Re: Metamerism
Re: Metamerism
- Subject: Re: Metamerism
- From: "Bruce J. Lindbloom" <email@hidden>
- Date: Thu, 01 Nov 2001 09:16:05 -0600
Fred Bunting wrote:
>
I agree with Sir Fraser on this point. It's very relevant.
>
The fact that two samples match under illuminant A is not sufficient to
>
demonstrate metamerism. They may actually be spectrally identical, in
>
which case they are not metamers.
>
>
You also have to show that they *do not* match under some second
>
illuminant B.
But you are ignoring the specific case being discussed. To remind you,
Bruce Fraser's hypothetical experiment is this:
From Bruce Fraser:
>
If your on-screen image is one sample, your inkjet print is the
>
second sample, and they match under one lighting condition but not
>
another, then you have a metameric pair -- a pure example of
>
metamerism with no quotes required.
Which I restate as follows:
Comparison 1: Monitor color matches print color when print is illuminated
with light source "A".
Comparison 2: Monitor color does not match print color when print is
illuminated with light source "B".
Whether or not there is a match in Comparison 2 neither proves nor disproves
any hypothesis about the nature of the match in Comparison 1 (metameric or
spectral). This is because the monitor color is neither formed by nor
influenced by the light source used to view the print.
That is why I said it is irrelevant and I stand by that statement.
Your claim that a second mismatch is necessary to prove a metameric match is
absolutely true, but not for the case being discussed which involves a
monitor and a print, rather than two prints.
--
Bruce J. Lindbloom
www.brucelindbloom.com