Re: Measurement Geometry
Re: Measurement Geometry
- Subject: Re: Measurement Geometry
- From: Steve Upton <email@hidden>
- Date: Fri, 17 Feb 2006 11:07:34 -0800
At 10:27 AM +0000 2/17/06, Steve Kale wrote:
>And so back to the original question: which device is better for profiling
>inkjet (art) on canvas? Surely the instrument that "sees like we do".
the problem in the case of canvas - especially glossy canvas - is that of surface reflection and scattering.
Moving the instrument around and taking multiple readings just means you have multiple readings of a bumpy surface that scatters incident light (as white, unfiltered by inks).
Taking readings with an integrating sphere means you capture even more of the scattered light.
When we view the print we see the scattered light but we a) see past it, into the color and somehow compensate for its effect and b) move our heads or the print until we minimize its effect - whether we are aware of doing it or not.
What you need to do is remove the scattered light from the reading. Scattered light is, conveniently, polarized. So if we take our readings through a polarized filter then the instrument can see beyond the scattered light and into the paper. It does "overshoot" a little but it makes a huge difference and improvement.
Long live the Spectrolino/Spectroscan. It is, by far, the most reliable and flexible instrument for color management readings in its class. (and it's why we have a bank of them for our ColorValet profiling service)
Regards,
Steve
________________________________________________________________________
o Steve Upton CHROMiX www.chromix.com
o (hueman) 866.CHROMiX
o email@hidden 206.985.6837
o ColorGear ColorThink ColorValet ColorSmarts ProfileCentral
________________________________________________________________________
--
_______________________________________________
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