On Thursday, November 22, 2012 09:21:57 PM Tom Schumm wrote: > I'm trying to get my new monitor properly profiled and I'm having some > trouble... > > I got a i1Display Pro and tried using the X-Rite i1Profiler software. I also > tried using ArgyllCMS via DispcalGUI. The profiles they produce are > noticeably different. I would expect some small variation, but the > difference is pretty big. At least one of them has to be quite wrong. Most > of the difference seems to be in the reds. I can add some additional information. After playing around with it for a while, I'm sure the Argyll profile is the one that is wrong - it has very high Delta E for some colors, and subjectively looks quite wrong (reds are really really orange, not a little bit orange). I tried playing around with varous settings, and was able to make small improvments (e.g. I got rid of the strong color cast in grays by using Matrix + a single curve instead of 3xCurve) but the delta E remained high, and the handling of red colors remained really far off. Finally I tried generating an XYZ LUT profile instead, and somehow that produced a radically better result. The primaries are located in entirely different places (closer to where I would expect them to be) and the overall appearance is quite similar to the i1Profiler generated profile. However, I was using Matrix+Curves profiles because all the documentation says that LUT profiles are less smooth and have compatibility issues. In fact, I notice a lot of banding in Adobe Camera Raw and Photoshop. I know Matrix profiles are less accurrate, but are they supposed to be that far off? I'm talking delta Es of like 8 or more vs. the 0.4/1.4 average/max for the LUT profile. I tried with the display in both "Standard" mode and "Custom" mode. Both generated equally accurate LUT profiles, but neither got close with Matrix. -- Tom Schumm http://www.fortmyersgo.org/