Steve
It still doesn't work. What are your thoughts?
https://youtu.be/duT0LguFu0U
Update:1 If you don't correct the number by replacing the digits, but by entering a completely new value into the field, then everything works out. I think this is a data entry style.
Update2: Now I finally understand what the problem is, this problem is at the software level. When we change the digits in the parameter value, the value for editing is highlighted with a comma, which is not accepted by the software as an integer and fractional divisor. To enter a value in the program, you need to enter "number + dot + number" and not "number + comma + number".

our only hope is someone with known reference to show if the specs are accurate.

Alexey
Ah! You have a comma as a delimiter...
Might be that. We will have to test that.

Edit: I didn't read your update.
Ok, we will look into that!

Steve

Ok. I received one of the OHSP350L meters direct from the manufacturer last week. So far, so good. The meter came with its internal battery fully charged, so I didn't have to bother with that. The USB connector on the meter is USB-C, not micro USB (the manufacturer calls it micro USB in the docs). I used it yesterday to profile my OEM I1D3 on our Samsung 77" S90C, with good results, following the procedure Ted listed in the AVSForum thread he linked to a few posts back. Compared to using the meter correction file for the S90C, faces are a tiny bit - it's very subtle - less rosy. I doubt very much it's placebo effect, as I wasn't sure what to expect. Currently grayscale is all I've done with the new meter profile.

RollsRoyce
Can you or not check the device for accuracy with other more expensive devices?

Alexey
Sorry, but not. I live in a rural area and have no access to one.

Virtually ANY reasonable spectro probe match, including an i1Pro of any type, will be betetr than EDR/Correlation Files.
The underlying i1D3 factory calibration is just not that good, as seen on the i1D3 page of the website.
(See the ? Correlation File Accuracy modal.)

Steve

Steve
This was the first time I'd personally ever been able to do a back-to-back comparison of EDR/Correlation File results to a profiled meter result using the same colorimeter. I knew what was being said by you and others but hadn't yet seen it for myself.

RollsRoyce
Very sorry. The comparison would be the trigger to make my purchase. At what price did the purchase come out?

Sorry, but you should contact the manufacturer directly as regards pricing.

I will describe the situation about the OHSP350L device a little bit.

1. When the device is positioned differently in space, different data is obtained during measurements, both in terms of color and brightness. The correct measurement position is shown in attachment 1.

2. When searching for the correct position of the device during measurements, the manufacturer sent a comparison photo of the OHSP350L and Konica Minolta CS-3000 measurements, the values are very close. See attachments 2,3,4.

From this we can conclude that the device is very accurate. The only thing is that there is no integration with screen calibration programs. As it is, the device is great.

If different probe positions generate noticeably different readings the probe is not suitable for accurate calibration...

And if changes in position cause variations in measurements, what is causing that?
Polarisation issues?
Poor optics?

Steve

Steve
The problem with polarization. Most likely, there is not a very perfect system of mirrors when a ray of light passes through.

As different displays have different polarisation alignment the probe will unfortunately be useless.

Actually, any noticeable variation in measured values with different alignment makes the probe useless...

Steve

Steve
If we know the polarization of the screen, can't we accurately take measurements? All that remains is to find out what the polarization of the measured screen is?