A Comparison of Two Different Light Booths for Measuring Color Difference of Metameric Pairs

Kód výsledku v IS VaVaI

<a href="https://www.isvavai.cz/riv?ss=detail&h=RIV%2F46747885%3A24410%2F21%3A00009425" target="_blank" >RIV/46747885:24410/21:00009425 - isvavai.cz</a>

Výsledek na webu

<a href="https://www.mdpi.com/2673-7248/1/3/30" target="_blank" >https://www.mdpi.com/2673-7248/1/3/30</a>

DOI - Digital Object Identifier

<a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/textiles1030030" target="_blank" >10.3390/textiles1030030</a>

Jazyk výsledku

angličtina

Název v původním jazyce

A Comparison of Two Different Light Booths for Measuring Color Difference of Metameric Pairs

Popis výsledku v původním jazyce

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tube) with CCT 4000 K, and simulator D65 (CCT 6500 K) with a different light booth whose original light sources have been replaced by currently available LED retro kits from equivalent CCTs.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.

Název v anglickém jazyce

A Comparison of Two Different Light Booths for Measuring Color Difference of Metameric Pairs

Popis výsledku anglicky

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.

Druh

J_SC - Článek v periodiku v databázi SCOPUS

CEP obor

—

OECD FORD obor

20201 - Electrical and electronic engineering

Projekt

—

Návaznosti

S - Specificky vyzkum na vysokych skolach

Rok uplatnění

2021

Kód důvěrnosti údajů

S - Úplné a pravdivé údaje o projektu nepodléhají ochraně podle zvláštních právních předpisů

Název periodika

Textiles

ISSN

2673-7248

e-ISSN

—

Svazek periodika

1

Číslo periodika v rámci svazku

3

Stát vydavatele periodika

CH - Švýcarská konfederace

Počet stran výsledku

13

Strana od-do

558-570

Kód UT WoS článku

—

EID výsledku v databázi Scopus

2-s2.0-85134717450