RE: A metameric match between display and print? [was: CMY Display coming?]
RE: A metameric match between display and print? [was: CMY Display coming?]
- Subject: RE: A metameric match between display and print? [was: CMY Display coming?]
- From: Roger Breton <email@hidden>
- Date: Mon, 10 May 2010 18:36:57 -0400
Marco :
> But that means using the very same sets of pigments/dyes, at the very
least,
> not to mention other components that affect the geometric qualities of the
> specimen, like varnishing and so forth.
True.
> Also, however much the manufacturers like to call them "subtractive", the
> fact remains that these filter would still operate on an EMISSIVE device.
Isn't that screwy?
> (And by the same token, we should then similarly think that the existence
of
> RGB filters on current LCD or LED displays makes these into "subtractive"
> devices too, which I would consider to be quite a stretch.)
Ain't that a bitch too? I lose my latin over the terminology ;-)
> But I have a question: since a metameric match properly defined is that
> between TWO reflective specimens under ONE same illuminant, how can we
> talk about a "metameric match" between an image as it appears in a print
> and as it appears on a monitor -- as there is no common illuminant in this
> instance?
IMO, a metameric match knows no boundery, it can be between an image
appearing on a screen and the same image appearing on a print, as you note.
That, to me, isn't incompatible with the very definition of a metameric
match. I think you and I discussed this once, and I remember exchanging some
SPDs for the same color "emissively" and "by reflection" : very different
SPDs, yet, it manages to fool the visual system in thinking that it is the
same stimulus.
> We could talk of a "visual match", but, unless we change the definition,
how
> is it "metameric" in the proper sense? (Of course, I am confining the
> argument to ILLUMINANT metamerism here, excluding the other possible
> kinds of metamerism.)
Again, I'm no physicist but I faintly understand that metamerism is
explained by Grassman's Laws. So, in the proper sense, it does not matter
what the illuminant is as long as the two specimen match visually, and, yes,
you're right, at least one illuminant is being used somewhere, if only to
view the print under. The monitor's white point can be manipulated such to
obtain a decent visual approximation of the print substrates, so that's
where the adaptation goes.
> I understand that point. But my argument is that if we should ever be able
to
> match on these displays a set of real-life CMY inks, along with their
real-life
> behavior (which would seem to be the point of the whole effort), then we
> still wouldn't have a good way to generate proper blacks, since a
100C-100M-
> 100Y mix of the chromatic inks by themselves is always imperfect in real
life,
> and produces a dark gray at best, if not brownish -- not the deep,
reasonably
> neutral blacks that we would expect in a well-made print.
I'm not sure Marco whether CMY filters would necessarily inherit the same
imperfect behaviour as CMYK inks, i.e. not making "perfect" black when
combined. But it's a valid point, nevertheless, and I understand your
argument. I don't have enough information to follow this through, obviously
:(
Best / Roger
_______________________________________________
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