[argyllcms] Re: how many patches, profiling Epson printers
- From: Graeme Gill <graeme@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: argyllcms@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Thu, 28 Jul 2005 08:47:49 +1000
Gerhard Fuernkranz wrote:
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?
It probably is a reasonable assumption. As I noted in the paper,
there are two things that could improve the FWA compensation scheme:
1) Availability of print measuring instruments with a software switchable
UV filter, or switchable, characterized, extra UV light source (such as
a UV LED).
2) Availability of illuminant measuring instruments that measure into
the UV (350nm or so).
Graeme Gill.
Other related posts:
- » [argyllcms] how many patches, profiling Epson printers
- » [argyllcms] Re: how many patches, profiling Epson printers
- » [argyllcms] Re: how many patches, profiling Epson printers
- » [argyllcms] Re: how many patches, profiling Epson printers
- » [argyllcms] Re: how many patches, profiling Epson printers
- » [argyllcms] Re: how many patches, profiling Epson printers
- » [argyllcms] Re: how many patches, profiling Epson printers
- » [argyllcms] Re: how many patches, profiling Epson printers
- » [argyllcms] Re: how many patches, profiling Epson printers
- » [argyllcms] Re: how many patches, profiling Epson printers
- » [argyllcms] Re: how many patches, profiling Epson printers
- » [argyllcms] Re: how many patches, profiling Epson printers
- » [argyllcms] Re: how many patches, profiling Epson printers