Apache-Talk @lexa.ru 

Inet-Admins @info.east.ru 

Filmscanners @halftone.co.uk 

Security-alerts @yandex-team.ru 

nginx-ru @sysoev.ru 




      :: Filmscanners
Filmscanners mailing list archive (filmscanners@halftone.co.uk)

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

RE: filmscanners: metamerism and Epson 2000P

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-filmscanners@halftone.co.uk
> [mailto:owner-filmscanners@halftone.co.uk]On Behalf Of Eli Bowen
> Sent: Tuesday, January 23, 2001 8:30 PM
> To: filmscanners@halftone.co.uk
> Subject: filmscanners: metamerism and Epson 2000P
> Here's a page specifically devoted to metamerism and the 2000P:
> http://www.tssphoto.com/sp/dg/2000p/metamerism.html

I don't think this article is using the term correctly to describe the
phenomenon they are referring to. To quote Wyszecki & Stiles in "Color
Science", "Metameric color stimuli are color stimuli with the same
tristimulus values but different spectral radiant power distributions. An
equivalent definition states that metameric color stimuli are color stimuli
that have different spectral radiant power distributions but match in color
for a given observer." (p. 184) Thus, metameric refers to two different
objects having the same tristimulus values under the same illumination but
different spectral reflectances. This article talks about the same object
having different tristimulus values under different illuminations, just the
opposite of the definition! The odd thing is, the article starts with the
correct definition, then goes on to use it in just the opposite manner in
which it is defined.

Frank Paris


Copyright © Lexa Software, 1996-2009.