> 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
Well, that argument wraps it off for me. Well said, Marc.
Regards,
Roger Breton | Laval, Canada | email@hidden
http://pages.infinit.net/graxx
_______________________________________________
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
