Originally Posted by mandarax
The believe I1 pro is to be used in two different angles to get accurate readings off a screen.
??? No, that's not true. Unless you're talking about some technique I've not heard of. Even then, the existence of that technique would not invalidate the technique I use. For calibrating I adjust the angle for maximum cd/m2. Then I calibrate the screen/PJ. I suppose someone might argue the validity of my technique, even though it is widely accepted and used, but that still would have no bearing on the results I posted. Since I used the same technique for all materials, the relative
merits of each material are accurately displayed.
What I did was adjust the angle for maximum cd/m2, then lowered the sensor a set amount. The first reading, while NOT a scientific test for gain, can be used to judge the relative maximum gain between the different materials. The second figure gives an indication of gain dropping with viewing angle change.
Again, this is NOT a scientific test for gain. A material that hotspotted could show a high first number while having a low overall gain. The tests I ran merely give an objective, measured, indication of how the different screen materials perform in relation to each other. I feel safe in stating that the Glidden has a slightly higher overall gain than the Carrada, because maximum cd/m2 is very slightly higher, and the loss of cd/m2 is less with a change in viewing angle. The Glidden quite obviously has a significantly higher maximum gain than the SW, between 14% and 16% depending on how you calculate the difference. Call it 15%. However, judging overall gain difference is more problematic. The SW has less of a cd/m2 drop off with viewing angle than the Glidden. (Which, BTW, is exactly what you'd expect with a lower gain material of similar color.) The Glidden is only about 7% brighter than the SW in the Off Angle test. So overall gain is somewhere between 7% and 15% more with the Glidden. (Of course, Manufacturers usually only list maximum gain for their screens.)
BTW, none of the paints had any visible hotspotting. My Carrada panel was too small for me to accurately judge it for hotspotting, but I doubt that it does.
Originally Posted by mandarax
Also if you were using software relevant for printing that comes with the i1pro then there is some issues that you should be aware of.
Originally Posted by Kirnak
I used both HCFR and BabelColor for software.
Neither HCFR nor BabelColor are X-rite software. (X-Rite is the maker of the i1 Pro.) While I have read some opinions that HCFR understates cd/m2, that does not affect it's ability to show a relative difference between materials.
As far as BabelColor, I feel confident in stating that the color results obtained with it and an i1 Pro are extremely accurate. Are there more accurate meters? Certainly, but they cost many thousands of dollars. A third party lab that calibrates i1 Pros has gone on record stating that of all the i1 pros they have ever tested, not one has ever been out of spec. I'm happy with that record and it is why I have confidence in the results I obtained.