Yes your RS35 is different than another RS35 with a different bulb with different amount of hours on it.
How much different?
Are the bulbs from the same source?
Worthless and not as accurate are two different things.
Thanks for the response, sotti!
But my whole question comes down to "What is your reference source?" As far as I am concrened profiling ANY meter to an i1 Pro is almost worthless, as the i1 is NOT a ***REFERENCE*** meter...a PR 655 5 nm unit IS a reference meter, so when you profile a tristim to a non reference meter like the i1 Pro, then you can only obtain results as accurate as the i1 non-reference device is capable of providing, and IMHO that MAY or MAY NOT be more accurate than a C5 is (according to Tom Huffman who owns a true reference meter the i1 and C5 factory units measure very closely), so why would you profile a C5 against a meter that may or may not be more accurate than the one you are already using?
I only have 2 questions...please address them separately, if you would be kind enough:
1. If the Chroma 5 factory unit is no better than the lowest price tristim out there and needs to be profiled against a low end spectro to have any usefulness at all, then why does SpectraCal sell it?
I mean, you guys should be doing your clientele a favor and sell ONLY the lowest price tristims out there since they will perform almost EXACTLY like a C5 once profiled. Or better yet, ONLY sell the lowest priced tristim in a package with a spectro, as a tool used to gain speed and convenience.
2. Furthermore, why sell an "enhanced" version of the Chroma 5 where you profile it against a true reference meter, because according to your own post above, every display is different than every other display, thus making the "enhanced" feature useless and irrelevant? In fact that would pretty much make **EVERY** "enhanced" meter pointless, so why is this done at all?
Since I purchased a C5 from SpectraCal about a year ago (although it was updated with LED tables at SpectraCal in Oct 2009) and I have an i1Pro I purchased from SpectraCal, I thought I'd check them against each other.
I've attached a couple of PDFs comparing the two on a Pioneer Pro-111FD. I've attached notes at the bottoms of the PDF reports to give you the particulars about how I did the calibration runs. (The C5 NoProfile and wProfile actually contains a mistake in the top portion. It says "Meters: i1Pro (left), C5 with Profile (right)". It should read Meters: C5 No Profile (left), C5 with Profile (right). Sorry)
Greg, thank you! You have very effectively demonstrated that the profiling feature in CalMAN works exactly as it should...
Once a C5 is profiled against an i1 Pro, then the C5 measures similarly to an i1 Pro, just as it is supposed to work.
What is does not prove, however, is which meter is more accurate (without any profiling), as you would need to compare each meter's results to the results of a 5 nm reference meter such a PR 655 individually to see which meter measures closest to the PR 655. Without using a reference meter you have no idea which is the more accurate meter "out of the box" so to speak.
I hope that no one is getting upset with my posts, as I am just trying to stimulate good healthy debate, as well as to provoke people to think for themselves rather than simply "go with the herd" because you have heard the same information over and over again. Sometimes that information is correct, but sometimes it is not, and with a little luck maybe we can all learn a little something in the process.