[argyllcms] Re: how many patches, profiling Epson printers

  • From: Roger Breton <graxx@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: argyllcms@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Wed, 27 Jul 2005 12:22:16 -0400

> may I conclude:
> The more UV is present in the instrument's light source, the more accurate
> the prediction will be? Or is this a stupid assumption? E.g. can I expect a
> better prediction for the radiance factors under D50, when I use a Xenon
> light source, than with a tungsten lamp?

Gerard,

Those are my thoughts exactly: the more UV energy in the instrument light
source the more fluorescence will be excited in the measurements. Case in
point, the SpectroCam. It's the only desktop 0/45 instrument that I know is
built around a Xenon light source.

What do you say Graeme? I know the Spectrolino and most X-Rite instruments,
in comparison, are built around tungsten light sources. In theory, like
Gerard hypothesized, I'd expect a tungsten-based instrument to excite less
fluorescence in the paper as a Xenon-based instrument.

Regards,

Roger Breton  |  Laval, Canada  |  graxx@xxxxxxxxxxxx
http://pages.infinit.net/graxx

Other related posts:

  1. Home
  2. argyllcms
  3. Archive
  4. 07-2005