I remember discussing the quality of the 1931 Standard Observer with Mark Fairchild, at the CIE Expert Symposium in Ottawa, a few years ago, and he said to me "the Standard Observer works, on average". I wish I could better understand Deutch :( Vielen danke für der link. I wrote the author about a possible French version, even though I understand English ;-) MfG / Roger > -----Original Message----- > From: argyllcms-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:argyllcms- > bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Juergen Lilien > Sent: 27 août 2010 22:51 > To: argyllcms@xxxxxxxxxxxxx > Subject: [argyllcms] Re: Fw: Re: Correction for wide gamut screens and/or > RGB-LED? > > Roger Breton wrote: > > I think the German Fogra document means "under imperfect adaptation". > > Are they referring to the "imperfect adaptation of the obverver"? When > > observing the display? > > The translation of the headline is: > "Why is there not always a perfect match between display measurements > and visually perception?" > One of the four reasons they discuss is "observer metamerism". > They explain that the ?CIE 1931 2° standard observer", according to recent > studies, is not describing the average of emmetropic (color-normal) human > observers. There is a lot of fluctuation in the spectral sensitivity of the retina > between persons, so the derived standard observer curves are also > fluctuating (Abb.3 shows 24 observer curves). This is the reason for > "observer metamerism", which describes the problem that a human > observer is able to perceive two colors as different even if the colorimetric > match is achieved. > > I found one more interesting text on the subject: > MODERN DISPLAYS: A CHALLENGE TO TRADITIONAL COLORIMETRY, AN > OPPORTUNITY TO MOVE BEYOND THE STANDARD by Sarkar, Abhijit: > > http://edstim.univ-nantes.fr/jdoc2010/USB-JDOC2010/sources/ARTS- > Abhijit-SARKAR-Article.pdf > (^copy in one line) > > The concept for classifying color-normal observers in categories is interesting. > It would be great to have the option to select the individual best fitting > observer in ArgyllCMS. But to do so you have to know your category, which > requires the implementation of a test procedure. > > But even in this text the 10° standard observer is mentioned as a reasonably > good match for the average observer. > > In spotread it is possible to change the observer (option: -o observ) from the > default 1931_2 to 1964_10. There seems to be no option in dispcal to change > the observer, so does it also default to 1931_2? > Is it possible to implement the option to change the observer in dispcal > (minor problem: "-o" is already used)? > > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: argyllcms-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:argyllcms- > >> bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Juergen Lilien > Ups, "bounce"? Is there something wrong with my posts? > > Regards, Juergen