Re: Accuracy of instruments
Re: Accuracy of instruments
- Subject: Re: Accuracy of instruments
- From: Klaus Karcher <email@hidden>
- Date: Fri, 02 Nov 2007 11:57:05 +0100
Mike Strickler wrote:
there is
inevitably a point at which increasing an instrument's accuracy becomes
statistically meaningless. (To give a crude example, you don't need a
micrometer to frame a house.) Perhaps this can be approached
empirically: Can anyone demonstrate a noticeable and objectionable
variability in printed color that can be traced to the performance of
any recent model of spectrophotometer that has passed its manufacturer's
certification process?
Of course one can: Take two new spectros (different models), create two
profiles for the same printer and compare the results. In all
probability an expert eye will notice /considerable/ differences between
the results at first go. Repeat the procedure with one of the spectros.
In all probability no one will notice differences between the two
profiles measured with the same instrument. That's what Terry was
talking about: Repeatability is not the Problem, but inter-instrument
agreement is. An I guess it's playing in the same order of magnitude
than inter-observer differences.
The example conforms with the results of several
inter-instrument-agreement-tests, e.g. performed by the University of
Wuppertal/Germany.
Their conclusion: inter-instrument differences are a significant Factor
in colormanagement-based process control, see e.g.
<http://www.digitalproof-forum.de/rueckblick/ergebnisse04.php> (German).
Klaus
_______________________________________________
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