Talk:Color rendering index/Archive 1 Source: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Color_rendering_index/Archive_1

New test color samples section

The harv templates really mess with the flow of the text, since they display in parentheses, yet are used as important words or phrases in sentences. Looks like murder to fix... Huw Powell (talk) 01:23, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree; it never makes sentence to try to use a ref as a noun in a sentence, but editors do that all the time. Dicklyon (talk) 05:36, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I did some work on it. Let's see if anyone objects before we do a lot more. Dicklyon (talk) 05:58, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is anyone especially attached to the Harvard citations? I much prefer sticking a footnote at the end of each paragraph or so, and just writing “John Doe 2010, p. 50” or whatever in the footnote for each source already listed in the Bibliography/Sources section. Also, I think it works best when the sources listed in their own section (here called “Sources” but sometimes called “Further Reading” or “Bibliography”) are either especially comprehensive/readable, or else the most important original sources for some topic. Then putting a source in that section becomes a bit of an endorsement, suggesting that readers might turn to those sources first before venturing into the forest of papers. Finally, in general, I think littering an article with phrases like “as described by so-and-so 2000” is unnecessary, unless the author’s name is so important/relevant to the topic that it deserves special mention. Many of the sentences with such phrases in this article would be supportable by many sources, and so calling out the specific authors doesn’t seem worth the extra clutter and emphasis. I don’t especially mind Harvard citations – if the page’s main authors like them I’m not going to complain about their volunteer writing efforts – but I avoid them if I’m writing an article. –jacobolus (t) 08:03, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Missing definition in chromatic adaption section

The variables $c_{r,i},d_{r,i}$ and $c_{t,i},d_{t,i}$ are not properly introduced. While the indices r and t refer to the reference and the test light source, i refers to the test color. However, it is not explained what the connection of r,i or t,i means. If it refers to the apparent chromaticity of the ith source color illuminated by light type r or t, this should be explained explicitely and unambigously.--SiriusB (talk) 15:08, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Solved so far. The web reference which contains the Matlab script clarifies the question.

However, there is now another question: Where do the numbers in the example calculation come from? Are they extracted from some citeable reference or derived by numerical means? If the former is true, please give all references. If the latter is true, please give a detailed description of methods and sources, in particular: 1. The source for the F4 spectrum, 2. the numerical method for the chromaticity calculation (especially whether discrete values for e.g. 5 nm steps are added or an accurate interpolation and quadrature algorithm, e.g. cubic splines and Simpson's integration rule or better, is used. Inaccurate, non-repeatable description of the methods may render this part as original research. I have made calculations on this topic and found very good agreement but, however, no exact match of the particular DeltaUVW or Ri values. In addition, I can almost exactly reproduce the chromaticities for all F spectra with F4 as the only exception; source of data is one of the (equivalent) weblinks given at the and of the article.--SiriusB (talk) 20:49, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed; I've just spent two days trying to get these results to come out and too many steps are skipped to see where it's going wrong. Even fudging and playing with the significant figure requirements, I can't get the results to come out closer than several percent. The von Kries adaptation step especially goes wrong, even using the values directly out of the table from the preceding step. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.232.13.18 (talk) 20:36, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Typical values / Light Source Chart

Can regular incandescent bulbs be added to the Typical values / Light Source Chart? I can't tell if the last entry of incandescent/halogen refers to ordinary (classical) incandescent bulbs or only to the newer halogen bulbs. Do designations such as "soft white" etc. have differing CRI values? I notice a particlar LED-based bulb advertised as CRI of 80. This seems low. Is this typical? Thanks! --Lbeaumont (talk) 15:30, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Typical incandescents have a CCT of about 2700K, but still a CRI of 100 by definition. See this book page. Dicklyon (talk) 15:41, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ra8, Ra14

There is no mention of the Ra8 and Ra14 standards. -- Frap (talk) 14:44, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ra8 seems to be the same as the Ra described in the artivle (averaged over the first 8 colors), while Ra14 should be the same with all 14 colors. BTW the German Stiftung Warentest uses both the standard Ra and the R₉ (red) index (or maybe an Ra9 equivalent to Ra but also includes TCS9) to judge the color rendition since red color hues are a typical but serious weak point of many fluorescent and LED lamps--SiriusB (talk) 20:58, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Color rendering index. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

Attempted to fix sourcing for http://physics.nist.gov/Divisions/Div844/facilities/vision/color.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 23:56, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

There are currently five sources involving the same set of authors (R. Dangol, M. Islam, M. Hyvärinen, P. Bhusal, M. Puolakka, and L. Halonen). Are these authors so prominent in this field that one quarter of all sources are written by them? Or is this another case of refspamming? Mind matrix 14:41, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

imho definitely refspamming — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.155.212.62 (talk) 09:22, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am Also a researcher in the field and have never heard of them. However it seems this is obsolete. I'm new to wiki, can it be removed from the talk page? TDcolor (talk) 15:07, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Color rendering index. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:45, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Color rendering index. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:51, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]