• Open Menu Close Menu
  • Apple
  • Shopping Bag
  • Apple
  • Mac
  • iPad
  • iPhone
  • Watch
  • TV
  • Music
  • Support
  • Search apple.com
  • Shopping Bag
 

Lists

Open Menu Close Menu
  • Terms and Conditions
  • Lists hosted on this site
  • Email the Postmaster
  • Tips for posting to public mailing lists
Re: Re[2]: Lighting question: Illuminance? (RWCM)
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Re[2]: Lighting question: Illuminance? (RWCM)


  • Subject: Re: Re[2]: Lighting question: Illuminance? (RWCM)
  • From: Chris Murphy <email@hidden>
  • Date: Wed, 4 Feb 2004 16:18:55 -0700

On Feb 3, 2004, at 5:36 AM, Peter Karp wrote:
I understand this demand, but my question also pointed to the ambient
light which does not light the proof. I meant the general "room lights".
When I understand you correct you suggest an ambient light of something
like 64 lux, but not a specific ratio of the proof light to the ambient
(room) light?

Actually it's ISO 3664 that suggests 64 lux as a maximum. We don't have a specifically recommended ratio between proof lighting and ambient lighting, but I think there's merit in exploring something like this. Anything that can be done to improve consistency is better than inconsistency, as we'll obviously adapt to such a situation much more quickly.

The illuminance of the proof and the luminance of the
display should match of course, but that still leaves much room for
choosen illuminance level of the ambient light.

Yeah I guess the point is that even though there is a specification for this, ISO 3664, we question how practical it is for most organizations to follow it. Standards are in various states of flux that can make them very useful goals, with high percent of practicality such as ISO 15930 which applies to the various PDF/X formats/workflows; and others that are moderately useful piecemeal with a lower percent of practicality. I think it's better to have something like ISO 3664 published and available for scrutiny and improvement rather than not have it at all. But it also needs to be taken in larger context of applying it to daily work.

And nowadays TFT's can be
significant brighter in comparison to CRT's. I hope that high brightness
displays, covering a big gamut, will be available in the not too far
future also :-)

Too much brightness comes at a cost though. Even though new displays today have a much higher brightness, they're also going to see a larger drop as they age if driven that way all the time. In a way they need to get even brighter more so that we can drive them at a lower brightness and have room to bump it up as the display ages, rather than to get them closer to the equivalent of 500 lux or 2000 lux viewing conditions.

Chris Murphy
Color Remedies (TM)
www.colorremedies.com/realworldcolor
---------------------------------------------------------
Co-author "Real World Color Management"
Published by PeachPit Press (ISBN 0-201-77340-6)
_______________________________________________
colorsync-users mailing list | email@hidden
Help/Unsubscribe/Archives: http://www.lists.apple.com/mailman/listinfo/colorsync-users
Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored.

References: 
 >Re[2]: Lighting question: Illuminance? (RWCM) (From: Peter Karp <email@hidden>)

  • Prev by Date: Re: Hi-Fi inksets
  • Next by Date: Re: Farnsworth-Munsell Hue Test?
  • Previous by thread: Re[2]: Lighting question: Illuminance? (RWCM)
  • Next by thread: RE: colorsync-users digest, Vol 3 #1198 - 14 msgs
  • Index(es):
    • Date
    • Thread