Premium
A comparative study of color measurement lntstrumentation
Author(s) -
Rodgers James,
Wolf Kaye,
Willis Norm,
Hamilton Don,
Ledbetter Ralph,
Stewart Curtis
Publication year - 1994
Publication title -
color research and application
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.393
H-Index - 62
eISSN - 1520-6378
pISSN - 0361-2317
DOI - 10.1002/col.5080190502
Subject(s) - ranking (information retrieval) , matrix (chemical analysis) , computer science , vendor , product (mathematics) , software , interface (matter) , scale (ratio) , mathematics , industrial engineering , artificial intelligence , engineering , programming language , physics , materials science , geometry , bubble , marketing , quantum mechanics , maximum bubble pressure method , parallel computing , business , composite material
A multiplant Quality Improvement Team [QIT] was firmed to develop and implement an evaluation program for various color measurement .systems as potential replacements for the then‐current aging systems. The emphasis qf this article is the analytical methodology utilized to evaluate the various color systems. The evaluation program consisted cf two phases. Phase I was a general overview/review of several systems, while Phase II was an extensive internal comparative evaluation measurement systems. These were Milton‐Roy's ColorMate HDS, HunterLab's Ultrascan, Datacolor's CS‐5, and BYK‐Gardner's The Color Sphere [TCS]. The main comparison criteria were interinstrument agreement [agreement between two instruments ofthe same system], user‐friendly software and computer interface capability, vendor amenability to a long‐term logistical and maintenance relationship, and price. All systems were evaluated by duplicate measurements on various color tiles, yarns, and polymer flakes‐over 1600 measurements on each system. The systems were compared with an instrument matrix, a decision matrix, and a product matrix. The instrument matrix was a comparison qfinstrument parameters, software/math treatments, and economics. The decision matrix was a forced ranking of each system by each criteria category [1–4 scale, with 1 representing the best and 4 representing the worst]. The product matrix accentuated the relative importance ofone criterion category over another by multiplying the forced ranking by the criticality of the category. The criticality of a given category wus determined by consensus within the QIT. Thr combination qf the three matrices allowed the evaluator[.s] t o select the color rneasuremmt system that best satixfied the color measurement needs and requirements of their facility and their products. For this evaluation, all ofthe evaluated systems were superior to the then‐current agingsystems. As a result of this methodology, one instrument emerged as clearly superior. © 1994 John Wrley & Sons, Inc.