Re: delta E 2000 discrepancy
Re: delta E 2000 discrepancy
- Subject: Re: delta E 2000 discrepancy
- From: Steve Upton <email@hidden>
- Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2007 11:25:09 -0700
At 2:08 PM -0400 3/29/07, Mike Eddington wrote:
>I'm being told that the difference is that the formula I'm using (and
>Phil Green) calculates the absolute value of delta L, C, and H and
>ColorThink Pro, Bruce's website, and apparently the rest of the color
>world use the raw value. This would make a difference when encountering
>a negative integer. Comparing two data sets (it8/7.4) and calculating
>the dE 2000 using both formula results in a different value for about
>30% of the patches, though most differences are very small, and this
>would likely depend on the data I suppose. I'm wondering if anyone out
>there has comments / opinions as to which formula is more technically
>correct ...and not necessarily just because everybody else uses it. ;)
>
>
I'm looking into this as well.
My references for the formulae show delta-L, delta-C, and delta-H rather than the absolute value of these.
At first I thought that abs would be a good idea as simple delta (L1 - L2 for example) would change its sign depending on the order of the colors. But it turns out that this is removed as an issue in the other formulae making up dE2000.
So, anyone know what the definitive formulae should be? I'm going off CIE 15:2004 which seems to me should be definitive, but I'm not sure...
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