[argyllcms] Re: Newbie question: is dispcal supposed to be so slow?

  • From: Chris Dennis <cgdennis@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: argyllcms@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Thu, 08 Mar 2012 10:36:18 +0000

On 07/03/12 22:32, Graeme Gill wrote:
Chris Dennis wrote:

It takes from a few seconds to a few minutes per patch, and because it does so 
many patches it
takes a couple of hours for a full calibration and profile generation.

Is that normal?  Is there a way so speed it up other than opting for 'low 


As Florian notes, it is rather instrument dependant. The next release may speed
the Spyder up a bit if that's any help. But you have many other possibilities in
speeding things up yourself.

The term "quality" was perhaps a bad choice on my part. Perhaps I
should have labelled that parameter "effort" or "time" or "speed",
since there is no guarantee that reading extra patches or creating
larger grids will noticeably improve the calibration or profile accuracy,
particularly if a device is well behaved. So perhaps I should fix this
by changing to "-speed: very fast, fast, medium, slow, excruciatingly ultra 
rather than "-quality: very low, low, medium, high, ultra high".

Matrix profiles need a fraction of the number of patches as cLUT profiles,
so that is a choice if it is a good fit for your device. So my
usual advice applies: Just because Argyll has an "11" setting,
don't feel like you have to use it. Start with medium. Experiment
with high. Try low if it's all taking too long. Compare the results,
and decide what you can live with."

Graeme Gill.

Fair enough.  The 'low quality' label is rather off-putting.

Well done to Graeme and Florian for guessing that I was using a Spyder! I'll have to wait until my ColorHug arrives before I start doing more comprehensive tests to find the 'best' settings for my screens.


Chris Dennis                                  cgdennis@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Fordingbridge, Hampshire, UK

Other related posts: