If I have a monitor that I actively use and re-calibrate with a colourimeter once every few months, do I need to get new readings with a spectro for probe matching as well each time? Does the display's aging affect spectro's readings as well, making the all the data used to probe match out of date?

That's kinda like asking how long is a piece of string...
You can't know if a display has aged unless you check and compare using a good spectro.
So the best is to perform a probe match every time you start a new profiling/calibration session.

Steve

Steve
Okay, I feel like I asked the wrong question, I'll try again:

As has been stated many times on the site, a probe match is superior to a general correction file. Now, I can understand that on a general level, but I'm not entirely sure if I crasp the logic behind it, in other words, what ACTUALLY makes it superior. I'm sorry if this is super basic, but after trying to understand this I feel like I need someone to explain it to me like I'm (a very weird) 5-year-old,

Let's imagine I own an Asus pa24us and download a correctional file from the link in i1D3 guide page, and use colourspace to calibrate the display as well as I can. After activelly using the monitor for years, and re-calibrating it every few months, using the same correctional file the whole time since I don't have an access to a good spectro.

But at this point, the monitor has aged, so the correctional file isn't correct anymore (if it ever truly was), am I correct?

But it's not entirely unusabel since it still tries to correct the underlying problem with different display technologies creating light in a different ways?

The same thing would happen if I it was created on the very monitor I've been using?

So, following this logic, a probe match is the most up to date, monitor unit specific version of a correctional file, and this makes it better then a general file? It not only indentifies the correct backlight type, it also matches the red, green, blue and white readings with a colorimeter's readings of the same patches?

As the website info states, while Correlation files can be better than nothing, a probe match with a good spectro is always preferable.
Any Correlation File is only really totally valid for the actual screen is was generated on, exactly as for any probe match.
But is likely to be better than nothing on other displays using the same screen.
However, there is no guarantee of that - especially if the two screens are of different ages, etc.

And not sure what you mean by a 'general file'?

But obviously Correlation Files only work with the i1D3, which itself is a low-end probe.
It has its own limitations vs. high-end colourimeters.

Steve

Steve
Sorry, a generic correlation file is what I meant to say.

Nevertheless, even a high-end colorimeter like K10A still requires a correlation file or a probe match for optimal results, correct?

I have a tangential question and this might be a bit too theoretical and simplistic, but if I would buy a budget spectro, like i1 Pro 3, and probe match it to a i1D3 and calibrate the aging Asus pa24us, that would be a better solution then relying on the old correlation file from displaycalibrations.com download link? Even though that one was created with a CR-250?

As said, only the i1D3 probes use Correlation Files.
But still not sure what you are trying to suggest with the 'generic correlation file' comment.
All Correlation Files are really 'generic'.
There is no specific 'generic' Correlation File.

All other tristimulus probes use Probe Matching.
You can still 'share' probe matching files, in the same way as Correlation Files, but few bother.
Mainly as those with high-end tristimulus probes also have high-end spectrods.

And your last question is impossible to answer.
The i1Pro is 10nm.
That is not good for wide gamut displays.
So it 'may' be worse than a Correlation File, but equally may be better on your specific monitor...
No way to know, other than to compare to a narrow bandwidth spectro.

Steve

Steve
By generic I mean the way the files are used. If I create a correlation file for the Asus monitor and share it with other people using the same model, that would make it "generic" in my mind, since it's not super precise but still similar enough to be useful in some cases at least. But yes, I do understand that calling a correlation file generic is redundant.

As for the last question, I was trying to find out whether or not there is a rule of thumb for these kinds of situations, but I guess not.

EDIT: regarding Correlation Files and K10-A I feel like we are talking about different things here. Those probes do come with 90 individual display matrices, enabling specific display technology to be matched according to your web page. So I thought "correlation file" was a generic name for those types of files that are used in a similar manner to probe matching.