Originally Posted by LarryInRI
Wow, you do seem to think that you know all. I've been using Argyll (not ArgyII) for many years. You don't know that but apparently you have no problem assuming it.
With one of my spare laptops, I ran a 729 point cal on my old Panasonic X1 using the command line Argyll and MadVR. The results were great and readily apparent. However, doing the same to with my VT60 yielded no visible difference at all compared to a standard HCFR calibration -- no visible difference at all. In other words, a 3DLUT has its place. That place is not with the VT60 however.
Larry you may want to try a large (21x3) LUT on your VT60.
Also understanding that the way madVR Argyii is setup you can not use Blu Ray disc if you want a menu.
So what type of source file bit rate, are you using and viewing on your VT60.?
Can you post a 500 point measurement report made using ArgyII/madVR.?
Originally Posted by buzzard767
Yes. The Lumagens process all 3D formats and the eeColor Processor is limited to side by side or top/bottom (not sure about checkerboard). The eeColor will not process Blu-Ray frame packed 3D but this can be circumvented by ripping a Blu-Ray to an MKV file.
As Mike said, cycling a 3D LUT on and off on paused video will show a difference on any display. In my observation, color tracking on the VT60 is good enough that the difference will not be seen on motion video as opposed to displays that do not track well like the Sharp Elite.
In my experience, depending on what the source martial (how good it is) you are using and how good a 3DLUT you are using. I can see the difference in moving picture, imo frame comparisons may not be all that helpful. For one reason, you are not going to view a movie frame by frame.
Of course there is probably a difference in how you approach going about calibrating and how I approach it also the hardware/software we use.
Or as you put it, (sorry I don't remember your exact wording). It depends if you want to see the correct color of some team football's jersey.
Maybe It would be a good Idea (mike's suggestion, and he is correct) to run a large measurement report of 500 or 1000 point's. That way we can compare.