Re: Barco vs Eizo
Re: Barco vs Eizo
- Subject: Re: Barco vs Eizo
- From: daniel westcott <email@hidden>
- Date: Tue, 13 Sep 2005 16:03:15 -0400
You are correct that there is more. In the case of the cut wood it shows you
did not consider all that needed to be considered prior to cutting. Perhaps
you forgot to include the set of the blade. In this case, the measuring tape
confirms that the engineering is inadequate for desired tolerances.
I once had an engineer complain that a ruler was not correct by a few
1000ths of an inch over a foot. We measured it with another ruler and he
said that ruler was wrong too. We measured it with a different brand of
ruler and, inexplicably, it was wrong too-- of this he was quite adamant. A
third brand agreed with the engineer. The guy was a savant and he was right.
But it demonstrates the principle...a measuring device confirming its own
accuracy is not a confirmation of anything but repeatability.
Regards,
Daniel Westcott
On 9/13/05 1:12 PM, "email@hidden" <email@hidden>
wrote:
> However...
>
> when you measure a wood plank before cutting it to a given
> length, measuring it with the same instrument may give you
> a different length than what was intended. This is not a
> proof that the measuring tape is not accurate.
>
> This is only another way of saying that there is more in
> profile building than the inherent accuracy of the
> measuring instruments (which has its importance of
> course).
>
> Danny Pascale
>
> email@hidden
> www.BabelColor.com
>
> On Tue, 13 Sep 2005 11:39:30 -0400
> daniel westcott <email@hidden> wrote:
>> When you are checking the accuracy of anything, if you
>> use the same
>> measuring device as used to set same, you have created
>> the measuring
>> equivalent of a circular definition. It will always be
>> somewhat accurate
>> because it is measuring itself.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Daniel
>>
>>
>> On 9/13/05 12:09 AM, "Marco Ugolini"
>> <email@hidden> wrote:
>>
>>> In a message dated Mon, 12 Sep 2005 14:50:27, Dick
>>> Busher wrote:
>>>
>>>>> If you can get me a loan of a 2-nm spectroradiometer,
>>>>> I'll be happy to
>>>>> get you numbers, but measuring on-screen color with the
>>>>> same
>>>>> instrument used to calibrate and profile the display is
>>>>> akin to
>>>>> pulling yourself off the ground by your shoelaces.
>>>>
>>>> [snip]
>>>>
>>>> And I fail to understand your shoelace analogy. If the
>>>> device can be
>>>> trusted to calibrate and profile the monitor (measuring
>>>> a wide range of
>>>> colors in order to do so) can it not be trusted to
>>>> provide reasonable
>>>> results as a measuring device?
>>>
>>> I too fail to understand that, Bruce. Could you please
>>> elaborate?
>>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be
>> ignored.
>> Colorsync-users mailing list
>> (email@hidden)
>> Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription:
>> com
>>
>> This email sent to 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