Originally Posted by Kirnak
OK, so by your own admission, you have zero way to know if the lumagen would or would not make a difference with your own display, let alone the OP's display. You have zero experience with the 125 point autocal on the lumagen. Your only information is based on your opinion which has no basis in experience or education with the Lumagen. And yet you still felt compelled to advise the OP on the subject???
Actually, I wasn't responding to the OP at all, I was conversing with gtgray ... until you butted in.
I'm well aware of what the Lumagen (or eeColorBox) + 3D LUT can do in theory.
I just don't think it would be worth it on my display, mostly because I know that there's absolutely nothing that a LUT can do for the two so-called "big" errors/issues left. So what's left would, at best, be an incremental improvement, like going from 95% "right" to 97% "right."
To borrow a phrase, 'there's things you can fix and there's things ya can't, and the smart calibrator (hopefully) possess the wisdom to know the difference ... and refrains from throwing money at a "lost cause" (for lack of a better term.)'
PS: I'm not currently an engineer, but I did once go to an actual (5yr degree) engineering school. And to be honest, I don't really know what specifically is going on "under the hood" of these modern digital displays, but it seems to me that one would actually have to put considerable extra effort in to designing a display that measures as well as my example does at all the points I measured, but then somehow does something completely "whacky" in between all of those points. You'd really would *have* to invent some kind of "new math" to make that happen.
I'm saying it's impossible, I'm just saying it's not exactly the path of least resistance.