Re: Accuracy of instruments
Re: Accuracy of instruments
- Subject: Re: Accuracy of instruments
- From: Mike Strickler <email@hidden>
- Date: Fri, 2 Nov 2007 12:35:40 -0700
But with all due respect, that's a rhetorical answer, not a
scientific one. More accurate always sounds better, of course, and we
should want instruments that are a bit better than what we need. But
how good is that, exactly, when we consider the entire color
reproduction process? Are additional improvements in our instruments
needed, and how possible (and costly) are they? Other industries
answer these questions fro themselves; shouldn't we? I think it's
healthy now and again to question our own premises...
Perhaps at this point we could hear again from the manufacturers?
------------------------------
Message: 7
Date: Fri, 2 Nov 2007 10:39:26 -0700
From: Steve Upton <email@hidden>
Subject: RE: Accuracy of instruments
To: "colorsync user" <email@hidden>
Message-ID: <p0624083ac3511119a15a@[216.254.4.110]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
At 12:13 PM -0400 11/2/07, Mike Eddington wrote:
And I feel the argument that variability
existing in lighting conditions and the human visual system just
makes
me want more confidence in my spectro, not less.
I think this might just be the quote of the week.
Thanks Mike.
Regards,
Steve
_______________________________________________
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