A lot of people have chimed in defense of spectrophotometry, and to talk
about the technology. To these responses I would say yes....a spectro can do
a lot of things because it collects spectral information (which can be
purposed into different types of data). One of the things you can do is
compute tristimulus values from your spectral data - in which case you are
effectively performing the same function as a colorimeter using some extra
math. The difference is that the colorimeter just captures colorimetric data
directly without having to make that translation.
My intention is not to besmirch specto technology. My intention is really to
present good colorimetry and good spectrophotometry as at least "equals" on
some playing fields. Each technology has a laundry list of items that are
critical to accuracy and repeatability of that instrument, and which need to
be addressed in the course of good instrument design. The precision with
which either type of instrument does its job is a function of that
instrument's design an implementation of the technology it employs. The
point here is that, just because one instrument is a colorimeter and one is
a spectro, it is presumptuous to say that the spectro is automatically
better - especially in the case of display measurement. In practice, I have
had several customers - many of whom are very familiar with color management
practice and instrument theory - tip their hat to the colorimeter as their
display instrument of choice.
-Marc
--
Marc Levine
Sales Guy
Technical Guy
X-Rite Incorporated
Email email@hidden
www.xrite.com
_______________________________________________
Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored.
Colorsync-users mailing list (email@hidden)
Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription:
http://lists.apple.com/mailman/options/colorsync-users/email@hidden
This email sent to email@hidden
