Reflectance in Perspective Will Instrument Profiling Give Me Better Measurements?

The exchange of reflectance data among retail and branded apparel companies with their suppliers has increased substantially over the past five years. These electronic color programs are creating a flatter color space by connecting tiers of suppliers across continents via a common color language and protocol. The instrument, or spectrophotometer, in most cases provides the baseline upon which all other factors are built. In this paper we will discuss the process of spectrophotometer correlation or profiling whereby a spectrophotometer is characterized parametrically and corrected to measure like a standard instrument using software and a series of reflectance standards. Unlike text, digital music, and images, the reliability of reflectance data is often challenged. The variables associated with this process have been previously reported, but merit review. Sources of variability in spectrophotometric data generated in the retail/apparel supply chain have been identified as inconsistencies in measurement technique and sample conditioning; user error in application of settings, tolerances and formulas; and differences in the output of the spectrophotometer. Previous studies have indicated that variability in the instruments may account for up to approximately 10% of the total error in inter-instrument agreement, while the two major sources of error measurement technique and sample conditioning account for approximately 80% of the total error. The process of instrument profiling involves comparison of a particular instrument to a standard or master instrument by measurement of a set of reflectance standards such as BCRA tiles that have themselves been measured on the master instrument. Any differences between the measurements made on the test instrument and the measurements made on the master instrument are mathematically minimized by the profiling algorithm. The resulting mathematical adjustments are then applied to all measurements made by the test instrument. In theory, the mathematically adjusted reflectance curves from one profiled instrument will now be in much better agreement with the mathematically adjusted reflectance curves of another profiled instrument. As such, instrument profiling has been presented as the solution to all of the problems that lead to variation in sample measurement in the retail/apparel supply chain. But does profiling with any program really address the problems of inter-instrument agreement, especially considering that error specifically associated with the instrument may account for only 10% of the total observed error in inter-instrument agreement? And how do improvements in interinstrument agreement based on reflectance standards such as BCRA tiles compare to actual improvements for textile samples? The value of instrument profiling lies in the answers to these questions. In order to answer the questions regarding the impact of instrument profiling on inter-instrument agreement, an extensive study comparing Datacolor 600 instruments and GretagMacbeth CE7000A instruments profiled with both Datacolor Maestro and GretagMacbeth NetProfiler was performed. Forty-two test samples were used in the study twenty-two textile samples, twelve ceramic BCRA tiles, four plastic tiles, and four paint cards. Eight instruments from each manufacturer were used in the study, and all sixteen were diffuse/8 (sphere), bench top (lab grade) instruments. Three sets of measurements were made on each instrument: 1) As is, with no profiling; 2) profiled with Datacolor Maestro; and 3) profiled with GretagMacbeth NetProfiler. A total of 2016 measurements were made for this study. The reflectance data was then evaluated in three ways: 1) Comparison of each measurement to the average (mean) by instrument manufacturer and as a single group; 2) comparison of each instrument in the population to a specific instrument from each manufacturer; and 3) changes in DEcmc of the individual samples before and after profiling. Each of these analyses was performed using the entire data set as well as the BCRA tiles alone and the textile samples alone. 1

The following tables represent the CIELab DE D65/10 color differences between each test instrument and the average (mean) of all sixteen instruments, and color differences with each manufacturers instruments as a distinct set. Note that the calculations are CIELab DE as this is the formula used for instrument evaluation, and that root-mean-square (RMS) calculations are performed to account for both average and standard deviation in the values. In each table, As Is represents the native state of the instrument with no profiling, MS represents all instruments profiled with Datacolor Maestro, NP represents all instruments profiled with GretagMacbeth NetProfiler, and OEM represents each instrument profiled with the software of the manufacturer. The BCRA Tiles columns represents calculations performed using only BCRA tiles, the Textile Samples column represents calculations using only the twenty-two textile samples, and the All Samples column represents calculations using all forty-two test samples. Examination of the Overall RMS DE summary line indicates that the As Is agreement among the sixteen instruments is actually very good: 0.28 on BCRA tiles, 0.34 for Textile Samples, and 0.35 for All Samples. Profiling all sixteen instruments with Datacolor Maestro resulted in lowering of the CIELab DE while profiling all instruments with GretagMacbeth NetProfiler had mixed results. Using the manufacturers software to profile their own instruments the OEM results shows positive improvement for all sample types. Calculating the color differences within each population of instruments when they are evaluated separately produces similar results, though improvement in interinstrument agreement for Datacolor instruments was achieved only using Datacolor Maestro. It is especially important to note that improvements predicted by BCRA tiles do not lead to improvements of the same magnitude when evaluating the textile samples alone.

