Too long, I've never finished a calibration for that reason.
On Nov 11, 2015 9:42 AM, <Werzi2001@xxxxxx> wrote:
Using my Spyder4 it also takes very long. I didn't really pay attention
how long exactly as it was running in a different room but on high quality
it took something about 4 hours.
*Gesendet:* Mittwoch, 11. November 2015 um 15:49 Uhr
*Von:* "Robert Hansen" <robertdeanhansen@xxxxxxxxx>
*Betreff:* [argyllcms] Re: Spyder4: Difference in using argyllcms and
How long does it take to calibrate with a colorimeter? My i1pro takes
On 11 November 2015 at 02:57, <Werzi2001@xxxxxx> wrote:
i am using the Spyder4 colorimeter and wanted to calibrate and profile my
laptop screen using ArgyllCMS und Linux. The following commands were used
to create the profile:
dispcal -v -y l -q h -o TargetA
targen -v -d3 -f836 DisplayA
dispread -v -y l -k TargetA.cal DisplayA
colprof -v -D"Display A" -qm -as DisplayA
The profiles.zip can be downloaded here:
The result profile (see spyder4_argyll_linux_cmd.icc in profiles.zip)
didn't really change much. It seems that the brightness just gets a little
darker. After that i tried using dispcalGUI to create a profile but the
result (spyder4_argyll_linux_gui.icc) changes even less than using the CMD
version. Just to have a comparison i then tried the original software under
Windows. The result (spyder4_windows.icm) seems to be right. It increases
the red colors and according to a print i did of one of my images my laptop
was missing red color so far. Using dispcalGUI i compared the color curves
of all three files. The results of ArgyLLCMS seem to be much smoother but
also there near to the linear curve. The result of the original software is
a little more rough but also changes the colors in a way that i suppose to
be more correct.
So my question is why there is such a difference. Is it the colorimeter
that simply returns incorrect values under Linux or are the results of
ArgyLLCMS generally not expected to be (nearly) equal?
Thanks for your help!