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).