• 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: 16 bits = 15 bits in Photoshop?
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: 16 bits = 15 bits in Photoshop?


  • Subject: Re: 16 bits = 15 bits in Photoshop?
  • From: bruce fraser <email@hidden>
  • Date: Thu, 14 Apr 2005 14:30:39 -0700

Ray,

All reflective spectrophotometers measure relative to some absolute standard, but not to the same absolute standard! Until you get into research-grade instruments, the calibration tile is serialized to the instrument, and the calibration tile is the absolute white reference used by that instrument. Some vendors provide a path that traces the individual unit's performance back to some accuracy relative to an NIST standard, but plenty of others do not.

The imprtant qualifier to "the minimum and maximum L* values that a particular hard copy proofing system can produce" is "as illuminated by the light source in this spectrophotometer!"

On a lot of papers, you'll get very different L* values for paper white from the same spectro with a D50 filter, a D65 filter, and a UV cut filter. Calibration tiles are designed to come very close to 100% reflectance, but they can only reflect what's already present in the illuminant.

In practice, the variability in the measurements is probably drowned by the variations in paper manufacturing and the sheet-to-sheet variability of the output processes-I'm just cautious about using the word 'absolute" unless it really, really means absolute!

And yes, you did indeed qualify everything you said as being about reflective hard copy. I was just trying to point out that reflective hard copy is not the be-all and end-all in digital imaging. I wasn't really disagreeing with you, just pointing out that there are scenarios beyond the ones that you were discussing that nevertheless real.

best,

Bruce

At 2:15 PM -0700 4/14/05, Ray Maxwell wrote:
bruce fraser wrote:


100 L* isn't a dynamic range. It's simply maximum white relative to whatever your white reference is, and is hence a relative rather than an absolute value.

Hi Bruce,

I agree with everything you said and thought I had qualified everything I said. However, with regard to reflective spectrophotometers I believe that all measurements are done to an absolute standard rather than relative. I also understand that what I said only applies to non-fluoresent papers. I have exchanged data with many color scientists and, with regard to reflective measurements, we have always talked about the minimum and maximum L* values that a particular hard copy proofing system can produce.

Can you confirm or correct this practice.

Thanks,

Ray Maxwell


--
email@hidden
_______________________________________________
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


References: 
 >Re: 16 bits = 15 bits in Photoshop? (From: Roger Breton <email@hidden>)
 >Re: 16 bits = 15 bits in Photoshop? (From: "email@hidden" <email@hidden>)
 >Re: 16 bits = 15 bits in Photoshop? (From: Ray Maxwell <email@hidden>)
 >Re: 16 bits = 15 bits in Photoshop? (From: bruce fraser <email@hidden>)
 >Re: 16 bits = 15 bits in Photoshop? (From: Ray Maxwell <email@hidden>)

  • Prev by Date: Re: 16 bits = 15 bits in Photoshop?
  • Next by Date: Re: 16 bits = 15 bits in Photoshop?
  • Previous by thread: Re: 16 bits = 15 bits in Photoshop?
  • Next by thread: Re: 16 bits = 15 bits in Photoshop?
  • Index(es):
    • Date
    • Thread