Re: Colorsync-users Digest, Vol 4, Issue 369
Re: Colorsync-users Digest, Vol 4, Issue 369
- Subject: Re: Colorsync-users Digest, Vol 4, Issue 369
- From: Marco Ugolini <email@hidden>
- Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2007 11:37:54 -0700 (GMT-07:00)
Andrew Rodney wrote:
>> I'm no delta E worshipper but I sometimes cringe at blanket dE
>> numbers such as "< 2 dE not distinguishable". I can tell you for a
>> fact that .75-1.0 dE on a midtone gray patch is certainly visible
>> while 2-3 dE on primaries/secondaries is difficult to see. In other
>> words, it depends.
>
>Of course you're correct and the actual color (patch) plays a huge role. But
>an average deltaE based <2 on 5000 patches is significantly different story!
>
>When discussing deltaE, its useful to define which formula is used and if
>you're referring to one or one thousand average values.
As a fellow non-DeltaE worshiper, one of my secret wishes would still be that people never say "DeltaE" without also specifying *which* DeltaE they are talking about. There's usually a remarkable difference between the results of a DeltaE 76 formula and those of DeltaE 2000 or 94 or CMC.
So, when saying or writing "DeltaE", please let's get into the habit of adding that specifier, and start using the full denomination (DeltaE 76, etc.).
I promise that at least *I*, if no one else, will be most grateful. Thank you.
Marco Ugolini
_______________________________________________
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