[argyllcms] Re: More about the Huey that comes with the XL20

On Mon, 2009-04-13 at 22:03 +0200, "Gerhard Fürnkranz" wrote:
> -------- Original-Nachricht --------
> > Datum: Mon, 13 Apr 2009 13:15:07 -0500
> > Von: Leonard Evens <len@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > An: argyllcms@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > Betreff: [argyllcms] More about the Huey that comes with the XL20
> 
> > Second, the Huey that came with the
> > monitor says `LED' on it.
> 
> The same applies to my i1 Display bundled with the XL20, it is labeled "LED 
> SyncMaster" (my XL20 was bundled with an i1 Display, and not with a Huey).
> 
> > I suspect that this device was produced together with the Natural Color
> > Expert software explicitly for the Samsung LED monitors. It is possible
> > that its readings are not interpreted correctly by the ARgyll software.
> 
> I can't speak for the Huey, but with my i1 Display readings taken with NCE 
> and readings taken with dispread -yl did agree very closely on the 
> chromaticities of white and the three primaries. So I think the readings are 
> interpreted correctly by Argyll (at least as correct as they are interpreted 
> by Samsung's NCE sofware). I can't of course assess the absolute accuracy, 
> and I also don't have any other "regular" monitor colorimeter for comparison.

Let  me post the results again.  But it is possible the difference was
due
to some other factor, such as the device not being in close enough
contact
with the screen.  Also, I was doing this under Linux, not under Windows.

Huey
[len@localhost ~]$ dispcal -r -yl
Place instrument on test window.
Hit Esc, ^C or Q to give up, any other key to continue:
Current calibration response:
Black level = 0.19 cd/m^2
White level = 116.80 cd/m^2
Aprox. gamma = 2.03
Contrast ratio = 624:1
White chromaticity coordinates 0.2689, 0.2949
White    Correlated Color Temperature = 10922K, DE to locus = 12.4
White Correlated Daylight Temperature = 10923K, DE to locus =  9.7
White        Visual Color Temperature = 9095K, DE to locus = 11.6
White     Visual Daylight Temperature = 9518K, DE to locus =  9.1
The instrument can be removed from the screen.

Eye One Pro
[len@localhost ~]$ dispcal -r
Place cap on the instrument, or place in on a dark surface,
or place on the white calibration reference,
 and then hit any key to continue,
 or hit Esc, ^C or Q to abort:
Calibration complete

Place instrument on test window.
Hit Esc, ^C or Q to give up, any other key to continue:
Current calibration response:
Black level = 0.30 cd/m^2
White level = 228.53 cd/m^2
Aprox. gamma = 2.09
Contrast ratio = 770:1
White chromaticity coordinates 0.3051, 0.3341
White    Correlated Color Temperature = 6875K, DE to locus = 11.5
White Correlated Daylight Temperature = 6867K, DE to locus =  8.5
White        Visual Color Temperature = 6383K, DE to locus = 11.1
White     Visual Daylight Temperature = 6528K, DE to locus =  8.1
The instrument can be removed from the screenSamsung 226CW



> 
> The XL20 calibrated with dispcal looks fine, subjectively judged. My feeling 
> is rather that other LCD displays end up with a red/magenta tint, if I 
> calibrate them to a D65 WP with displcal -yl, using the i1 Display that came 
> with the XL20 (but again, I don't have any other "regular" monitor 
> cololorimeter for comparison).
> 
> And if I compare the XL20 with my notbeook side by side, both calibrated to 
> D65 using my SyncMaster i1 Display, then the tints of white are visually 
> significantly different (my feeling is, this must be rather >= 5 dE), 
> although the measured white points agree with a tolerance of about 1 dE (at 
> least short term, immediately after calibration).
> 
> 
> Btw, did anybody here ever manage to achieve a really good visual 
> sidy-by-side match of the white points of different displays (not the same 
> model, but various different ones), using one of the low-cost colorimeters 
> available on the market? I had tried a few notebook displays, a CRT, the 
> XL20, yet another LCD display, but eventuelly they look all a little bit 
> different and there was no pair of two displays, which really did agree 
> visually after calibration.
> 
> Regards, Gerhard
>

Other related posts: