[argyllcms] Re: Argyll V1.3.4 released

  • From: János, Tóth F. <janos666@xxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: argyllcms@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Tue, 6 Sep 2011 05:14:53 +0200

I referred to the CM Photo.
(Why would I make corrections for the i1d3 with an inferior colorimeter?)

2011/9/6, Graeme Gill <graeme@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>:
> 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...)
> Hi,
> 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
> unknown.
>> 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: