Re: Colorimeter vs. Spectro
Re: Colorimeter vs. Spectro
- Subject: Re: Colorimeter vs. Spectro
- From: Marc Levine <email@hidden>
- Date: Sun, 02 Jan 2005 20:26:31 -0500
Roger (et al),
>
> Depends on the quality of the filters. The closer the filters to the
> Standard Observer the better the measurement.
Exactly! The filters are the key! Of course, you need to channel the light
through them efficiently with low noise (which is highly reliant on the
optical/baffle system). However, I suspect that the filters are really what
you are paying for.
> But, that is not always
> possible/feasible economically, is it?
I don't think it's primarily a matter of economics, I believe it's more a
matter of engineering. That's why these types of devices have improved so
much in the past few years - because manufacturers are understanding better
ways to make them. X-Rite's OptixXR isn't exactly the company's first trip
around the block. The DTP92 was highly praised in it's day for the
performance of its colorimetric filter system. The DTP94 is basically the
next generation of those technologies. The engineering challenge was to
build a device the meets or exceeds the quality of the DTP92 (and others)
for a competitive price. (not to build the least expensive device on the
market and see how it competes)
> So, we have to rely on calibration to
> fill the gap. Incidently, what kind of source is used at X-Rite, ColorVision
> and GretagMacbeth to calibrate the likes of DTP-94s, Spyders and i1Displays?
Spectroradiometers are typically used in X-Rite's (and I assume others)
development cycle to tune the color engine of the device. On the production
line, I suspect that different manufacturers do different things to ensure
product consistency.
>
>> Incidentally, it is my impression that Colorimeter filters are engineered to
>> match the human eye response and not the spectral character of the device
>> which they are measuring.
>
> This is the "broad" principle, Marc. But how closely do the filters used in
> any wide band colorimeter match the Standard Observer is another story. I
> have yet to see manufacturers named above publish this data -- which you can
> see on instruments of the grade of UDT systems.
In terms of making this type of data publicly available I would say this: if
this device is technically mediocre, you probably don't want to provide any
ammunition to competitors and - if your device is of exceptional performance
- you probably don't want to help anybody figure out a way to beat it.
The point here is that Colorimtery costs less, performs as good as, and can
even outperform spectrophotometry when it comes to measuring displays
accurately. Spectros are great, but just because they are better for print
does not mean they are better for displays. Of course, Roger (or anybody
else), if you'd like any additional info on either our Colorimeter
(DTP94/OptixXR), or any one of our spectros (DTP20/Pulse, DTP22/Swatchbook,
DTP41, DTP45, or DTP70), please contact me off list.
Best regards & Happy New Years!
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:
This email sent to email@hidden