[argyllcms] Re: Fluorescent patches in a profile target?
- From: Ben Goren <ben@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: argyllcms@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Wed, 24 Mar 2010 08:24:17 -0700
On 2010 Mar 24, at 8:12 AM, Graeme Gill wrote:
> Ben Goren wrote:
>>> Determining the expected response
>>> of fluorescent material is very difficult without some very expensive
>>> measurement equipment (a Bispectral Spectrophotometer).
>> ...and a bit of Googling suggests the cheap ones are at least a few thousand\
>> dollars. Three and four times as much doesn't seem uncommon.
>
> My understand is that you don't get much change out of $100,000
<gulp>
>> But Arizona State University is just up the road, including a high-tech
>> brand-new genomics research center. Assuming they have one, and assuming I
>> could sweet-talk them into letting me measure a chart with it, would Argyll
>> know what to do with the readings?
>
> No. And without a suitable instrument to measure the UV in the illuminant,
> you can't make use of the Bi-Spectral measurement anyway.
Okay. Huge effort for minimal gain. I'll forget the plan....
>> But won't that make everything else in the scene be rendered too dark?
>
> Before, you were worried about highlights in the scene being clipped ! :-)
>
> Pick something that suits the scene.
Well, what started me on this theory is that, with default neutral settings, a
BabelColor Watch Your White target gets rendered in a scene as L* = 89 when an
18% gray card gets rendered as L* = 50. That's an awful lot of headroom that I
was hoping to do something useful with.
I'm guessing I should just use colprof -u, shut up, and be happy?
Cheers,
b&
Other related posts:
