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 > > > > > >