[argyllcms] Re: Argyll V1.3.4 released
- From: Graeme Gill <graeme@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: argyllcms@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Tue, 06 Sep 2011 11:13:35 +1000
János, Tóth F. wrote:
> I guess it means we can assume <2.5 as the highest expected error on the
> particular display types when they are measured with the appropriate
> "general correction"s (LCD mode for LCD, etc...)
Hi,
It suggests an order of magnitude, but it also depends on the accuracy
of the calibration information in the i1d3, and this is a complete
unknown.
> This makes me think I shouldn't even try to generate corrections with my
> ColorMunki.
> It isn't a perfect sensor either, I guess it could also show a similarly
> sized error if I could compare it to a recently validated labor quality
> spectrometer. Doesn't it?
Sorry, which ColorMunki are you referring to ? (Design/Photo, Create or Display
?)
> By the way, do you think the OEM version of the sensor (which you can buy
> from SpectraCal and other third-party retailers) should also work with this
> version or would it require additional work on the ArgyllCMS driver?
I suspect they would have different unlock codes. So someone with such
a device would have to assist in discovering this information.
> Didn't you think about making a tool which can create custom corrections for
> spectros like CM and i1Pro?
It's a rather specialised area, so working on such things would
not be very rewarding. Few people have access to the necessary
equipment and standards to re-calibrate spectrometers, since
it is quite expensive (Something like $50000 dollars or so for a
Minolta CS1000 + yearly recalibration at a reference lab., + reference
light sources, reference tiles, also $1000's, etc.)
Graeme Gill.
Other related posts:
