> > Why don't you try the adaptive mode and see what you >> think: >> >> spotread -e >> >> vs. display mode: >> >> spotread -d >> > > spotread -e appears to fluctuate less than half as much as spotread -d over > multiple readings, which is excellent. I'm definitely looking forward to > trying out dispcal -V when RC3 is released. > > The measurements between the two modes differ a bit though. Should I be > assuming that the spotread -e measurements are more correct than the > spotread -d measurements? > > Below are multiple measurements of the same gray patch on my CRT (set to > 2048x1536 @85Hz / ~85cd/m2 white / ~0.01cd/m2 black) with an uncalibrated > video lut: > http://pastebin.com/f7ed5671f > Graeme, do you have any insight about this? Does the difference I'm seeing between the spotread -e and spotread -d modes appear normal to you? For reference, I did use -N when switching between -e and -d in order to eliminate the internal sensor calibration as an additional variable. The resulting color temperatures between the two modes seem close enough, but the color coordinates and resulting Delta E values differ somewhat significantly, They can't both be correct, so which should I trust as being more accurate? Another thing that I found a bit curious was how much my measurements of a completely black screen varied every time I did an internal calibration of the sensor. Below are only -e results, but the -d measurements were also showing similar changes between internal sensor calibrations when measuring my near 0.00cd/m2 black-point. The first internal sensor calibration gave me color temperature results like the following: CCT = 2500K Closest Planckian temperature = 2500K Closest Daylight temperature = 2500K The second internal sensor calibration gave: CCT = 2500K Closest Planckian temperature = 999999K Closest Daylight temperature = 34999K The third internal sensor calibration gave: CCT = 9000K Closest Planckian temperature = 7000K Closest Daylight temperature = 7000K See full results here: http://pastebin.com/f3cec1649 I don't expect the Eye-One Pro to be all that accurate so close to 0.00 cd/m2, but the above seems a bit odd. The first result seems sensible with CCT, Planckian, and Daylight all having similar temperatures. On the second the CCT stayed similar to the first, but the Planckian and Daylight temperatures were being reported as out-of-range values. The third which was taken about an hour later then the first also seems sensible, but it is significantly different then the others. What do you think?