Premium
Publications Sponsored by the Colour Measurement Committee—III
Author(s) -
Coates E.,
Day S.,
Rigg B.
Publication year - 1969
Publication title -
journal of the society of dyers and colourists
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.297
H-Index - 49
eISSN - 1478-4408
pISSN - 0037-9859
DOI - 10.1111/j.1478-4408.1969.tb02906.x
Subject(s) - gloss (optics) , mathematics , viscose , weighting , color difference , statistics , computer science , artificial intelligence , materials science , physics , composite material , acoustics , coating , enhanced data rates for gsm evolution
Two further sets of results, including data from measurements made with several tristimulus colorimeters (Colormaster and Color‐Eye) and visual assessments by a relatively large number of observers, have been obtained for ( a ) a series of matt paint surfaces and ( b ) a series of gloss paint surfaces in approximately the same region of colour‐space as the wool and viscose rayon samples discussed previously ( l ). All samples in any set have been assessed by a ranking method, with reference to a standard, and a statistical approach has been used to provide a quantitative estimate of the visual spacing. The number of colour‐difference equations employed has been increased to include the four equations (1964 CIE; Glasser Cube Root; MacAdam Modified Friele; Munsell Renotation) recommended by the CIE for further study. In all cases an estimate has been made of the degree of correlation between instrumental and visual results for all samples (wool, viscose rayon and matt and gloss paints). The established equations all show poor correlation with the visual results, whereas an equation similar to that reported ( l ) in Part II of this series, which places much less emphasis on lightness weighting, provides a reasonable fit for all samples. There is little evidence that any significant differences exist in the assessment by colourists of paint and textile surfaces, although the reproducibility of instrumental measurements is much better for the former. The results from a single instrument and, in particular, the Colormaster are at least as reliable as the assessments of a single observer and are more reproducible. These and other relevant points are discussed in some detail.