Re: Monitor Calibration
Re: Monitor Calibration
- Subject: Re: Monitor Calibration
- From: Robin Myers <email@hidden>
- Date: Fri, 13 Nov 2009 23:45:42 -0800
Interesting info on the Light to Frequency converters in the current display colorimeters. My earlier comments about large sensors were based on my experiences with the DTP-92 and its ilk. Thanks a bunch for the technology update.
Robin Myers
On Nov 13, 2009, at 11:18 PM, Graeme Gill wrote:
> Andrew Rodney wrote:
>> Yes it is, but that doesn’t mean its better for calibration of a display as discussed
>> here by the fellow who brought us the Radius Pressview and Sony Artisan:
>> http://www.lumita.com/site_media/work/whitepapers/files/xrite-wp-3a.pdf
>
> That is a rather carefully worded document for the most part, that
> doesn't actually claim that a spectrometer is always inferior to a
> colorimeter, and in fact most of its discussion refers to laboratory
> grade spectrometers and colorimeters, not the sort of instruments
> available to most people.
>
> One basic claim that the spectrometer has lower accuracy at low light
> level is not necessarily true - many cheap colorimeters collect less light
> than they might seem to from their size (ever pulled the diffuser
> off a Spyder ? it's got basically the same Light to Frequency sensors that
> all the other cheap colorimeters use), and it is easy enough to
> increase spectrometer integration time to match or indeed surpass
> the repeatability of any such colorimeter. From experience I can tell
> you that these light to frequency converters are hard make low
> noise readings from at low light levels, because the frequency
> becomes very low and is hard to measure. Sometimes the integration
> times slip out to more than 20 seconds simply to get two transitions
> (or none, which is worse because the reading drops to zero),
> while something like a i1pro gives quite repeatable readings at
> similar light levels with a fixed 2 second integration time.
>
> I also wonder whether the claims might have made more sense
> when it was implicitly talking about something like the DTP92 or DTP94
> (rather well made instruments with glass filters, large light
> collection areas and direct A/D converters - but not laboratory grade)
> when used on displays they were designed for, and not the (rather more
> cheaply made) i1display/Huey/Spider using small L to F converters,
> plastic filters and used on the more diverse range of displays that are
> available today.
>
> Graeme Gill.
> _______________________________________________
> Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored.
> Colorsync-users mailing list (email@hidden)
> Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription:
>
> This email sent to email@hidden
>
_______________________________________________
Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored.
Colorsync-users mailing list (email@hidden)
Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription:
This email sent to email@hidden