[argyllcms] Re: how many patches, profiling Epson printers

  • From: Graeme Gill <graeme@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: argyllcms@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Thu, 28 Jul 2005 08:47:49 +1000

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).

Graeme Gill.

Other related posts: