Re: Colorimeter vs. spectrophotometer in display profiling
Re: Colorimeter vs. spectrophotometer in display profiling
- Subject: Re: Colorimeter vs. spectrophotometer in display profiling
- From: Graeme Gill <email@hidden>
- Date: Wed, 01 Oct 2008 14:52:08 +1000
email@hidden wrote:
As it should be. AFAIK, when well-done, there is no way to detect this other
than by reverse engineering the firmware or object code. However, there are
some "trick" samples that you can use to probe the optimization and instrument
design approach. But you won't get the specifics on that from me!
That's what I'm saying though. I've analyzed the processing from sensor
values to XYZ for this particular instrument (and duplicated all
the maths involved) and there are no such tricks evident.
the sum of the parts approach the whole. See Edmund's description - he
basicallly has it right.
Sorry, no, he is basically wrong. If I take a 1 Mpixel sensor with
a given S/N ration per pixel, split it up into 4 sub pixels
to make a 4 Mpixel sensor each pixel having a degraded S/N, and then
sum each group of 4 pixels value, then I return to the same S/N ratio
as I started with. This is pretty basic logic since the area of sensor
remains the same. In fact it might be slightly better because I'm averaging
the noise from 4 individual amplifiers rather than 1, and it would be worse
in practice because pixels don't have a perfect fill factor in splitting 1 into 4.
Graeme Gill.
_______________________________________________
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