Re: Metamerism
Re: Metamerism
- Subject: Re: Metamerism
- From: email@hidden (Bruce Fraser)
- Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2001 08:21:48 -0700
At 9:37 AM -0600 10/30/01, Bruce J. Lindbloom wrote:
Bruce Fraser wrote:
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.
I would disagree with this statement. The colors on the monitor are not
formed by, nor influenced in any way by the lights used to view the print.
This is *not* an example of metamerism, IMO. The observation that a single
print looks different under two different lighting conditions is normal, and
unrelated to metamerism.
The only workable definition of metamerism I know is is that it
describes the phenomenon whereby two different spectra create the
same tristimulus values. By that definition, it's metamerism. When we
talk about metamerism between two reflected samples, we're normally
looking at them under the same illuminant, but that's not built into
the definition.
We also talk about scanner metamerism. In those cases, we aren't
viewing the sample under the scanner's light source.
I agree that the observation that a single print looks different
under two different lighting conditions is normal, and unrelated to
metamerism. But those cases where a print looks the same under
different lighting conditions -- which does happen, though probably
not with the Epson pigs -- are very much related to metamerism.
If you have a definition of metamerism that excludes monitor-to-print
matches, I'd love to hear it, but in my book, any match that we
create between a monitor and a print would have to be metameric in
nature -- the possibility that the monitor and the print would
produce the same spectrum is vanishing small.
Bruce
--
email@hidden
References: | |
| >Re: Metamerism (From: "Bruce J. Lindbloom" <email@hidden>) |