Fact: I stated that each NEC monitor in this series sold in Europe is individually certified. They are not individually certified in North America.
Certified how? By whom? And that certification makes them “better” in what way? You assume that certification is useful and necessary in the US, you have zero idea how NEC decides how they select panels for inclusion as a SpectraView. IF NEC USA said they certified the panels, that would make you feel better? I suppose that saying its certified, you take this at face value as something useful, not more marketing. Maybe you can tell us how this certification is conducted and how it compares to SpectraView panels for the US that are not certified. You seem quite certain that this certification is both necessary and a benefit right? Like the rest of your rants, maybe you can for once, provide some actual data points why you believe this is useful and necessary and how such a process is necessary in the US. We are all ears.
"While it is true that LUT based display profiles can be an advantage over simple matrix profiles on certain types of displays that have very non-linear additive color properties (i.e. they do not behave Grassmann’s law of additive color well), the IPS panels used on the PA series and internal 3D matrix correction make the display’s additive color response very linear. This can be represented very accurately by a simple matrix."
And you seem to have failed to see the important part of this sentence about certain types of displays so I’ve gone to the trouble to make it bold. Again, we have been talking here, long before you came by, about the SpectraView II displays. The discussion of LUT vs. Matrix profiles for any other display systems is not on the table, at least not in this thread.
"At the end of the day, SpectraView does not support LUT profiles." "you could always try profiling the display using a 3rd party package that does support LUT profiles and see if you get any improvement."
An excellent answer from Will. Something Mark did only partially, then when he got the answer he wanted and assumed he’d get from the get go, the testing stopped. That’s really bad science. Even Mark admitted this below. And he hasn’t (nor have you) provided any proof that the preferences he saw was
solely based on the type of profile structure used (LUT vs. Matrix).
He did. And he did.
No he didn’t and it didn’t. That you can’t figure this out, but want to go deep into mathematics when its not necessary shows you are the one with an agenda and a shill. Maybe it's time for full disclosure, because you sound anything but objective and certainly not scientific in terms of nearly every point you’ve made here.
Exactly as Mark said over and over again in his posts before he quit this thread, the whole argument turns on whether the display is truly linear. When tested, this wide-gamut display is not perfectly linear. So the matrices approximate the true curves, which takes us back to the previous post. LUT wins.
No, the argument is if the NEC SpectraView II software is inferior in producing a desired calibration because it doesn’t build a LUT profile. And Mark made it quite clear what his criteria was for desired calibration; screen to print match. He did not continue to work with the NEC software to produce that result, a result many, many users can and do accomplish. Nor did he prove that its not possible to do this, nor that if he could not, the successful results were due to not the other software’s qualities other than its profile structure (LUT). So presumably you have a SpectraView and their software, and you too cannot produce a screen to print match?
The fact remains that NEC sells the same monitor in Europe with far more sophisticated software than SpectraView, feature by feature.
So now, its not only more accurate, but its more sophisticated? Because it can make a LUT profile or has differing appearance modeling? But where’s the proof that these items produce a better result? Or that SpectraView is unable to produce a screen to print match?
So for whatever reason, NEC gives European users the capability of building LUT-based, CIECAM02-capable profiles, in addition to simple matrix-based profiles, and they don't offer that to North American users.
OK, so in your twisted logic, this is to punish the US market? Or NEC is incapable of writing code to do this? Or maybe, the people who make the panel and its software have a pretty good idea why its either not necessary or (shock of all shocks), its actually detrimental! I’m not suggesting, as you would, that the later is true. But it wouldn’t surprise me that the people who make the hardware and their own software, have a clue about what would be necessary to give its customers the best user experience and end product. In your mind, they can’t or will not because those smart people in Europe are more demanding of quality, so us poor US saps will not know the difference. Which scenario do you think makes more sense (its a general question to the readers here, I’m sure Rich and perhaps Mark will have their own grassy knoll conspiracies theories). And like so many who drum up conspiracies, you’d think they would provide some actual evidence to back up their claims. And as yet, none.
You still haven't offered your explanation for why that is. Instead, you sound like a NEC shill, defending them 'till death do you part, regardless of the evidence. Maybe it's time for full disclosure, because you sound anything but objective. Sorta like when you're talking about... awe, forget it.
Wait, its not up to me to prove anything, its you Rich that have made claims that haven’t been backed up or verified. This is all very simple. The argument and claim isn’t that LUT profiles are always and automatically better or worse than Matrix profiles despite you digging into an old copy of RWCM, steering the discussion elsewhere concerning print profiles and so forth. The basic premise you and Mark have made is that
product A produced a better result than product B solely due to the structure of the profile (LUT).
You have not proven this one bit. In fact, the one test conducted was, like the last governor of Alaska, voluntarily ceased mid stream. And you haven’t told us how you came to any of these conclusions about the superiority of Mark’s initial findings based on hardware you have access to despite being asked to. You and Mark came here with a theory. Its your theory to prove, not mine to disprove. You’ve done nothing to prove it thus far, I’ve simply “disproven” your methods and findings thus far because you have provided no evidence of the claim. You and Mark are still no closer to providing evidence that SpectraView is inferior and worse, if so,
by sole virtue of its profile building structure. When you say awe, forget it, you really should, unless you are willing to put your findings here for peer review instead of your editorial comments and half baked belief systems.
