[argyllcms] Re: FWA Compensation

  • From: Vladimir Gajic <vgajic67@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: "argyllcms@xxxxxxxxxxxxx" <argyllcms@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Mon, 13 Feb 2012 09:52:58 +0100

Hello Graeme,

I'll shurely inform you about every step, since the matter is a quite important 
one and I want to prevent, if possible, the usage of proofing substrates 
containing FWA.



Am 12.02.2012 um 23:14 schrieb Graeme Gill <graeme@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>:

> Vladimir Gajic wrote:
>> thank's for the hint. If I correctly understood, the -i option is to be used 
>> in spec2cie than.
> Yes,
>> In wich case the -I make sense, or does it make no sense at all when using 
>> standard types of
>> measurement devices?
> Ignore it. Assume it doesn't exist.
> [I think Gerhard added it to allow for the possibility of an instrument that 
> isn't
> currently supported by Argyll, that has a different type of illuminant - such 
> as
> the the spectroscan, which uses Xenon type illuminant.]
>> My question finally: does it make sense to use illumread and the fwa 
>> compensation in this
>> context, measuring the fwa content under the new lightning conditions?
> Yes, it's intended exactly for this sort of situation. You'll have to tell me 
> how successful
> it is in dealing with it :-)
> Graeme Gill.

Other related posts: