RE: Spectrolino repair
RE: Spectrolino repair
- Subject: RE: Spectrolino repair
- From: Roger Breton <email@hidden>
- Date: Sat, 13 Feb 2016 17:10:34 -0500
I had a chance to measure a notoriously fluorescent PMS 811 swatch yesterday.
Using the following two instruments.
Here are their readings in CIE Lab units.
A) Techkon Spectrodens II
M0 78.33 66.59 60.62
M1 79.25 67.58 60.68
B) X-Rite Color eXact
M0 72.62 59.49 61.52
M1 78.99 68.92 62.36
Interesting differences. I don't know Techkon M1 implementation is using Tungsten + UV LED illumination but the results are quite close, in M1 mode.
/ Roger
-----Original Message-----
From: colorsync-users-bounces+graxx=email@hidden [mailto:colorsync-users-bounces+graxx=email@hidden] On Behalf Of Roger Breton
Sent: 12 février 2016 06:35
To: email@hidden
Subject: RE: Spectrolino repair
The way I understand the "problem", one light source is needed to cover the non-fluorescing part of the spectrum. That could be a white LED or a tungsten lamp. But, in my opinion, a second lamp is needed at 365nm to excite fluorescence from the substrate. Does ISO-13655 accurately describe this or does it only gloss over the detail of the required illumination, stating the general terms that it "ought" to be a D50-like SPD and leaving the details of the implementation to manufacturers?
I used a Techkon Spectrodens II that has M0, M1, M2 flavors.
I used the i1pro2.
I could be using an FD-xx.
I could be using a Barbieri.
Presumably, none of the manufacturers quite use the same components and methods.
Which is "best"? Newer characterization data all specify M1 but it's obvious that "M1" comes in many flavours.
/ 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