[argyllcms] Re: Accuracy of ccss versus ccmx

  • From: Florian Höch <lists+argyllcms@xxxxxxxxx>
  • To: argyllcms@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Thu, 10 Dec 2015 18:14:27 +0100

Am 10.12.2015 um 17:48 schrieb Ben Goren:

Rather than give you an answer for that exact question, let me cut to
the chase: if you’re after the best quality results, use a ccmx file
specific to your actual hardware.

The advantage of the ccss file is flexibility. And, in environments
where you have multiple workstations with multiple instruments
instruments that you move around and the like, it’s the most
manageable solution and therefore the most accurate. But if you have
the luxury of having both a spectrometer and a colorimeter and the
time to use them both for each display (as I myself do — and I even
just happen to be in the process of profiling displays this morning),
then go the ccmx route.



@OP, as a side-note, afaik technically the way a CCSS is used by Argyll
internally also results in a matrix being created (on-the-fly), but with
a different method than in the CCMX case (the CCMX matrix is calculated
from measured XYZ of both spectro and colorimeter, the CCSS on-the-fly
matrix is created using a least squares method involving the measured
spectral data, also depending on the number of samples measured, of the
spectrometer and the sensor data of the colorimeter stored in supported
meters like the i1D3. Graeme will surely correct me if I'm wrong :-)


Other related posts: