[argyllcms] Re: FWA Compensation
- From: Vladimir Gajic <vgajic67@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: "argyllcms@xxxxxxxxxxxxx" <argyllcms@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 13 Feb 2012 09:52:58 +0100
Hello Graeme,
I'll shurely inform you about every step, since the matter is a quite important
one and I want to prevent, if possible, the usage of proofing substrates
containing FWA.
Regards
Vladimir
Am 12.02.2012 um 23:14 schrieb Graeme Gill <graeme@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>:
> Vladimir Gajic wrote:
>
>> thank's for the hint. If I correctly understood, the -i option is to be used
>> in spec2cie than.
>
> Yes,
>
>> In wich case the -I make sense, or does it make no sense at all when using
>> standard types of
>> measurement devices?
>
> Ignore it. Assume it doesn't exist.
>
> [I think Gerhard added it to allow for the possibility of an instrument that
> isn't
> currently supported by Argyll, that has a different type of illuminant - such
> as
> the the spectroscan, which uses Xenon type illuminant.]
>
>> My question finally: does it make sense to use illumread and the fwa
>> compensation in this
>> context, measuring the fwa content under the new lightning conditions?
>
> Yes, it's intended exactly for this sort of situation. You'll have to tell me
> how successful
> it is in dealing with it :-)
>
> Graeme Gill.
>
Other related posts:
