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: edmund ronald <email@hidden>
- Date: Tue, 12 Jul 2011 09:04:57 +0200
On Tue, Jul 12, 2011 at 8:11 AM, Klaus Karcher <email@hidden>wrote:
> 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
> Ok, I guess I too can participate in the theology seminar :)
>
Ok, I guess I too can participate in the theology seminar :)
My contribution: I see no reason why a spectro cannot work with an external
light source, even room light, given fiber optic technology.
Edmund
_______________________________________________
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