"All things being equal"....isn't this a bit of a straw man argument?
Only for someone who has a theory he can’t prove. If the sole reason the LUT profile is superior is because its a LUT profile, proof its not other measured data, math etc in the process creating the profile is required.
It's highly likely that a different patch set will be used for a matrix vs. LUT profile....
You think that taking a smaller number of patches spread in a narrower area of color space would not have an effect over a product that sampled either a larger sample or a sample of colors in a wider area of color space? Its the LUT, its not the patches, that’s Marks assumption.
and both profiles would CERTAINLY use different math during construction of the profile....
Can’t be the patches or the math, its the structure of the profile. That’s Mark’s take.
so you could never have a situation where "all things are equal" so your argument would be rather self-fulfilling. I
No, it just makes Marks assumptions about the profile far more difficult to prove. One questions that with all these differences, how one came to the conclusion its solely the profile structure. It makes accepting the premise so much more difficult. And yet, its been said its not a flat earth theory. Yet its Mark’s theory to explain and prove. I don’t have to disprove it, that’s not how the science works. Mark have to prove the theory, now you are saying that difficult to do. I don’t disagree. Does’t change the facts (or lack thereof).
I'm sure you're aware that it would be extremely difficult to get two different display applications to use the same device value patch set....
I know people who could write the software to do this. Maybe you can’t. I can’t. But then again, there is this theory that keeps showing up here but there’s nothing to back it up.
If the discussion was framed more in terms of....basiCColor Display builds a better LUT profile compared to NEC's matrix profile....then Mark's analysis is valid.
That’s an easier theory to accept at this point. Personal experience suggests that is very possible. At least if we agree that sending X number of as yet, undefined patches through two profiles and analyzed by PatchTool is the only criteria of ‘a better profile’.
Even better....if basICColor built a superior matrix profile compared to NEC's matrix profile, at the very least you could say that NEC's own software for their displays is inadequate.
Well inadequate in terms of a dE value of as yet undefined colors in an undefined area of color space. But that is simply one data point. It tells us nothing about other aspects of calibration and profiling a display. For example, if I could produce a lower dE of defined patches at the expense of purity in other areas of the display from center (where the data is measured), would that be adequate? Or if I asked for a 300:1 contrast ratio but in order to get a lower dE of said patches, the actual calibration produced 400:1, would that be adequate?
The idea that a lower dE test points to the profile structure alone is so far nonsensical based on the process used to come to that conclusion. Now one has to ask, if the dE of product #1 is 2.9 and the other is 3.5, does that automatically make product #2 inadequate? Maybe.
I'd prefer to think it terms of....."all things being equal, a LUT profile will be no WORSE than a matrix profile...
The key part of the sentence is what isn’t happening in the analysis, all things being equal