Quote:
Originally Posted by gremmy 
I don't expect a $200 tool to be as accurate as a $700 tool.
But unless I am looking at those charts incorrectly (and maybe I am?), the eye 1 used for comparison here is so far off that I question whether it would have been worth calibrating with at all. I think I could have achieved error like that by eye!
In which case, I could have just spent my $200 on hookers and blow (not that I do either of those, but you get my point).
I don't expect a $200 tool to be as accurate as a $700 tool.
But unless I am looking at those charts incorrectly (and maybe I am?), the eye 1 used for comparison here is so far off that I question whether it would have been worth calibrating with at all. I think I could have achieved error like that by eye!
In which case, I could have just spent my $200 on hookers and blow (not that I do either of those, but you get my point).
Exactly the reason I got rid of first my Spyder 3 and then my X-Rite D2. Placement on the screen caused "differences" too. While LCD or any screen may appear fairly uniform, placing the sensor in the center of the screen may not be representative of the average screen brightness for instance. Therefore. . . errors. Compound that with an "iffy" meter and what to do??
And, yes. . . After using the AVS HD709 and my "practiced eye" (from many years of CRT purity procedures and the like) I saw little difference in actual reference movie video quality comparing D2 calibrated settings to those obtained with a very careful use of the AVS HD709.
Bottom line. for me to be satisfied with my own cal equipment would set me back at least $1,000 but more like $3,500 for personal use. And this is just for consumer level TV. So, after my experience with under $1,000 meters comparing it to using the AVS HD709 disc, to insist that it would be so far off the mark as to not be a close representation of the original would be an overstatement. Especially on many of today's TVs.
