János, Tóth F. wrote: > What is different about the Panton version? I presume you're referring to the Display Pro. From the literature it has 1/3 the sample rate, and possibly other minor differences. If X-Rite have been smart, the difference will be in the hardware behaviour, rather than the software. > I think their ColorMunki Display is identical with the X-Rite ColorMunki > Display hardware. Do you refer to the OEM version of the hardware with on of > them or one of them is the X-Rite Display Pro and the other is the > ColorMunki Display? (Different case color and bundle software licenses.) I > can't see if Pantone sell the OEM Display III hardware. > > > Do you think the OEM version of the Display III will also work with your > driver? I can't be certain until I get a look at the device, but if it's a similar OEM system to the one used in the past, it would just be a matter of discovering the password the OEM version uses. [Some other X-Rite devices have had a more sophisticated system, such as the DTP22 Digital Swatchbook, and that would be more complex to figure out.] > The X-rite software won't work with the OEM hardware and other third-party > softwares will work with the OEM hardware only. The password may only be in the software delivered with the OEM device, so someone with that software would have to discover it. OEM devices will not be as readily available, so I don't think it's likely to be much of an issue in practice. > I suspect it could be fairly easy to make them all work with the ArgyllCMS > driver (after any of them works already) but may be you need a sample of the > OEM version. (Or it will "just work"...) Yes. > Do you think you could extend dispcal with some "convenience features" for > HDTV calibration? I'm certainly happy to add features that will aid it's use with television systems. > HDTV calibration is already possible but more difficult with ArgyllCMS and > many people doesn't even know it is possible because it's not obvious. > Some dedicated features which I think would be very easy to implement (some > of them is basically a copy-paste and some cosmetics of the current code) > and not only make it easier to do but more obvious that it's possible. > If you show any willingness of doing such things then I will write down how > do I use dispcal for HDTV calibration and what could it make it more > convenient and obvious... Yes, I'd be interested to know what it lacks in that area. [The most obvious problem I saw last time I looked at it, is that most TV systems don't have LUT's. Instead they have rather soft, ill-defined "knobs" like "brightness", "contrast" etc., which are not really suitable for a technical setup. Various manufacturers do seem to have proprietary (ie. non-standardised) calibration systems for their high end projectors, but there would then have to be custom back ends for each of these to use them in a calibration system. At leas the Operating System access to video card LUTs is standard.] Graeme Gill.