Originally Posted by Bob Sorel
So from your graphs the only reasonable thing I can conclude is that to do a proper job I would need a 1 nm meter (is there any such thing?) and that a 5 nm meter would be somewhat useful, though certainly not great, and that anything less is totally worthless.
Also, are you saying that profiling a 5 nm reference meter against a tristim field meter (for example) on let's say, a JVC RS-20 has ZERO
value when measuring an RS-35?
Don't forget history.
15 years one might go solely by eyeballing the gray scale with no reference.
10 or so years ago you had an optical comparator, still eyeballing it to match the reference.
Then the pucks came along that used filters to compare against a reference. You will remember that at that time, essentially CRT was the form factor. LCDs with their cfl had a different Spectral Radiance so there was a different puck (Remember the Colorpro III/IVs).
But since then, CRTs disappeared, Plasma grew in popularity, LCDs began to use LEDs as well as cfl, Lasers, OLED, SXRD, countless different types of lamps, even Sharp putting adding Yellow have given as more differences than that technology could hope to keep up with.
Thus, the real question is why would you even WANT to use a meter profiled in 2010 as opposed to a state of the art SpectroRadioMeter with good resolution?
That is sort of like using an X-Ray instead of a MRI.
What D-Nice doesnt tell you is that he does not want to use a PR-655 to calibrate your set as the reading for that particular unit takes to long for a reading and he wants to be in and out of your house in several hours, so he uses a K-10 which returns a quick reading, despite other issues the meter has that apparently he is unaware of.
If I were paying for a calibration, I'd want it done right, not worrying about the time it took.
As for would a meter profiled on a RS-20 work better than the default for a RS-35, that answer depends on how close the default setting are to the RS-35, right? But then again, why use 10 year old technology in 2010 when you can have a MRI instead of an X-Ray?