[argyllcms] Re: Dell U2711 - is it any good?

  • From: Rishi Sanyal <rishi.j.sanyal@xxxxxxxxx>
  • To: argyllcms@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Mon, 20 Jun 2011 12:58:53 -0700

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."
>
>

Other related posts: