Device suggestions for measuring surface color and reflectance in the field


Minolta CM-2002 Spectrophotometer works well to measure color and reflectance but it is rather an expensive equipment (even just for lease). Last time I used it, I compared the measurement values with the results I achieved using Macbeth chart and macbethcal ( and the results were very close.

As Greg mentioned, the photographs of the sample and Macbeth chart should be taken under stable and uniform lighting conditions.



On Wed, 29 Jan 2014, Kyle Konis wrote:

Dear list,

I plan to build several radiance models of Alzheimer care facilities in preparation for a field study examining daylight exposures and cognitive / health outcomes in
partnership with a colleague in health sciences.

The radiance work is intended to supplement the data collected from physical sensors to provide greater insight into 24-hour patters of light / dark.

I would like to measure the surface optical properties (color,� reflectance) of the walls / ceilings and floors etc.

I am aware of two devices that have been used to do this.

1) The first is the X-rite Colormunki (actual name of product) that Michael Donn was using while visiting LBNL.

The second is the Minolta CM-2002 Spectrophotometer used by Mehlika Inanici.

If anyone has experience with this task who can provide some comments on their approach it would be appreciated. (Michael and Mehlika, i will likely contact you



Kyle Konis, AIA, Ph.D
Assistant Professor
School of Architecture, WAH 204
University of Southern California
Los Angeles, CA 90089-0291

Hi Kyle,

I would like to measure the surface optical properties (color, reflectance)
of the walls / ceilings and floors etc.

I've used the Minolta with good results. It's worth speaking to your
local rep and asking about a loan of the equipment; they will have a
sales model which you might be able to borrow for a few days. I've
done this in the past with other (horribly expensive) Minolta

You can also use a Macbeth, as Robert says. With a good camera, good
lighting, careful photography, and careful processing you can expect
about a 4 dE average error, in my experience. This is not good enough
for applications like paint matching, where you really need to be
under 1, but may be OK for what you need.

I have some software for calibrating off a Macbeth as well, it might
be easier to use than the macbethcal utility.



On 29 January 2014 18:54, Kyle Konis <[email protected]> wrote: