Colorimeter vs. spectrophotometer in display profiling
Colorimeter vs. spectrophotometer in display profiling
- Subject: Colorimeter vs. spectrophotometer in display profiling
- From: Marco Ugolini <email@hidden>
- Date: Mon, 29 Sep 2008 09:07:48 -0700 (GMT-07:00)
Graeme Gill wrote:
>The explanation I was given by Danny Rich was that since spectrometers measure
>things in bands and then weight the bands to give XYZ, this means that there
>is a slight weighting error if the shape of the weighting curve and/or light
>being measured is changing across a band. This is more likely with "peaky"
>sources such as displays. Using finer bands (say 3.3nm on the EyeOnePro)
>should reduce this source of error compared to the default 10nm bands.
>Since colorimeters don't split things up into bands, they don't suffer
>from this effect.
But Eric Walowit also wrote:
>The colorimeter has only several bands while the spectral device
>has many. But since no device perfectly satsifies the Luther
>condition, the device has to be calibrated (kind of profile)
>for the likely scene (monitors) to get the best performance.
>Since the spectral device has more bands, this argues for going
>spectral for the better accuracy, in principle.
I detect a discrepancy between the two statements: Graeme says that "colorimeters don't split things up into bands", while Eric says that "the colorimeter has only several bands". Eric and Graeme are both far more knowledgeable than I am, but both statements cannot be true, unless I am misinterpreting either one or both. So...which is which?
Eric also wrote:
>However, if the spectral properties of the target monitors are extremely
>well characterized (and I do mean extremely well) [...]
What exactly does that mean (i.e., "well-characterized")?
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