[argyllcms] Re: Argyll V1.3.4 released

  • From: Graeme Gill <graeme@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: argyllcms@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Tue, 06 Sep 2011 11:13:35 +1000

János, Tóth F. wrote:
> 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...)


It suggests an order of magnitude, but it also depends on the accuracy
of the calibration information in the i1d3, and this is a complete

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

Sorry, which ColorMunki are you referring to ? (Design/Photo, Create or Display 

> 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?

I suspect they would have different unlock codes. So someone with such
a device would have to assist in discovering this information.

> Didn't you think about making a tool which can create custom corrections for
> spectros like CM and i1Pro?

It's a rather specialised area, so working on such things would
not be very rewarding. Few people have access to the necessary
equipment and standards to re-calibrate spectrometers, since
it is quite expensive (Something like $50000 dollars or so for a
Minolta CS1000 + yearly recalibration at a reference lab., + reference
light sources, reference tiles, also $1000's, etc.)

Graeme Gill.

Other related posts: