Hi Steve,

Thanks for clarifying. I was wondering if it might be due to the restriction to using only the XYZ data that X-Rite officially supports, rather than the full spectral data that's accessible via some open-source tools like Argyll. Thanks

Spectral data is not really of use for calibration - it needs to be converted into XYZ/Yxy data.
So for probes that have that as their standard output, it makes sense to use that, and no bother with spectral data.

However, we are going to add Spectral Graphs to ColourSpace, so at that point we will natively use spectral data too.

Steve

Steve

That's great news about ColourSpace natively using spectral data!

Perhaps the original intention of this thread was to say that since XYZ/Yxy values are caculated by multiplying the measured spectral power distribution by the CMF function and then integrating. Having direct access to the spectral power distribution would allow for the flexibility of applying different CMFs (such as the CIE 1964 10° CMF) to convert into XYZ/Yxy values accordingly .

There will be no difference between calculating XYZ by colourspace and calculating XYZ by the spectrometer internal program. My guess is that calculating XYZ will slow down the operation of ColourSpace or increase instability.
Not all spectrometers provide CMF switching function, and software calculation can make up for this.
As a leading color science software, I think CS should not be limited to XYZ but trace back to the source of XYZ and calculate everything.