[argyllcms] Re: Argyll V1.3.4 released

  • From: János, Tóth F. <janos666@xxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: argyllcms@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Tue, 6 Sep 2011 02:25:48 +0200

Nice work with the i1d3. Thanks for the new version. :)

So, you say the expected error which comes from the imperfections of the
filters is always dE2000<5 with your test sample?
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...)

This makes me think I shouldn't even try to generate corrections with my
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?

(I didn't buy an i1d3 yet to test their differences for myself. I waited for
ArgyllCMS support.)

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?

Didn't you think about making a tool which can create custom corrections for
spectros like CM and i1Pro?
This way I could at least compare my CM with a freshly re-certified i1Pro
(or may be even something "bigger" - I guess the university where I learn
has a lab spectro somewhere and it would only take a bottle of wine or box
of cigarettes to play with it for some minutes. :D).

Other related posts: