp is 6500k, gamma is 2.2, below the same) is around 6942k. This means the color temp of the LG screen is ALSO cold-prone!!! And the real color temp is about 450 higher than the literal value.

3.So the conclusion is:
A) All Mac screens are cold-prone than the standard color temp in fact. The real standard 6500k/2.2 gama screen should just be warmer/yellower than we supposed!
B) Samsung is more cold-prone(950k higher), and LG is less cold-prone(450 higher).

【Work Around】
And what should we do with this fact?
A) I've got the 6500k/2.2 calibration for both screens, which made these two screens almost as warm/yellow as the same. Theoretically, you should apply this calibration file and try to adapted this warm/yellow screen and accept it as the standard.
Below are the calibration files, and these two are still a little different, the 1st is colder, perhaps because I forgot to turn off auto-brightness while calibrating.
16‘’ Spider X Calibration.zip


B) If you don't want to change your habit, you can choose to adjust the color temp of your LG screen 500 higher around, this can make the two screens look the same, even in one photo taken by an iPhone.
Below is what it looks like when both set to the REAL same color temp, and MAXIMUM brightness.

C) Now I choose to just accept the LG screen, after days of usage, I already adapted to it and will not feel it yellow without comparing with my old 15''. And if u adjust the Samsung screen to standard, it's even yellower than the LG screen in default mode, so whatever, they are also inaccurate, in fact the LG is even BETTER, it's closer to the standard.


【Background Story】
Any body already calibrated the screen "LP160WT1-SJA1" could u kindly share the calibration file in the forum?

Color LCD
LP160WT1-SJA1
DCN9462004BLP0JAW

Background:
My 16" MacBook Pro got an LG screen as above, which turned to have obvious warm/yellow color temperature compared with the exhibition model in Apple Store. I've go to genius bar and they admitted this fact and give me a paper confirmation file also, however they said apple has no standard for color temperature and rejected to replace the screen for this reason.

So setting the calibration file is the only work around, and I think all LP160WT1-SJA1 panels would be suitable for 1 calibration file right?

And I am not satisfied with Apple for this, all computers should have a standard, no mention so expensive a computer as this one.

Below is a comparison of my 16"(right) with common one(left, my old 15"), with true tone off, white point setting all the same 6500k.
View attachment 884026

Hey OP, I just want to say thank you for sharing the profile. It works wonderfully on my 16" compared to the original one shipped from the factory. I do mostly landscape photos and not only yours done great on Lightroom, but also its a whole lot easier on my eyes.

Kudos

 

[gazwas]

Sharing profiles from different machines is quite pointless as each display is different. As the MacBook Pro is not calibrated as such at the factory the resulting temp of the screen you see is the native colour temp of the display and has zero to do with Apple.

Calibrating to 6500K suggests you view all images in an average daylight environment and always on a monitor (not printed). If calibrated to 6500K, sit in a naturally illuminated room and during the current winter months where daylight temps can be 8000K then the screen will look yellow. Same screen in a totally dark room after 5 mins of use will look totally neutral as you perception of colour will neutralise without any external influences.

If you intend to print then calibration to 5000K might be more accurate as traditionally paper has a warmer base tint than screen so lower temps make allowances for this.

I suppose my point is, calibration of displays are not a simple case of one size fits all and having screens that look different does not mean they are faulty. If you are calibrating your screen because you think it looks off compared to your iPad or previous MacBook, this is really missing the whole point of why you might choose to calibrate in the first place. Mainly being you have no idea if the reference point is correct, hence why we calibrate.

 

[Sanpete]

Notebookcheck believes MBP screens are factory calibrated. It's true they're all a little different, but that doesn't mean someone else's calibration won't also help yours. It might, if they started at a similar place.

 

[gazwas]

Notebookcheck believes MBP screens are factory calibrated. It's true they're all a little different, but that doesn't mean someone else's calibration won't also help yours. It might, if they started at a similar place.

If they were factory calibrated to the same presets they would all look similar. As suggest here they differ between display suppliers so very unlikely.

Someone else’s profile will make another display look different but far from accurate and will then be adjusted to an unknown value. A +/- 500 Kelvin devience in colour temperature is very visually obvious. All depends on what you are tying to achieve and if all you want is a display colour shift, use the inbuilt adjustments.

 

[Sanpete]

Whether they would all look the same would depend on the nature and quality of the calibration. Notebookcheck thinks they're factory calibrated because they normally come with good accuracy already, whereas a lot of screens don't.

How accurate another user's calibration will make your screen again depends on how similar they already were before calibration. Notebookcheck offers their calibration with their review so others can try it on the assumption that there's enough similarity to be of use, as their measurements suggest.

 

[gazwas]

Whether they would all look the same would depend on the nature and quality of the calibration. Notebookcheck thinks they're factory calibrated because they normally come with good accuracy already, whereas a lot of screens don't.

How accurate another user's calibration will make your screen again depends on how similar they already were before calibration. Notebookcheck offers their calibration with their review so others can try it on the assumption that there's enough similarity to be of use, as their measurements suggest.

I don’t think you understand the purpose of calibration and you are confusing display tint with colour accuracy. LCD panels can be colour accurate out of the box if using a good quality panel and your yard stick for measurement is size of colour space covered. Apple might use a generic profile for a MacBook Pro but highly doubt they calibrate every screen and most likely only sample every 10,000 (?) screen.

Using a profile from another computer could potentially make the colour tint of another similar MacBook Pro less blue (great) but could also be negativity effecting everything else making it actually much worse. You run the risk of reducing the colour space coverage of the screen, shifting the neutrality of mid tones which will effect things like skin tones and more obvious to the eye introducing posterisation in transitions between darker colours and issues with staggered colour ramps in area's of solid colour like sky's for example.

From memory, unless things have changed recently, MacBooks still use 8bit LCD panels which inherently makes them all the more prone to bad calibration and the effects of posterisation and staggered colour ramps. I personally would not recommend blindly using a profile from another MacBook Pro and suggest if you need an accurate display either have it professionally calibrated or buy/borrow a colour meter.

 

[casperes1996]

From memory, unless things have changed recently, MacBooks still use 8bit LCD panels which inherently makes them all the more prone to bad calibration and the effects of posterisation and staggered colour ramps. I personally would not recommend blindly using a profile from another MacBook Pro and suggest if you need an accurate display either have it professionally calibrated or buy/borrow a colour meter.

I actually do believe they are 10-bit these days, but otherwise no interjection to make, haha. But I believe the last 15" was 10-bit at least, so presumably the 16" as well. Don't think the 13" went 10-bit, but don't know

 

[Sanpete]

I don’t think you understand the purpose of calibration and you are confusing display tint with colour accuracy. LCD panels can be colour accurate out of the box if using a good quality panel and your yard stick for measurement is size of colour space covered. Apple might use a generic profile for a MacBook Pro but highly doubt they calibrate every screen and most likely only sample every 10,000 (?) screen.

Using a profile from another computer could potentially make the colour tint of another similar MacBook Pro less blue (great) but could also be negativity effecting everything else making it actually much worse. You run the risk of reducing the colour space coverage of the screen, shifting the neutrality of mid tones which will effect things like skin tones and more obvious to the eye introducing posterisation in transitions between darker colours and issues with staggered colour ramps in area's of solid colour like sky's for example.

From memory, unless things have changed recently, MacBooks still use 8bit LCD panels which inherently makes them all the more prone to bad calibration and the effects of posterisation and staggered colour ramps. I personally would not recommend blindly using a profile from another MacBook Pro and suggest if you need an accurate display either have it professionally calibrated or buy/borrow a colour meter.

I haven't said anything about tint. Of course you risk making it worse, but that's not the most likely outcome, and it's simple to revert. I suggest you take up your concern with Notebookcheck. On your view they don't know what they're doing.

 

[gazwas]

I haven't said anything about tint. Of course you risk making it worse, but that's not the most likely outcome, and it's simple to revert. I suggest you take up your concern with Notebookcheck. On your view they don't know what they're doing.

So now you are not concerned by the earier mentioned blue/yellow tint/colour temp of the MacBooks display and in addition you say the displays are calibrated by apple to be accurate however, you still want to use a profile from a doner machine to improve what exactly?

Further, please explain how you would know if the borrowed profile is making the display more or less accurate then the default without a reference point, ie. a colour meter?

I have no idea who notebookcheck are so can’t comment on their finding but I am certain I’ve never accused them of anything.

 

[Sanpete]

This isn't as hard to follow as you're making it.

Obviously color accuracy can sometimes be improved even if it's already good. Obviously the usual purpose of using a color profile is to improve it.

As should be clear from what I already said, a reference point for those who want to try Notebookcheck's color profile is Notebookcheck's own testing. Unlike you, Notebookcheck evidently believes sharing color profiles can help those who don't have the equipment or the time. Obviously, apart from gross error, those using the profile probably wouldn't know if it's more accurate for them except by their own testing.

Obviously implying Noteookcheck's view is wrong doesn't require being aware of Notebookcheck or accusing them.

