Torben. The difference between some of the gamut coverage results on the 900 (I suspect the 58 inch is a different panel) and 950, could it be light in different review rooms? I've done some design investigation, and controlling light flow differently for opposing directions is tricky. It took me a while to come up with a directional light valve, but was soundly beaten to it anyway.
Actually, that's not true there was something I came up with years and years ago, but I suspect I probably have been beaten to that too
(but it wasn't really a desirable light valve).
What happens is that a set passes light out, but also passed light in which interacts and bounves back out washing color purity a bit, reducing gamut. Even.the light from.he screen a itself bouncing off objects back into it could do this. Which means the surounding body of the calibration equipment itself could do it. Wow, which is bad.
For an example. The lsservue rear projection TV got around this by using a 3M glasses bead material, where the light was collected on the exposed rear of a bead embedded in black material, and funneled out through the tip of the bead poking out he front of the material. The black surface on the front was much larger than the back, reducing the amount of light that could get in through the beads from the front. If one wanted expand I is a wider spreader mechanism in front of the bead, the nature of optics is that it probably would let a lot more light in through the front. So, the pinprick pixels of that screen must have been a bit uncomfortable up close.
Could this be a factor?
I'm also interested in how development of the rec2100/ HDR test and calibration tools are working out in the industry?
Thanks.