Re: Re: i1Display x i1Pro
Re: Re: i1Display x i1Pro
- Subject: Re: Re: i1Display x i1Pro
- From: Marco Ugolini <email@hidden>
- Date: Fri, 27 Mar 2009 14:18:41 -0400 (EDT)
Martin Weberg wrote:
>Hi Eric and all,
>
>Talking about validation, is the validation done using the same
>instrument? If so, I can't see how this validates the instrument. For
>sure the conversion process but not the instrument. Am I missing
>something?
Martin,
We might be opening that can o' worms yet again, but -- what the heck...?
My take on monitor validation procedures is that, while they do not offer a measure of *absolute* accuracy (as could be provided by means of a spectroradiometer), they do offer an assessment of the *internal consistency* of the profile that was just created, relative to the device for which it was made. In other words, they will assess how well the expected numbers conform to the numbers measured with the same device that built the profile. It's a *relative* validation, not an absolute one.
In essence, it tells the user: "The numbers you measured with the device that you used to create the profile do conform with the numbers that are expected according to the profile itself". There is value in that, since I would venture to say that an internally consistent profile has a better chance of performing successfully than one whose expected values do *not* match the measured ones.
As for those who see no value at all in that and demand *absolute* laboratory-grade validation, I wish them well in their efforts to save the many thousands of dollars needed to purchase a Photo Research PR-655 SpectraScan Spectroradiometer, specially in this economy. I hope the results will be worth the expense and the bother. <g>
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