I continue to use the words "Relative accuracy"
Without any definition of what that means other than the term accuracy sounds like its providing an end user something that I'm trying to determine is useful or simply hype.
This discussion has become a huge waste of time because you want me to place some specific values on the table so you can try to hit them.
I can't hit anything that you refuse to explain or define. But I agree, this is a huge waste of time. You have been quoted a number of times in this one series of posts discussing profile accuracy and so on, without ever answering what the heck you're trying to define. This is Orwellian speak at its smoothest.
As I have said over and over and over again we use verifications to compare one profile to another in a relative sense.
So that has nothing to do with profile accuracy? It does as I've said from the first post allow us to define device drift (which you then suggested was incorrect, brought up Adobe Gamma and suggested based on my argument, we should not calibrate our displays.
Above I gave two simple illustrations of how you can use verifications to compare results of different target values as I have said at least twice and probably 20 times above.
But when called to explain the holes in the argument or clarification, you bypass the questions which is makes me more highly suspect of your thinking here.
It really doesn't matter how accurate they are, within reason, if they are reasonably consistent.
Accurate to what? We both agree the instrument is or should be repeatable. We both agree that taking two sets of measurements over time can provide a deltaE of device drift. Which of the two profiles is 'accurate' and to what? That's the question I've asked you since day one that you skirt.
I don't of course expect an answer this late in the game.
You can troddle on and on about them being absolutely worthless but as usual you will ignore practical experience over your perception of something you have not tried.
What would make you think I haven't tried it?
For instance I did not say the software/monitor could not produce a luminance of 90. I said when you hit a target of 90 the monitor performed badly.
And I asked why the software didn't tell the user at the get go it couldn't produce the luminance asked and how a validation process which compares a reading made earlier and one just made is helping here or how that has anything to do with profile accuracy. Why didn't the software pop a warning telling the user he/she can't produce that target from the first session? And what does 'preform badly' mean?
Feel free to ramble on about my short comings.
You're doing fine on your own.
Sorry Misty, I'm done. It appears that if you ask for simple technical explanations after a vendor posts about his product that sounds either unclear or suspicious, the posts go on and on and on in an attempt for clarification. I should let it all rest, assuming people here are smart enough to see thorough the hype. But after all these years of hearing so much junk from color management vendors, it ruffles my feathers.