Re: Convert UV-excluded to UV-included
Re: Convert UV-excluded to UV-included
- Subject: Re: Convert UV-excluded to UV-included
- From: Marco Ugolini <email@hidden>
- Date: Mon, 21 Dec 2009 22:40:24 -0800
- Thread-topic: Convert UV-excluded to UV-included
In a message dated 12/21/09 8:38 PM, Chris McFarling wrote:
> Let me add to what I was thinking. I realize that the UV information is
> missing from measurements taken with a UV-cut device. You wouldn't be able
> to simply say a measured value of X should equal Y. What if you could,
> though, plug in a variable representing the OBA in the paper?
>
> This value could be a range, say 0 to 10. Paper with no OBAs would be 0
> while paper with the maximum amount of OBAs would be a 10. As long as you
> knew what the value was for a particular paper you should be able to derive
> a fairly accurate simulation of a non-filtered measurement. You would also
> have to know, and the equation would have to account for, the level of UV
> light in the light source representing the simulated measurement. Of course
> you would have to have a standardized way of specifying the OBA value for
> any given paper. Assuming such an OBA rating standard existed, would this be
> feasible?
>
> To my original question of does such an equation exist, I think the answer
> is no. So my next question then is could it be done?
Well, this question then comes to mind: if the measurements are UV-excluded
(i.e., measured with a UV-excluded spectrophotometer), and the paper data
are measured separately as UV-included (obviously with a UV-included
spectrophotometer), why not make ONE set of measurements instead, just with
a UV-included device?
It seems like a lot of extra work to do it otherwise.
Marco
_______________________________________________
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