I agree in principal; the question again is how good do we need it,
and how difficult is that for the manufacturers to achieve? I must
admit that I too am underwhelmed by the figure you quote, and it
wouldn't make good advertising copy. I don't own a DTP70 myself, so I
can only refer to the specs listed on the certification cards for
some of my other instruments, all certified this year:
Spectrolino: .3 deltaE(CIELab) average; .8 deltaE(CIELab) maximum
iSis XL: < .4 deltaE(2000)
X-Rite 528: .29 deltaE(cmc):
It would be convenient if they used the same standard for each
instrument, but I ask you, should I be losing sleep over these
figures? Or should we mistrust their truthfulness? I'd need to hear a
lot more evidence before I start reaching for those Ambiens.
At this point I'm afraid I'll have to let others carry on if they
wish, as my I'm backed up with work (fortunately). Thanks for all the
input!
Mike S.
But if the inter-instrument agreement between those two DTP-70s is an
average dE of 0.96 (on indentical makes and models), then at best,
you'll always be that far off, unless varability favors you for a
moment, so add that on to the eveything else. My point is, there
should
be at least one solid foundation in all this variability, and
spectrophotometry stands the best chance at this.
