Originally Posted by gwgill
What sort of differences ? i.e. do you have examples ?
(There should be no significant differences, and I've never seen any.)
Yes, I have. I intend to make a post with more details, but here is quick example of (Y, x, y) triplets:
115.30 0.3119 0.3288 Argyll adaptive mode, normal resolution
114.25 0.3130 0.3289 Argyll adaptive mode, High resolution
113.92 0.3132 0.3289 Argyll non-adaptive mode, High resolution (-Y A)
113.84 0.3085 0.3263 LightSpace (there's no way to configure the i1Pro2 in LS)
My i1Pro2 is an OEM probe, so it' not recognized by iProfiler and I don't have measurements done with it. I expect it to give the same results as LightSpace though, since LightSpace is said to use the X-Rite SDK with no extra processing done by itself.
Luminosity kept varying between high 113 nits to low 115 nits during the measurements, and the x and y did change in time as well. But while there are slight variations in time, they remain mostly in the same target area, the LS x coordinate measurements never go over 0.31, while Argyll measures always above 0.31. Same story for y.
Measurements were carried out in isfExpert Bright mode, OLED light 30, brightness 49 (for really no light emitted at RGB 0,0,0), Contrast 85, with no white point or LUT corrections, Warm 1 color temperature, 2.2 gamma, and Auto gamut (which means the TV attempts to reproduce Rec709 gamut).
Considering the TV EDID advertises standard Rec709 colorimetry with Rec709 white point, I was surprised to see the Argyll High resolution mode being extremely close to it, while nothing else was. But, like I said, I don't have reference equipment to actually validate whether this panel really measures like that or not.
Originally Posted by gwgill
For the most accurate color display you want to keep everything constant - the behavior of the display (so that the profile remains an accurate recording of its behavior), and the surroundings you view the display in (so that you perception of the display remains constant). Changing the display in response to ambient intensity and/or color may be cute, but it isn't what you do if color accuracy is your goal.
I am not going to dispute that having a controlled viewing environment is going to be best, but most people do not view their TVs or PC monitors in controlled ambient luminosity conditions, and adaptation to ambient luminosity is a part of the "proper" way to reproduce color in case of relative tone mapping curves. That being said, nobody actually uses this (but that's another story)!
Now, I feel like I have to give a proper reply to the original question: why use something like argyll and DisplayCal instead of i1Profiler?
For me it simply comes down to i1Profiler being extremely limited in what it can do:
- it relies on very constraining workflows
- no easy way to make it display a patch and see what the luminance, x, and y coordinates are for that patch (this should be hassle-free, and it's not); there's no workflow for that
- creating a custom list of patches is such a complicated affair, you have to be in one of the measurement workflows to do it, and the patch generator is nowhere near what argyll's targen can do
- the workflow for displays basically forces you into having a profile generated and applied using the Windows color management
- it can't do 3D LUTs
- it is not able to use other patch generators
With argyll you can do (almost) anything. You can even modify its source code to try new things, or just record measurements and then process them in some other way. I've installed i1Profiler only twice in the past ten years, and only for short periods of time: the first time I got my first i1Display Pro because I was curious to see what it can do, and a second time this winter because I wanted to check if it gives different results for a i1Display Pro Plus probe than other software (no, it doesn't).