两种不同光亭测量异聚光对色差的比较

A. Mukthy, Michal Vik, M. Viková
{"title":"两种不同光亭测量异聚光对色差的比较","authors":"A. Mukthy, Michal Vik, M. Viková","doi":"10.3390/textiles1030030","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"A standardized source of light is essential for visual color assessments, which is why lighting booths were developed. For the best results in visual assessment, it is important to consider the right choice of light source, the right viewing conditions, and the variability of the viewer. To date, many light booth technologies have been introduced to meet user demands. Since most of the light sources on the market are characterized by the designer or manufacturer, the resulting variations from booth-to-booth remain. In this study, we compared the performance of two standard light booths to assess the color difference of eleven metameric pairs. In this study, we checked an earlier technology-based light booth that is still used in the textile industry and contains illuminant A (Tungsten lamp) with CCT 2700 K, TL84 (tri-band fluorescent tube) with CCT 4000 K, and simulator D65 (CCT 6500 K) with a different light booth whose original light sources have been replaced by currently available LED retro kits from equivalent CCTs. As an inexperienced customer or industrial user, our question was, how important is this replacement? The results revealed that two different standard lighting technologies with similar CCTs cannot reproduce the same estimates because the light sources produced different SPDs. It is illustrating that caution is necessary when comparing results obtained from two different light booths containing light sources with similar CCTs but different SPDs. This comparative study suggested that the variability of the light sources’ SPDs or the observer or the sample should be modeled considering light booth’s technology to estimate its contribution to the overall variability. The close relationship between perceived and CAM02-UCS suggests that if both booths are used after the light sources have been calibrated, a formula based on color appearance models must be used to predict color appearance. To obtain better agreement between perceived and calculated color difference, one must need to avoid light booths with nominally white light sources.","PeriodicalId":94219,"journal":{"name":"Textiles (Basel, Switzerland)","volume":"53 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-12-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"A Comparison of Two Different Light Booths for Measuring Color Difference of Metameric Pairs\",\"authors\":\"A. Mukthy, Michal Vik, M. Viková\",\"doi\":\"10.3390/textiles1030030\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"A standardized source of light is essential for visual color assessments, which is why lighting booths were developed. For the best results in visual assessment, it is important to consider the right choice of light source, the right viewing conditions, and the variability of the viewer. To date, many light booth technologies have been introduced to meet user demands. Since most of the light sources on the market are characterized by the designer or manufacturer, the resulting variations from booth-to-booth remain. In this study, we compared the performance of two standard light booths to assess the color difference of eleven metameric pairs. In this study, we checked an earlier technology-based light booth that is still used in the textile industry and contains illuminant A (Tungsten lamp) with CCT 2700 K, TL84 (tri-band fluorescent tube) with CCT 4000 K, and simulator D65 (CCT 6500 K) with a different light booth whose original light sources have been replaced by currently available LED retro kits from equivalent CCTs. As an inexperienced customer or industrial user, our question was, how important is this replacement? The results revealed that two different standard lighting technologies with similar CCTs cannot reproduce the same estimates because the light sources produced different SPDs. It is illustrating that caution is necessary when comparing results obtained from two different light booths containing light sources with similar CCTs but different SPDs. This comparative study suggested that the variability of the light sources’ SPDs or the observer or the sample should be modeled considering light booth’s technology to estimate its contribution to the overall variability. The close relationship between perceived and CAM02-UCS suggests that if both booths are used after the light sources have been calibrated, a formula based on color appearance models must be used to predict color appearance. To obtain better agreement between perceived and calculated color difference, one must need to avoid light booths with nominally white light sources.\",\"PeriodicalId\":94219,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Textiles (Basel, Switzerland)\",\"volume\":\"53 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-12-02\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Textiles (Basel, Switzerland)\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.3390/textiles1030030\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Textiles (Basel, Switzerland)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3390/textiles1030030","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

标准化的光源对于视觉色彩评估至关重要,这就是开发照明亭的原因。为了获得最佳的视觉评估结果,重要的是要考虑正确的光源选择、正确的观看条件和观看者的可变性。到目前为止,为了满足用户的需求,已经引入了许多光亭技术。由于市场上的大多数光源都是由设计师或制造商设计的,因此每个展位之间的差异仍然存在。在本研究中,我们比较了两个标准灯箱的性能,以评估11对异聚光的色差。在这项研究中,我们检查了一个早期的基于技术的照明亭,该照明亭仍在纺织行业中使用,其中包含CCT 2700 K的光源A(钨灯),CCT 4000 K的TL84(三波段荧光灯管)和模拟器D65 (CCT 6500 K),其不同的照明亭的原始光源已被目前可用的等效CCT的复古LED套件所取代。作为一个没有经验的客户或工业用户,我们的问题是,这个替换有多重要?结果表明,两种具有相似cct的不同标准照明技术不能重现相同的估计,因为光源产生不同的spd。这说明,在比较两个不同的灯亭所获得的结果时,必须谨慎,其中包含具有相似cct但不同spd的光源。这项比较研究表明,光源spd的可变性或观察者或样本的可变性应该考虑光亭的技术来建模,以估计其对整体可变性的贡献。perceived与CAM02-UCS之间的密切关系表明,如果两个展台都在光源校准后使用,则必须使用基于颜色外观模型的公式来预测颜色外观。为了在感知和计算的色差之间获得更好的一致性,必须避免使用名义上的白色光源的照明亭。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
A Comparison of Two Different Light Booths for Measuring Color Difference of Metameric Pairs
A standardized source of light is essential for visual color assessments, which is why lighting booths were developed. For the best results in visual assessment, it is important to consider the right choice of light source, the right viewing conditions, and the variability of the viewer. To date, many light booth technologies have been introduced to meet user demands. Since most of the light sources on the market are characterized by the designer or manufacturer, the resulting variations from booth-to-booth remain. In this study, we compared the performance of two standard light booths to assess the color difference of eleven metameric pairs. In this study, we checked an earlier technology-based light booth that is still used in the textile industry and contains illuminant A (Tungsten lamp) with CCT 2700 K, TL84 (tri-band fluorescent tube) with CCT 4000 K, and simulator D65 (CCT 6500 K) with a different light booth whose original light sources have been replaced by currently available LED retro kits from equivalent CCTs. As an inexperienced customer or industrial user, our question was, how important is this replacement? The results revealed that two different standard lighting technologies with similar CCTs cannot reproduce the same estimates because the light sources produced different SPDs. It is illustrating that caution is necessary when comparing results obtained from two different light booths containing light sources with similar CCTs but different SPDs. This comparative study suggested that the variability of the light sources’ SPDs or the observer or the sample should be modeled considering light booth’s technology to estimate its contribution to the overall variability. The close relationship between perceived and CAM02-UCS suggests that if both booths are used after the light sources have been calibrated, a formula based on color appearance models must be used to predict color appearance. To obtain better agreement between perceived and calculated color difference, one must need to avoid light booths with nominally white light sources.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信