Graeme Gill said:
Beware - many of the entry level colorimeters don't have very good sensitivity or low light resolution. Most rely on cheap L2F sensors, and without augmentation their sensitivity is modest. Something like the i1d3 adds a lens to increase the sensitivity a great deal, but it still doesn't match a high end colorimeter such as a Klien K10-A or similar.
Why the word of caution? Is there a mismatch between low-cost colorimeters and current display tech? Points about speed are well taken, regarding how a more precise instrument can be used to characterize a lower precision instrument and speed up calibration. But this is begging the question. There's an aspect of this stuff which for graphics customers (users) borders on the absurd. What users want are displays with well-defined characteristics and performance. But for some reason, this isn't practical, like CRT TVs use physics and circuits that drift and the whole analog thing is super smooshy from a thermodynamic POV. So what the user must discover he needs is to specifically measure and characterize his display using colorimeter tech!.But this also isn't practical, for other reasons, such as the colorimeters themselves are smooshy. So what the user needs is a higher-end colorimeter which he will use to characterize his lower-end colorimeter, but... probably for some other reasons this also isn't practical, etc. I jest. It's obvious that displays are improving heroically. So what is it about today's displays that makes them so variant that speed is required to calibrate? Sure time is money for some people, like say professional calibrators. But if you were in this business, why would you want reliable displays? They'll put you out of business! If you are just a plain user, is a commodities colorimeter like the new i1d3 a sufficiently good instrument to deal with typical quality displays? Why can't the industry just make a reliable display and leave the colorimeter stuff up to the engineers that design these things? Say, like, maybe LG and Apple? Idk :) I'm not really complaining. But the topic often feels a bit circular. So again, why the word of caution in this context? Do entry-level colorimeters have enough sensitivity to get the job done? And if they don't, why are they on the market? On Mon, Dec 16, 2019 at 2:17 PM Graeme Gill via colorsync-users < colorsync-users@lists.apple.com> wrote:
WAYNE BRETL wrote:
Pardon my ignorance, but what is a L2F sensor?
Light to Frequency. See <https://ams.com/light-to-frequency>
Graeme Gill. _______________________________________________ Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored. colorsync-users mailing list (colorsync-users@lists.apple.com) Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription:
https://lists.apple.com/mailman/options/colorsync-users/wire%40lexiphanicism...
This email sent to wire@lexiphanicism.com