 

[konqerror]

I actually do believe they are 10-bit these days, but otherwise no interjection to make, haha. But I believe the last 15" was 10-bit at least, so presumably the 16" as well. Don't think the 13" went 10-bit, but don't know

AFAIK, all 15s were 8-bit. There's no true 10 bit in any kind of mass-market panel anyway, they're 8+FRC.

Apple might use a generic profile for a MacBook Pro but highly doubt they calibrate every screen and most likely only sample every 10,000 (?) screen.

Why? All the Dell U-series monitors for the last 5 years or so come with an individual calibration report. It's not hard, they use production colorimeters that can do a calibration in seconds. According to the specs, they can do 20 swatches per second under normal luminance: https://sensing.konicaminolta.us/products/ca-410-display-color-analyzer/

 

[gazwas]

Obviously, apart from gross error, those using the profile probably wouldn't know if it's more accurate for them except by their own testing.

Exactly what I have been saying all along. Your assumption is you whole heartedly trust the doner profile and all is golden. But then accept it might not be better than Apples profile and people then have no idea if their display is better or worse. ?

I just don’t see how you can think this is a great idea to use doner profiles and are treating calibration as some sort of must have modification to pimp your MacBook rather what in reality could potentially make the display worse.
[automerge]1581929850[/automerge]

Why? All the Dell U-series monitors for the last 5 years or so come with an individual calibration report. It's not hard, they use production colorimeters that can do a calibration in seconds. According to the specs, they can do 20 swatches per second under normal luminance: https://sensing.konicaminolta.us/products/ca-410-display-color-analyzer/

I’ve no idea if MacBooks are profiled in this way as there is no test report and I’ve no idea what settings they were profiled to but that is great of Dell to tell you all these settings.

Maybe Apple checks for uniformity, colour response and display luminance so they know their displays are up to spec but the fact that as reported here LG and Samsung displays in MacBook Pros show differences in screen temperature suggests they can’t be properly profiled or they whould look similar.

 

[casperes1996]

AFAIK, all 15s were 8-bit. There's no true 10 bit in any kind of mass-market panel anyway, they're 8+FRC.

I mean, yeah, it's probably through dithering, but check in System Information, fairly sure it runs as 10-bit. The iMacs do for certain.

 

[Sanpete]

Your assumption is you whole heartedly trust the doner profile and all is golden.

No, my assumption is what I've actually said. I understand that you don't get it, and I think we can leave it at that.

 

[gazwas]

No, my assumption is what I've actually said. I understand that you don't get it, and I think we can leave it at that.

You’ve said people should blindly use a profile and in your words “those using the profile wouldn't know if it's more accurate for them except by their own testing.”

And by testing I assume you mean profiling as I don’t know of any way of testing accuracy other than a colour meter. Seem a pointless exercise if you have to buy or borrow a colour meter anyway.

Interesting advise but at least we agree on one thing lets leave it there.

 

[Sanpete]

Happily those interested can read what I actually said above. Or some can.

 

[tinygoblin]

I've got a spider X for calibration, and below is the conclusion:
1. Original color temp of Samsung screen(Using default ColorLcd, in which color temp is 6500k, gamma is 2.2, below the same) is around 7459k. This means the color temp of the Samsung screen is cold-prone, and the real color temp is about 950 higher than the literal value.
View attachment 884684
2.Original color temp of LG screen(Using default ColorLcd, in which color temp is 6500k, gamma is 2.2, below the same) is around 6942k. This means the color temp of the LG screen is ALSO cold-prone!!! And the real color temp is about 450 higher than the literal value.
View attachment 884685
3.So the conclusion is:
A) All Mac screens are cold-prone than the standard color temp in fact. The real standard 6500k/2.2 gama screen should just be warmer/yellower than we supposed!
B) Samsung is more cold-prone(950k higher), and LG is less cold-prone(450 higher).

4.And what should we do with this fact?
A) I've got the 6500k/2.2 calibration for both screens, which made these two screens almost as warm/yellow as the same. Theoretically, you should apply this calibration file and try to adapted this warm/yellow screen and accept it as the standard.
B) If you don't want to change your habit, you can choose to adjust the color temp of your LG screen 500 higher around, this can make the two screens look the same, even in one photo taken by an iPhone.
C) Now I choose to just accept the LG screen, after days of usage, I already adapted to it and will not feel it yellow without comparing with my old 15''. And if u adjust the Samsung screen to standard, it's even yellower than the LG screen in default mode, so whatever, they are also inaccurate, in fact the LG is even BETTER, it's closer to the standard.

Hey @codemania, would you kindly tell how did you figure out which display panel was manufactured by LG and which — by Samsung?