Data and Testing Definitions and Intro Discussion

[Harpmaker]

I would like to reply to some things mentioned in this thread, but I'm not sure if I should be doing so in another thread or this one. If I've messed up, please move this post to the proper thread.

First off, I love data and testing! Without it were are left with opinions, quesstimations and "eye-of-newt, toe-of-frog" mixing. A lot can be done that way, but results can be improved much faster with hard data.

The two Silver Fire photos in the Magnification section appear to be the same photo.

[mechman]

Harpmaker wrote:

The two Silver Fire photos in the Magnification section appear to be the same photo.

Harp,

They are. I thought one of them might have been better resolution wise. Turned out they were the same. I just figured I'd leave them for now. I'll be adding more to that post in the next couple days. I'm planning on getting images from your's and zductive's as well as some more of the DaLite products.

We may move a bit slower here but at least we try to be accurate!

mech

[mechman]

I figured we'd leave the main thread for data and start this out as the discussion portion of that sticky thread. Any questions, comments, etc. put it here.

mech

[Harpmaker]

I have a question on the screen reflection readings; the Luminance value from the PJ calibration (which was a straight shot of the light coming direct from the PJ to the spectro, not reflected light) was 19.18, yet several of the reflective screen readings were above this value, sometimes WAY above (such as S-I-L-V-E-R at 32.83). I don't understand that.

[mechman]

Harpmaker wrote:

I have a question on the screen reflection readings; the Luminance value from the PJ calibration (which was a straight shot of the light coming direct from the PJ to the spectro, not reflected light) was 19.18, yet several of the reflective screen readings were above this value, sometimes WAY above (such as S-I-L-V-E-R at 32.83). I don't understand that.

That's gonna have to be one for Smokey! My guess would be the mica? In massive quantities?

Bill may know as well.

mech

[mechman]

I just went and looked at it all again. I believe the best way to describe it would be 'gain'. Look at the DW. It has the second (oops!) highest Luminance value and is purported to have a gain of 1.24. I am unable to measure gain at the moment - maybe next week. But Smokey's kind of turned me off of gain and on to this way of comparing screens. And now I see why! So when I get my block of magnesium carbonate, we can use it's values against those of the panels to determine gain, if one was so inclined.

Keep in mind that all the values above would have to be re-done as I'd have to set up the spectro on the tripod and ensure everything is the same distance from it and the same angle. It is something I plan on doing in the future! But after I'm done with this I must help a friend with readings on some Pearl and Pearlizing topcoats!

mech

[wbassett]

Harpmaker wrote:

I would like to reply to some things mentioned in this thread, but I'm not sure if I should be doing so in another thread or this one. If I've messed up, please move this post to the proper thread.

First off, I love data and testing! Without it were are left with opinions, quesstimations and "eye-of-newt, toe-of-frog" mixing. A lot can be done that way, but results can be improved much faster with hard data.

The two Silver Fire photos in the Magnification section appear to be the same photo.

I'm a huge fan of data mainly because it allows us to compare things and discuss them, not argue without any foundation or facts.

Opinions are perfectly fine and nobody ever said people can't have opinions, and I know that's not what you were saying but I just wanted to stress that. We're just trying to make sure people new to screens can see some data and testing and realize there is more to all this than just opinions. The bottom line is without data standards it comes down to personal preferences and opinions and what one person likes such as a warmer or cooler screen image may not be what someone else prefers.

Plus our eyes are all different and what appears neutral to one person may look totally different to someone else. By testing we can actually tell the color balance, uniformity, and yes performance of a screen which takes out the guess work and believe it or not actually makes things easier in the long run.