Test Results Comparing All Instruments to the Average (Mean) of the Instruments Each Instrument vs. Average (Mean) of All 16 Instruments (CIELAB DE D65/10)
Instrument SF600 1 SF600 2 SF600 3 SF600 4 SF600 5 SF600X 6 SF600X 7 600 8 CE7000A 1 CE7000A 2 CE7000A 3 CE7000A 4 CE7000A 5 CE7000A 6 CE7000A 7 CE7000A 8 As Is
0.22 0.16 0.19 0.18 0.27 0.69 0.14 0.17 0.23 0.25 0.27 0.20 0.21 0.32 0.26 0.25

BCRA Tiles MS NP OEM

0.18 0.06 0.12 0.12 0.14 0.20 0.07 0.13 0.06 0.07 0.15 0.09 0.09 0.10 0.11 0.08 0.32 0.33 0.20 0.32 0.41 0.70 0.18 0.20 0.12 0.09 0.16 0.16 0.22 0.15 0.17 0.11 0.20 0.21 0.24 0.23 0.24 0.24 0.17 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.21 0.21 0.25 0.20 0.21 0.17

TEXTILE SAMPLES As Is MS NP OEM

0.29 0.35 0.31 0.18 0.29 0.61 0.20 0.18 0.21 0.40 0.37 0.28 0.25 0.51 0.34 0.39 0.41 0.30 0.25 0.20 0.22 0.36 0.20 0.27 0.21 0.32 0.46 0.27 0.20 0.21 0.27 0.35 0.42 0.34 0.39 0.37 0.37 0.69 0.32 0.26 0.28 0.39 0.31 0.32 0.35 0.27 0.24 0.39 0.32 0.34 0.34 0.24 0.19 0.30 0.21 0.25 0.30 0.37 0.27 0.35 0.33 0.23 0.29 0.33

As Is
0.27 0.29 0.32 0.22 0.31 0.64 0.22 0.22 0.29 0.40 0.33 0.33 0.27 0.49 0.36 0.37

ALL SAMPLES MS NP OEM

0.36 0.29 0.24 0.26 0.22 0.34 0.16 0.25 0.22 0.30 0.39 0.30 0.18 0.22 0.29 0.28 0.39 0.36 0.35 0.37 0.39 0.71 0.30 0.25 0.27 0.33 0.25 0.34 0.31 0.28 0.29 0.31 0.31 0.35 0.35 0.31 0.25 0.31 0.22 0.27 0.31 0.34 0.25 0.38 0.32 0.27 0.34 0.28

Overall RMS DE 0.28

0.12

0.28

0.21

0.34

0.29

0.37

0.30

0.35

0.28

0.36

0.31

Each Instrument vs. Average (Mean)When Split by Instrument Manufacturer (CIELAB DE D65/10)
Instrument SF600 1 SF600 2 SF600 3 SF600 4 SF600 5 SF600X 6 SF600X 7 600 8 Overall RMS DE CE7000A 1 CE7000A 2 CE7000A 3 CE7000A 4 CE7000A 5 CE7000A 6 CE7000A 7 CE7000A 8 Overall RMS DE BCRA Tiles As Is MS NP
0.15 0.15 0.23 0.10 0.18 0.59 0.11 0.10 0.13 0.11 0.10 0.16 0.11 0.14 0.07 0.08 0.32 0.29 0.19 0.29 0.39 0.68 0.13 0.17

TEXTILE SAMPLES As Is MS NP
0.22 0.34 0.30 0.19 0.21 0.51 0.18 0.17 0.29 0.30 0.27 0.19 0.15 0.26 0.14 0.24 0.36 0.31 0.34 0.31 0.37 0.66 0.27 0.24

ALL SAMPLES As Is MS NP
0.19 0.31 0.30 0.18 0.21 0.53 0.16 0.16 0.24 0.35 0.23 0.22 0.13 0.24 0.12 0.20 0.36 0.35 0.29 0.31 0.37 0.68 0.22 0.22

0.25
0.14 0.26 0.15 0.18 0.17 0.23 0.17 0.14

0.12
0.07 0.04 0.09 0.04 0.07 0.06 0.09 0.04

0.35
0.06 0.12 0.10 0.06 0.12 0.11 0.11 0.05

0.29
0.15 0.43 0.34 0.31 0.25 0.41 0.24 0.30

0.24
0.18 0.24 0.40 0.26 0.15 0.18 0.23 0.27

0.38
0.26 0.38 0.24 0.31 0.24 0.18 0.22 0.32

0.28
0.20 0.43 0.28 0.30 0.25 0.39 0.24 0.31

0.23
0.20 0.27 0.32 0.25 0.12 0.17 0.22 0.25

0.38
0.22 0.35 0.22 0.27 0.20 0.18 0.23 0.27

0.19

0.07

0.10

0.32

0.25

0.27

0.31

0.23

0.25

The following tables represent the DEcmc D65/10 color differences calculated when comparing each instrument to a specific instrument within the population of test instruments. Calculations for these tables are in DEcmc D65/10 as this represents the formula most widely used for comparing samples measured on instruments in the industry. For these tables, Datacolor SF600X 7 and GretagMacbeth CE7000A 7 were designated as the standard instruments and each of the other instruments was compared back to each one. Each table is divided into two sections isolating the instruments by manufacturer, with an overall summary in the final row of the table. Results for this analysis mirrors that of CIELab D65/10 results when comparing all instruments to a master instrument. The greatest improvement in inter-instrument agreement was achieved when Datacolor Maestro was used to profile each instrument, though use of each manufacturers software for their own instruments also resulted in some improvement in the inter-instrument agreement. As with the analysis compared to a master instrument, improvements predicted based on BCRA tiles were not realized when evaluating the textile samples alone.

Test Results Comparing One Datacolor Instrument to All Other Instruments Datacolor SF600X 7 vs. All Other Instruments (DEcmc D65/10)
Instrument SF600 1 SF600 2 SF600 3 As Is
0.19 0.06 0.24

BCRA TILES MS NP OEM

0.16 0.07 0.14 0.38 0.20 0.17 0.16 0.07 0.14

TEXTILE SAMPLES As Is MS NP OEM

0.27 0.23 0.29 0.23 0.23 0.24 0.30 0.35 0.36 0.23 0.23 0.24

ALL SAMPLES As Is MS NP OEM

0.23 0.19 0.27 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.33 0.30 0.28 0.20 0.20 0.20

SF600 4 SF600 5 SF600X 6 600 8 RMS vs. 600 (OEM) CE7000A 1 CE7000A 2 CE7000A 3 CE7000A 4 CE7000A 5 CE7000A 6 CE7000A 7 CE7000A 8

0.09 0.14 0.68 0.07

0.10 0.09 0.17 0.08

0.36 0.38 0.70 0.12

0.10 0.09 0.17 0.08

0.19 0.20 0.37 0.15

0.18 0.14 0.26 0.15

0.29 0.31 0.55 0.18

0.18 0.14 0.26 0.15

0.15 0.18 0.49 0.12

0.16 0.13 0.23 0.13

0.31 0.33 0.59 0.16

0.16 0.13 0.23 0.13

0.29
0.21 0.23 0.21 0.20 0.22 0.25 0.24 0.24

0.12
0.08 0.08 0.15 0.09 0.09 0.09 0.14 0.09

0.38
0.16 0.13 0.16 0.17 0.19 0.19 0.16 0.14

0.12
0.22 0.18 0.24 0.24 0.25 0.19 0.23 0.19

0.25
0.24 0.33 0.33 0.25 0.25 0.37 0.31 0.36

0.21
0.24 0.28 0.37 0.26 0.24 0.23 0.27 0.30

0.35
0.31 0.49 0.42 0.32 0.39 0.38 0.34 0.52

0.21
0.26 0.26 0.21 0.29 0.33 0.24 0.27 0.24

0.26
0.25 0.30 0.28 0.26 0.25 0.35 0.29 0.32

0.18
0.19 0.23 0.30 0.22 0.19 0.19 0.24 0.24

0.35
0.26 0.37 0.32 0.29 0.32 0.32 0.29 0.38

0.18
0.25 0.24 0.22 0.29 0.30 0.23 0.26 0.23

RMS vs. 7000 (OEM) 0.23 Overall RMS DEcmc 0.26

0.10 0.11

0.16 0.28

0.22 0.18

0.31 0.28

0.28 0.25

0.40 0.38

0.27 0.24

0.29 0.28

0.23 0.21

0.32 0.34

0.25 0.22

GretagMacbeth CE7000A 7 vs. All Other Instruments (DEcmc D65/10)

Instrument SF600 1 SF600 2 SF600 3 SF600 4 SF600 5 SF600X 6 SF600X 7 600 8 RMS vs. 600 (OEM) CE7000A 1 CE7000A 2 CE7000A 3 CE7000A 4 CE7000A 5 CE7000A 6 CE7000A 8 BCRA TILES As Is MS NP OEM
0.28 0.22 0.21 0.26 0.30 0.87 0.24 0.26 0.17 0.14 0.15 0.16 0.16 0.19 0.14 0.14 0.36 0.22 0.20 0.36 0.37 0.75 0.16 0.18 0.21 0.24 0.24 0.27 0.22 0.28 0.23 0.22

TEXTILE SAMPLES As Is MS NP OEM

0.40 0.32 0.29 0.27 0.37 0.55 0.31 0.33 0.38 0.22 0.23 0.20 0.23 0.36 0.27 0.32 0.35 0.32 0.31 0.31 0.25 0.53 0.33 0.27 0.37 0.34 0.33 0.29 0.28 0.34 0.34 0.35

ALL SAMPLES As Is MS NP OEM

0.35 0.28 0.29 0.28 0.36 0.67 0.29 0.31 0.34 0.18 0.23 0.23 0.23 0.33 0.24 0.28 0.35 0.28 0.29 0.34 0.31 0.62 0.29 0.24 0.33 0.30 0.33 0.31 0.28 0.33 0.31 0.32

0.41
0.14 0.27 0.12 0.23 0.22 0.12 0.09

0.16
0.11 0.11 0.17 0.11 0.14 0.11 0.09

0.39
0.11 0.12 0.12 0.08 0.12 0.16 0.10

0.24
0.11 0.12 0.12 0.08 0.12 0.16 0.10

0.36
0.14 0.38 0.33 0.29 0.27 0.18 0.28

0.28
0.16 0.25 0.39 0.15 0.11 0.12 0.30

0.34
0.12 0.35 0.28 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.35

0.33
0.12 0.35 0.28 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.35

0.37
0.14 0.35 0.26 0.26 0.26 0.17 0.24

0.26
0.14 0.23 0.31 0.13 0.13 0.11 0.25

0.36
0.12 0.28 0.23 0.15 0.17 0.17 0.24

0.31
0.12 0.28 0.23 0.15 0.17 0.17 0.28

RMS vs. 7000 (OEM) 0.19 Overall RMS DEcmc 0.31

0.12 0.14

0.13 0.28

0.13 0.19

0.28 0.33

0.23 0.26

0.25 0.30

0.25 0.30

0.25 0.32

0.20 0.24

0.21 0.30

0.21 0.27

In this final table, an analysis of the number of samples that either improved or degraded in their agreement was determined. These values represent a count of the actual DEcmc D65/10 values that saw an improvement, had a negative effect, or did not change as a result of the profiling process. Columns in 4

the table represent all samples measured on instruments profiled with Datacolor Maestro (MS), all instruments profiled with GretagMacbeth NetProfiler (NP), and each instrument profiled with the instrument manufacturers own software (OEM). Variance in the range of +/- 0.05 DEcmc are considered negligible as this amount of variance is expected in a normal measurement process for textile samples. The greatest improvement and corresponding minimization of degradation in agreement was achieved when Datacolor Maestro was used to profile all instruments. Use of each manufacturers software for their own instruments also exhibited positive results, but use of GretagMacbeth NetProfiler exclusively resulted in degradation in inter-instrument agreement.

Analysis of Number of Samples That Were Affected By Profiling

By Number of Samples Textile Better Textile Worse Textile No Change Non-Textile Better Non-Textile Worse Non-Textile No Change Overall Better Overall Worse Overall No Change Samples Better By 0.15 Samples Worse By 0.15 MS 48 38 244 131 29 140 179 67 384 86 16 NP 36 85 209 85 93 122 121 178 331 37 69 OEM 54 40 236 71 48 181 125 88 417 47 25

> 0.05 > -0.05 0.05 to -0.05 > 0.05 > -0.05 0.05 to -0.05 > 0.05 > -0.05 0.05 to -0.05

This study and the data generated lead to the following conclusions:

Both profiling programs were able to improve the inter-instrument agreement on BCRA tiles, but with consistency only for their own instruments Improvements in BCRA agreement did not produce similar improvements in textile agreement o 0.07 - 0.13 CIELAB DE improvement on tiles, but only 0.05 for textiles o As DEcmc: 0.15 tiles 0.04 textiles BCRA improvement by greater than CIELAB DE 0.15 did lead to improvements in textile agreement for specific instruments, and for instruments these instruments profiling can actually have a positive impact their inter-instrument agreement A significant number of textile samples were adjusted in the wrong direction and are in much worse agreement after profiling o While Datacolor Maestro did generate a significantly higher number of improved samples, use of the manufacturers software will eliminate the possibility of significant degradation in agreement The instrument diagnostic routines of the two profiling programs did not identify problems with the non-native instruments

o One Datacolor instrument was successfully profiled by GretagMacbeth NetProfiler but was identified as needing service by Datacolor Maestro due to failures on several BCRA tiles o One GretagMacbeth instrument was successfully profiled by Datacolor Maestro but identified as needing service by GretagMacbeth NetProfiler due to faulty energy level output

Instrument diagnostic tests are critical, are specific to manufacturer and are best performed by the manufacturers software Use the instrument manufacturers profiling software in order to achieve the greatest level of improvement in inter-instrument agreement throughout the retail/apparel supply chain Expect post-profile performance numbers from real-world samples (such as textiles) to be worse than those obtained from the samples that were used for profiling (BCRA tiles)

These tests confirm that improvements in inter-instrument agreement gained through profiling of a properly functioning spectrophotometer are insignificant when compared to the error introduced by poor measurement technique, changes due to sample conditioning, and operator error. And while instrument diagnostics and profiling with the instrument manufacturers software is a critical part of a total measurement program, it is not a substitute for attention to detail in the measurement process. The greatest improvement in inter-instrument agreement will be achieved by focusing on the other sources of error, which account for approximately 90% of the observed and measured variance in measurement data.