[argyllcms] Re: Some clarification about profile generation and verification

  • From: Magnus Berg <magnus@xxxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: argyllcms@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Thu, 26 Aug 2010 15:48:49 +0200

I'm very interested in this 'Spyder 3' - 'wide gammut display'
combination to. I just found an article, dated April 28 2010, with the
following information:

"Usually if the sensor and software is more than a year or two old it is
filtered and configured to respond to the much smaller color gamut of
home/office monitor and displays; and using it with a new wide color
gamut display can result in a poor or even skewed, inaccurate
calibration and profile. I have found the most recent Spyder3 sensor and
software will work very effectively with new wide color gamut
professional displays and provide accurate calibration and profiling,
and the latest Spyder3 sensitometer will also work with other brand
software effectively like NEC’s Spectraview 2."
http://blog.shutterbug.com/davidbrooks/new_datacolor_spyder3_elite_version_4/

The Spyder 3 is a old one that may have been improved during the years.
But to believe it a test with a spectrophotometer would be a good thing.

Magnus Berg

P.S. I'm using my Spyder 3 with a Nec 2690wuxi2. On the package to my
Spyder 3 I see a copyright symbol followed by 2009. But who knows
exactly then the improvement was made? D.S.


2010-08-26 13:05, andrea@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx skrev:
>> And yes, may be it looks correct for you. It's your choice... until
>> you want
>> to write a review about a display...
>> May be you will publish erroneous measures and you will judge the test
>> specimen based on your erroneous measures. So, I feel it is very
>> dangerous!
>> (If you care about the quality of your reviews and your integrity, I
>> would
>> suggest you to check your results with a spectrophotometer before you
>> would
>> publish that review. Or at least make a note about this possible issue.)
>
> Thanks Janos for your important note.
>
> I bought the Spyder3Pro because Datacolor says it's compatible with
> wide gamut displays. I repeat, I'm not sure if
>
> I profiled with in-bundle software and I expect results are correct, I
> guess inside obvious limits of a cheap colorimeter. Argyll results are
> similar, better looking to the numbers.
>
> I'm an amateur and not a pro, I don't have any heavy color constrain,
> so I think this is acceptable.
>
> The article could be affected by this issue, sure I write a note about
> it (thanks a lot!), but in any case I think could be a good starting
> point, even if you use a better colorimeter or a spectrophotometer.
>
> I hope I will have the chance to test with another instrument.
>

Other related posts: