The correction matrix is something they download into the firmware on the colorimeter. Try: http://lumita.com/site_media/work/whitepapers/files/xrite-wp-3a.pdf On Mon, Jun 20, 2011 at 12:15 PM, Knut Inge <knutinh@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> 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." > >