[argyllcms] Colorimeter vs. Spectro-colorimeter for Display caracterization - Derived from:"Displays with internal gamut emulation"

  • From: Matthieu DUBAIL <matthieu.dubail@xxxxxxxxx>
  • To: argyllcms@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Tue, 24 Aug 2010 11:01:08 +0200

Hi everybody,
I was quickly reading the "Displays with internal gamut emulation" thread.
From what I understood (I'm not a class A english reader, sorry), Janos
doesn't recommend  colorimeters for wide gamut displays.
But I don't get the point.

Here is what I thought:

Colorimeters are better for displays. Unlike printed paper, displays have
deep blacks. Spectrocolorimeters are weak on low luminance measurement cause
they have narrow spectral bandwith, unlike colorimeters.
Every  display models I heard of (form simplest to most complicated) are
colorimetry based. If you capture spectral datas form a display, it will be
converted to color datas using CIE tristimulus to build a model. Applying
cie tristimulus on spectral datas from emissiv measurement are the same as
using filters (like those on a colorimeter, for a determined CIE
tristimulus).
Spectrocolorimeters might miss spectral peaks (like those found on CRT red
primaries, fluo and led LCD backlight) depending their spectral bandwith and
overlap.

Spectrocolorimeters are better for printer.
Some printers models are based on Neugebauer primaries or other
multispectral model, computed form spectral datas.
Spectral measurement allow far better computed different lightsource
emulations than using chromatic adaptation transform from colorimetric
datas. In this way, color inconstancy might be better neutralised.
Spectral measurment allow FWA caracterization.

Correct me if I'm wrong or if I missed something, please.

Thanks,

Matthieu DUBAIL
www.presse-bouton.com

Other related posts: