[argyllcms] Re: Display Calibration Hardware Capabilities

  • From: Rishi Sanyal <rishi.j.sanyal@xxxxxxxxx>
  • To: argyllcms@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Tue, 3 May 2011 02:12:40 -0700

Ethan wrote back to me & actually indicated that he *did* use adaptive
mode & the Argyll software for the ColorMunki... so it should've
brought out the best behavior of the CM. So either the CM is sub-par
or his unit was bad. Too bad he doesn't live in Seattle where I could
just drop him off mine!

-Rishi

On Sat, Apr 30, 2011 at 6:37 AM, János, Tóth F. <janos666@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Since I started to play with plasma TVs, I wonder if I should pick up a
> Spyder3 Express or Pro (is there a difference in the sensor accuracy?) to
> replace my ColorMunki or use an i1LT together with my CM.
>
> But I am not sure if those colorimeters are really better for measuring low
> luminance patches than the ColorMunki in adaptive mode.
> I sold my i1LT after I tested it on my WCG H-IPS display (~850:1 contrast)
> and it produced fairly the same results on low luminance patches that my CM
> produced in adaptive mode (after I created the correction matrix for it).
> And I also used the CM to calibrate c-PVA displays (with ~2000:1 native
> contrast) and the adaptive mode gave me nice results. (The gamma-shift of
> the PVA panel allowed me to easily examine the darkest shades too. They were
> not perfect but reasonable enough, given that the panel is 6bit+FRC and it
> was a complete disaster before the calibration ; and it looked very good
> when I avoided the gamma-shift effect.)
>
> It would be nice to have any guess value that what is the low-luminance
> accuracy of the ColorMunki in this sensor mode and how does it compares to
> i1 and spyder colorimeters.

Other related posts:

  1. Home
  2. argyllcms
  3. Archive
  4. 05-2011