Re: Metamerism
Re: Metamerism
- Subject: Re: Metamerism
- From: email@hidden (Bruce Fraser)
- Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2001 14:41:38 -0700
At 3:33 PM -0600 10/31/01, Bruce J. Lindbloom wrote:
In the unlikely case that this dead horse has not yet been sufficiently
flogged, I have assembled what I think is an exhaustive list of metameric
cases. Of the twelve cases, seven involve two observers, and therefore are
theoretically possible, but of little practical interest. The remaining
five (1a, 2a, 2b, 2c and 3a) are the ones that matter.
I almost hesitate to mention scanner metamerism and digital camera
metamerism...
...as I understand it, the term is usually applied when a capture
device sees two samples as the same where humans see them as
different, or sees two samples as different where humans see them as
the same.
I pretty much agree with your list, but it almost becomes trivially
true -- virtually all real-world color matches are metameric. The
corollary, which is practically important for people who try to match
reflective colors to some reference, is that metameric matches of
reflective samples are dependent on the light source. That's why we
have standard lighting conditions for evaluating print matches (or
pretend to have standardized lighting conditions -- measuring viewing
booths can be quite revealing, and quite scary).
The context in which this whole discussion arises is that, while
traditional offset inks are fairly tolerant of variations in
"standard" viewing conditions, the Epson pigmented inks are not. If
we adopt flooberism, we have to say that the Epson pigs are a great
deal more flooberic, or display a much greater degree of flooberism,
than most of the colorant sets to which we are accustomed.
I agree that this is not metamerism as classically defined, but isn't
it rooted in the same phenomenon that makes color matches possible in
the first place?
Bruce
--
email@hidden
| References: | |
| | >Re: Metamerism (From: "Bruce J. Lindbloom" <email@hidden>) |