Re: Profiling with i1 Photo Pro: UV Cut or not?
Re: Profiling with i1 Photo Pro: UV Cut or not?
- Subject: Re: Profiling with i1 Photo Pro: UV Cut or not?
- From: Klaus Karcher <email@hidden>
- Date: Tue, 12 Jul 2011 08:11:28 +0200
Graeme Gill wrote:
For some people a UV-cut instrument
provides an easy way of solving FWA/OBE issues. [My theory is that
this is only the case when they are viewing the results in a UV poor
environment].
I guess UV poor viewing booths will become more and more rare in the
future as the 2009 revision of ISO 3664 tightened the tolerances for the
UV Metamerism Index M(UV). While it was reatively easy to meet the ISO
3664 M(UV) criterion in the past, several manufacturers had or still
have to increase the UV portion of their fluorescent lamps (and have to
replace UV absorbing panes found in some elder viewing booths) in order
to meet the new tolerances.
This is one more reason /not/ to buy UV cut instruments IMHO. Even
better would be to buy an instrument which meets the (also relatively
new) ISO13655:2009 measurement condition M1, which provides a
measurement light source much closer to D50 than the lamps commonly
found in current UV-included (mostly M0) or UV-cut (M3) instruments.
Unfortunately M1 instruments are still rare (to my knowledge there is
only Konica Minolta FD-5 / FD-7 and Barbieri SpectroPad at the moment).
Klaus Karcher
_______________________________________________
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