One of the reasons for dE 2000 being contraindicated for large color
differences are the mathematical discontinuities in its computation.
The presentation by Sharma, We, Dalal and Celik at the 2004 Color
Conference explains these discontinuities ( www.ece.rochester.edu/users/gsharma/presentations/talkciede2000cic04.pdf
).
Robin Myers
On Jul 17, 2009, at 5:29 AM, Mike Eddington wrote:
It is undisputed that there are situations where more physical
measures are
appropriate (i.e. when we want to spot the /sources/ of errors), but
when we are
interested in the /effects/ of deviations to our perception, we
should use the
measure that correlates with our perception at best -- and that's
CIEDE00 (at
least for small color differences).>
I see the “best for small color differences” recommendation for
dE2000 quite
a bit, and I suppose I have no reason to dispute that dE2000
operates better
for smaller variations than large, and I’ve always gone along with it.
Actually though, in practice, I haven’t found dE2000 to be profoundly
misleading for larger color differences either. And again, should I be
worried about whether that blatantly obvious color difference
between two
samples is accurately calculated with a dE2000 of 10, when dE76
shows it as
31 (actually measurements)? I think I’m becoming increasingly
cynical and
polarized on the issue. ;)
Mike
_______________________________________________
Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored.
Colorsync-users mailing list (Colorsync-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx)
Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription:
http://lists.apple.com/mailman/options/colorsync-users/robin%40rmimaging.com
This email sent to robin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
_______________________________________________
Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored.
Colorsync-users mailing list (Colorsync-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx)
Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription:
http://lists.apple.com/mailman/options/colorsync-users/maillists%40codeha.us
This email sent to maillists@xxxxxxxxx
