> Knut, the Spyder 3 is a colorimeter, yes? As a colorimeter, it's not > going to work well on wide-gamut displays unless the correction matrix > supplied by the manufacturer is for wider-gamut displays. Even then, > there's bound to be some inaccuracy. Your best bet is to use a > spectrophotometer to either make the profile, or to at least make the > correction matrix for YOUR monitor + colorimeter combo, then use the > colorimeter with that correction matrix. > AFIK, neither Dell nor the Spyder people offer correction matrixes for this combination. Dell offers a per-unit factory measurement. I am amazed that they are not offering a driver of some sort that contain the averaged/expected response of the monitor so as to enable color-aware applications to benefit from the default (wide-gamut) mode knowing what those 8-bit-per-channel rgb codes actually are supposed to mean? I was basing my assumptions on this test by Ethan Hansen: http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=53825.0 "We have been working on a thorough evaluation of monitor measurement hardware. We used a reference-grade spectroradiometer (Photo Research PR-730) to compare sensor performance on a variety of monitors. All were IPS displays, and ranged from entry level sRGB gamut models (e.g. NEC 231wmi, Dell U2311H) with CCFL backlight, to Adobe RGB compatible wide-gamut models with either CCFL backlights (e.g. NEC PA-241W, Eizo CG243W) or RGB LED backlighting (HP LP2480zx). We measured multiple samples of each sensor to quantify inter-instrument agreement on a white background. ... The Spyder 3 turned in the best wide-gamut performance of any of the standard colorimeters, essentially equal to what we measured on sRGB gamut monitors. Inter-instrument variability is a problem with the Spyder 3, however. Although the average accuracy was good, few photographers have a dozen Spyders at hand to use in calibrating their screens. Overall, I would rate the Spyder 3 as being the best option we evaluated for profiling wide-gamut displays."