Which means...what exactly? That we should let the manufacturers off
the hook for providing better inter-instrument agreement? I believe
that we have very good repeatability these days but I'm not convinced
accuracy is all that good. I've done a few informal comparisons
between my SpectroEye, EyeOne and iSis and suffice it to say that I'm
NOT impressed with their inter-instrument agreement. I've even been
told that my SpectroEye, via NetProfiler, is only certifying itself to
another SpectroEye, not any kind of absolute standard.
Regards,
Terry
On Oct 31, 2007, at 11:26 AM, Mike Strickler wrote:
This comment does not exactly address Roger's complaint, but it may
bear on its relevance. Even if we could achieve higher accuracy in
spectrophotometers, which is problematic for reasons that Robin and
Tom have outlined, let's remember that the standards we're talking
about here are not in the end spectrally-based, but VISUALLY-based.
So we're harnessing a lot of spectral measuring power to get the
most accurate conversion to L*a*b, LCH, XYZ, etc., all of which are
based on some thing far vaguer: the "average" human visual response.
Does anyone have figures for (deltaE) variability between THOSE
instruments?
