I have a brand new NEC PA301w that I've calibrated with Spectraview and the custom iOne calibrator that comes with the monitor. I also have an Eizo CG210 that I've used for for many years as my primary profiled monitor, and I calibrate that monitor with an EyeOne Pro and Eizo's ColorNavigator software. I've never had a second color-managed monitor to compare with the Eizo, but now that I do, I'm seeing a visible mismatch between the two and searching for "the truth". Not sure if my expectations are unrealistic, but I really thought I would see very little difference between the two once they were calibrated. I've set the color temp and luminance targets the same on both monitors (6500, 85cd), run the calibration several times on each, and then verified the profiles on both using the applicable software (Spectraview and ColorNaviagator both allow you to check the profile once it's been created.) On the NEC I see average max deltaE of ~2, with a max of 3; on the Eizo the max deltaE is 2 with the average just over one. Both pieces of software confirm the color temp is very close to the target color temp (within 100 degrees), yet I still see a noticeable difference between the displays. The NEC clearly looks warmer than the Eizo, despite what the software claims.
OK, so then I got this brilliant idea to put up a picture in LR of a colorchecker and then use my eyeOne and the spot measure tool in PMP5 to actually measure what's coming from each screen. I set the eyeOne to emissive mode, took a reading on the NEC (reference) and then dragged the LR window to Eizo screen and did another measurement off the same white patch (whitest patch) on the Eizo (Sample). Comparison screen shot attached. So which monitor/calibration is right, and is this even a legit test? More than anything, I'm curious as to why both calibration packages report good (matching) profiles but visually that's just not the case.
Thanks,
Geoff