[argyllcms] Re: Using an i1 to measure FWA content?
- From: Roger <graxx@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: argyllcms@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Mon, 08 Feb 2010 06:40:57 -0500
Martin,
Could very well be that UV response is not actually higher below 420nm. Did
you compare without UV filtration? It could be that, from 420 to 450nm,
unfiltered response is higher but not below 420nm. You may be dealing with a
truly blue-violet paper white.
Roger
> -----Message d'origine-----
> De : argyllcms-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:argyllcms-
> bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] De la part de Martin Weberg
> Envoyé : 8 février 2010 06:01
> À : argyllcms@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Objet : [argyllcms] Re: Using an i1 to measure FWA content?
>
> 2010/2/8 Graeme Gill <graeme@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>:
> > Martin Weberg wrote:
> >> UV filtered readings having higher response below ~420nm. How is
> that?
> >
> > It's hard to know, but the UV filter case has a dilemma - you don't
> > want to illuminate bellow 420 nm, but how do you measure reflectance
> > below 420 nm ?
>
> I guess there's no possibility for energy entering at >400nm and
> exciting at <400nm? However, if the UV filter goes two ways it
> wouldn't matter, no readings below 400nm.
>
> Martin Weberg
Other related posts:
