Re: i1 Scanning Table
Re: i1 Scanning Table
- Subject: Re: i1 Scanning Table
- From: Terence Wyse <email@hidden>
- Date: Tue, 02 Mar 2010 18:07:44 -0500
On Mar 2, 2010, at 4:10 PM, Marco Ugolini wrote:
> True, Terry. You are correct about that. That nit begged to be picked. :-)
I never met a nit that didn't deserve getting picked. :-)
>
> Still, no standard UV-cut filter.
Right-o
> Incidentally, such proliferation of devices obviously adds
> extra issues of inter-instrument agreement to the mix, which would be
> eliminated if one used the same device for both UV-included and -excluded
> readings (leaving in play just the unavoidable issues of intra-instrument
> agreement, or consistency).
It's frustrating to me that they (GMB/XR) were, at least at one point, going down the road of better inter-instrument agreement with their NetProfiler product. I had NetProfiler for a while for my Gretagmacbeth SpectroEye and it worked beautifully. Besides fixing some issues with my own unit ("paper white" of my unit never agreed with other spectros), I also had the chance to use my NetProfiler license with a couple of other SpectroEyes. It always did what it was supposed to do and that was to bring these instruments much closer to each other.
The calibration card that came with NetProfiler also had patches designed to be read by an iCColor, Spectrolino and I believe the EyeOne Pro.....but it was never implemented AFAIK for any of these other instruments, just the SpectroEye. Too bad...it showed real promise.
Regards,
Terry Wyse
_______________________________________________
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