MEM
October 3, 2015, 9:31pm
1
Apparently I was onto something, if albeit somewhat minor, with the whole, “kelvin + CRI = nothing specific” ideas I had talked of.
The article about the proposed additions to the CIE 1931:
http://luxreview.com/article/2015/09/battle-lines-drawn-over-colour-rendering-method?cmpid=LUXproducts1012015
Ronin42
October 3, 2015, 10:02pm
2
Halo
October 3, 2015, 10:05pm
3
By te way, for those too lazy to click, the title “Why the LED R9 value isn’t important” is click bait.
The R9 value produces strong, vibrant reds. Is it really important to include a strong red when measuring color rendering? No, it’s not important. It’s fundamental. Paramount. Vital. Essential. Critical. Take your pick of adjectives.
Why should we care?
People should care because strong reds are prevalent in skin tones and clothes. Food retailers should care because strong reds are prevalent in grocery store produce and meats. Gallery owners and artists should care because strong reds are prevalent in art work. Hospitals should care because strong reds are the most critical color for surgical procedures.
The R9 value is so important, that some utility companies are now offering rebates for positive R9 value lamps.
Ronin42
October 4, 2015, 3:21am
4
I’m, open
What would you prefer?
If I:
A do nothing
If C let me know what you think it should be called.
dchomak
October 4, 2015, 12:21pm
5
You could do what magazines do to get you to read an article. You could title it with something like this
“Is the R9 red value important? Click here and find out, you may be surprised”
JaredM
October 4, 2015, 2:27pm
6
OR… If you wanted to be like the side panel ads, you could say:
“See how this guy became an expert on R9 values by using this one easy trick!”
dchomak
October 4, 2015, 3:12pm
7
On the site that the article was listed, I’m sure EVERYONE already knows how important the R9 value is. That’s why a title ofisn’t important” would draw reads. Anywhere else though, where the readers are not so well informed, that title doesn’t work well because the readership wouldn’t think anything so unusual as to create an overwhelming urge to click.
hank
October 21, 2015, 8:52pm
9
As I understand it, TM-30-15 is a reference standard which has just been adopted as a replacement for CRI (Color Rendering Index). CRI is the “quality of light color” index value assigned to light sources which has been used as a measure of how well a light source illuminates the colors of the world around us.
However, CRI is based on an R8 color palette (mostly pastel) and it was found that manufacturers of light sources (eg CFL, LED) could “tweak” the sources to provide more uniform results for those specific 8 colors while “missing” much of the spectrum elsewhere.
(This is why CFLs can have a high CRI yet provide such poor quality color for room lighting.)
The TM-30-15 standard uses 99 colors and a more involved algorithm for calculating this new index which is not fooled by such “tweaks” and thus provides a much more accurate value to represent color fidelity and color gamut including effects of color-shift from illumination.
that’s from a fellow named Dave Stoft, posting on plots-spectometry@googlegroups.com
This group — and the website linked below — iis about the little $40 kit spectrometer I’ve been using for a while. Recommended.
As they say there:http://publiclab.org/lists ) are great for discussion, but to get attribution, open source your work, and make it easy for others to find and cite your contributions, please publish your work at http://publiclab.org