[argyllcms] Re: Dell U2711 - is it any good?
- From: edmund ronald <edmundronald@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: argyllcms@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Thu, 23 Jun 2011 00:36:53 +0200
How d'you know how many channels these have?
Cheap chips now have 8 channels.
Edmund
On Wed, Jun 22, 2011 at 8:03 PM, Rishi Sanyal <rishi.j.sanyal@xxxxxxxxx>wrote:
> Graeme Gill wrote:
> "To get an accurate result using a ccmx you need at least
> the spectrometer, the colorimeter and the display, and you get an
> accurate correction for just that serial number colorimeter."
>
> Exactly. So why they market their new colorimeters, that don't include
> a spectrophotometer in the packages, as items that "ensure unrivaled
> color accuracy and consistency now and in the future" is unclear to
> me. Looks like pure overzealous marketing hype to me. You could say
> the same thing about colorimeters already on the market now. With a
> spectrophotometer, even they can (somewhat) accurately profile
> wide-gamut displays (in my experience anyway).
>
> -Rishi
>
> On Wed, Jun 22, 2011 at 7:40 AM, Knut Inge <knutinh@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > What is the problem that (monitor) calibration tries to solve? I would
> > guess "the fact that the precise perseptual response for a given
> > display input is unknown, and for some applications, e.g. image
> > editing, there is a need to know what the user is seeing". The reason
> > why it is unknown is because display manufacturers generally do not
> > share the ideal/new response of their products in a machine-readable
> > format, and because 2 identical, new displays may have somewhat
> > different response, a third identical display may have another
> > response after years of (ab)use, and a "cold" display may differ from
> > a "warmed up" display.
> >
> > If we had an instrument that correlated perfectly with human visual
> > system, it would be easy. Connect it, calculate the error, and feed
> > back some correction. Such instruments do not exist.
> >
> > I am a bit lost when you say that a single monitor+colorimeter
> > correction matrix can be used to correct future measurements. How can
> > one know that the "unknown stuff" that makes monitors/colorimeters
> > change over time and over production runs, does not also make this
> > correction invalid? Are there known knowns and known unknowns?:-) May
> > one assume that the spectral response of each primary is constant (and
> > can be baked into a correction matrix), while the flat gain of each
> > primary is fluctuating and should be calibrated every once and again
> > using a colorimeter and correction matrix?
> >
> > Thank you for your time enlightening me
> > -k
> >
> >
>
>
Other related posts:
