Talk:Color rendering index

Color B‑class Mid‑importance

	This article is supported by WikiProject Color, a project that provides a central approach to color-related subjects on Wikipedia. Help us improve articles to good and 1.0 standards; visit the wikiproject page for more details.ColorWikipedia:WikiProject ColorTemplate:WikiProject Colorcolor
B	This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Obsolete merge proposal

Oppose - color rendering index is a very specific measurement and should not be confused with other measures of color rendering. PAR 04:07, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - It should not be merged, however there ought to be something in the text that explains the use of the CRI with respect to current lighting technologies. (e.g. fluorescent tubes, LED replacements for incandescents, etc) Any chance someone can offer clarification about what is meant by "perceived"? (Quoting from the article page, "The perceived colors under the reference and test illumination ..."

The "perceived colors" can be determined by a human, which isn't subject to calibration, or it can be determined by a device that would be calibratable (if this is a word) to a spectrum based on known wavelengths.

Oppose -- CRI is a very specific and measurable quality of light. Perhaps a better solution would be to create a more general "Color Rendering qualities of Light" topic wherein various measurables both quanititive and qualitative could be discussed

Humm.. not sure where to put that one

there is apparently a typo in the Table given in the third reference, namely "CIE (2004), CIE Colorimetric and Colour Rendering Tables, Disk D002, Rel 1.3" the tables linked to Disk D002, rel 1.3: The value at 740 nm for Sample 13 is written "750", likely to be "0.750" in fact, but I have no way to be sure. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Goretesque (talk • contribs) 12:36, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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]

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]