That's what I thought... unfortunatelly though, there is wide-held believe that colorimeters – in some regards, surpass the accurary of spectrophotometers when measuring emissive devices such as displays. I
That may be true for expensive colorimeters. Most people don't use those though, they use cheap colorimeters.
just stumbled upon an example of that, where an i1 pro returned the black level of a display to be around 0.8 cd/m^2, while a colorimeter more accurately would measure 0.12cd/m^2. Seems to be that the accurary of the spectrophotometer suffers greatly when luminosity approaches the black level of most displays.
It depends on the driver you use. A better driver will use a longer integration time for the i1, and will give better results for near black.
I do not know about how the i1 pro would behave using Argyll, as measuring over a longer period of time might compensate for this disadvantage (I think iColor Display was used in that particular case).
Exactly. Try the -V option of dispcal & dispread.
Also, some people argue 10nm resolution in the spectrum is not enough, and 5nm resolution would improve on the accurary of results. Then again, other people say there would not be much of a difference.
If the colorimeter had accurate filters, maybe this would be true. If it's way off already, it's unlikely to be better than a 10 nm spectrometer though. (You can always use the -H option with dispcal & dispread if this concerns you.)
But everybody has an opinion, which is fine. There is just one problem for the "regular user": there is currently no satisfactory option to just "go and buy a device" as some have, or seem to have, disadvantages in one area, whilst others perform "mediocre" elsewhere.
I think that's something that is best directed at the instrument manufacturers. They are in a position to fix it. (Some will claim that their instruments are perfect as they are though.)
I guess half of my brain was offline while composing that message. One can be lucky if the colorimeter one buys does not stray to far from the "reference" device for which the calibration was done. The DTP94 seems to be very good in this regard, but still.
I think that the DTP94 is a better grade of instrument than it's competitors (including the i1display) and is therefore more consistent instrument to instrument, but it may not work well with some of the wide gamut displays (there are some reports that it doesn't, or that it's hit or miss).
I do not expect you or anybody to come up with a solution (which just might be impossible), but as there was no information available on this topic regarding ArgyllCMS, I was simply curious.
It's certainly crossed my mind to add a facility to do this. The problem is that only someone who has access to the display, the colorimeter and a reference spectrometer can create a correction matrix. Even with a clearing house for the result, I just wonder if it will be useful. If the list of displays people use for serious color were small enough (20-40 displays) it might (if those with access to the trio were feeling generous), but there could still be big gaps (how many people own more than one colorimeter and a spectrometer), and stuff that simply doesn't work (due to model and instrument variation). Graeme Gill.