> > I believe this may come back to the Eye-One Pro's weakness with >> differentiating between very close together dark measurements. Along with >> the issue of the Eye-One Pro detecting 0.00cdm2 as 0.05cmd2 randomly on my >> CRT. The Eye-One is probably telling Argyll there is a dead zone, even >> though I can see with my eyes that there is not. When I am in a dark room >> that is obviously inaccurate since the screen is bright grey instead of >> black. >> > > I think you are asking a lot of any instrument worth less than $10000, > to expect a good reading below 0.05 cm/d^2. Adaptive mode may improve > things at low levels with the i1pro, although because it then switches > integration time and gain, it may introduce discontinuities. > > > If would be nice if you could add some sort of override for heuristic, >> since >> it does sounds like it would prove useful for my situation. >> > > dispcal and printcal -V in the next release. > > Graeme Gill. > > > Well if I take the specifications of the Eye-One Pro literally (*Measurement range:* 0.2 ... 300 cd/m2) then I shouldn't be expecting accurate readings below 0.20 cd/m2. In practice it may be a bit better then 0.20cd/m2 (maybe 0.15cd/m2) but the Eye-One Pro does seem utterly unreliable below 0.10cd/m2, at least on a CRT. If I do multiple measurement of the same pitch black screen, Argyll reports values seemingly at random jumping around between 0.00cd/m2 and 0.08cd/m2. Because of this it also appears, for example, to sometimes think a measurement of a R5-G5-B5 patch may have a luminance reading of 0.08cd/m2, while it measured a R10-G10-B10 patch as 0.01cd/m2, and a R0-G0-B0 patch as 0.05cd/m2 which must cause a bit of chaos, and may explain why Argyll overcompensates by brightening up the black-point significantly. That said, thinking about this a bit more, would it not make sense to add some sort of 'accurate measurement range' parameter to Argyll? So for example, if I set the minimum accurate measurement range to 0.15 cd/m2, once Argyll reads a patch with a luminance of 0.15 cd/m2, it then records it as the lowest valid reading. It would skip all patch measurments between 0.00-0.15 cd/m2 and in just evenly space any remaining luminance measurements below 0.15cd/m2 (since Argyll appears to calculate the native gamma of the the display, it should be able to make a reasonably accurate guess of where those low luminance values would likely fall on the gamma curve) while using the same R:B:G ratio that was found when measured at 0.15cd/m2. From the looks of it BasICColor already does something similar to the above, since it consistently reads very dark black values all as 0.00-0.01cd/m2, and then always maps R0 B0 G0 -> R0 B0 G0 on its calibrated video LUT curve. The only problem with BasICColor is it appears to sacrifice accuracy for speed by using the fewest calibration/adjustment points possible when generating it's video lut and ICC profiles. Now before getting too far astray, can you say a little more about how that -V parameter will work? Will the -V parameter have a number value after it? If not, then I assume it just tells Argyll to disable heuristics? When heuristic mode is disabled, how will Argyll behave differently internally? What should it do instead when it runs into a problem like the one I have been trying to describe? Would there be any other situations, other then the one I describe, that disabling heuristic mode may be useful? @andrzej duda I'll try testing those parameters at some point today and see if it helps at all. Not particularly hopeful, but it's worth a shot.