[argyllcms] Re: Accuracy of ccss versus ccmx

  • From: Ver Greeneyes <vergreeneyes1@xxxxxxxxx>
  • To: argyllcms@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Mon, 14 Dec 2015 00:14:40 +0100

Yes, I suppose profiling print sources is where it really shines - I need
to look into how to do that with ArgyllCMS, as my printer could surely do
with a touch-up :) Good points about the possible trade-offs; I guess I'll
just use what's most convenient, i.e. the colorimeter with a ccmx file.
Thanks for the help!


Emanuel Hoogeveen

On Sun, Dec 13, 2015 at 11:33 PM, Graeme Gill <graeme@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Ver Greeneyes wrote:

Off-topic from my original question, but it does feel odd to have such an
expensive device as an i1Pro 2 and only use it to tweak a less expensive

Yes :-) The spectrometer is a versatile instrument though, and has
many more uses.

I've used my i1Pro 2 on a monitor that has a pretty awful black
level (so I don't expect the light sensitivity to be an issue), but I
noticed that it's also a lot slower. Would you expect the i1Pro 2 to be
more accurate than the i1Display Pro, even when the latter has been
using a ccmx file produced with the former?

Hard to say. In theory if the spectral output of a display changes subtly
with level, then a spectrometer will capture this aspect, whereas a
won't. But it depends on which of the instruments has better level
linearity, and there is no doubt that the spectrometer is capturing less
light, and the longer readings probably don't fully compensate for this,
so the spectrometer readings may well be more noisy.

So without a very good reference setup to benchmark against, it's hard
to say, and even with some rigorous benchmarking, the conclusion could
well be mixed.

Graeme Gill.

Other related posts: