<p>The paper and the graphics industries use two instruments with different optical geometry (d/0 and 45/0) to measure the quality of paper prints. The instruments have been reported to yield incompatible measurements and even rank samples differently in some cases, causing communication problems between these sectors of industry.A preliminary investigation concluded that the inter-instrument difference could be significantly influenced by external factors (background, calibration, heterogeneity of the medium). A simple methodology for eliminating these external factors and thereby minimizing the instrument differences has been derived. The measurements showed that, when the external factors are eliminated, and there is no fluorescence or gloss influence, the inter-instrument difference becomes small, depends on the instrument geometry, and varies systematically with the scattering, absorption, and transmittance properties of the sample.A detailed description of the impact of the geometry on the results has been presented regarding a large sample range. Simulations with the radiative transfer model DORT2002 showed that the instruments measurements follow the physical radiative transfer model except in cases of samples with extreme properties. The conclusion is that the physical explanation of the geometrical inter-instrument differences is based on the different degree of light permeation from the two geometries, which eventually results in a different degree of influence from near-surface bulk scattering. It was also shown that the d/0 instrument fulfils the assumptions of a diffuse field of reflected light from the medium only for samples that resemble the perfect diffuser but it yields an anisotropic field of reflected light when there is significant absorption or transmittance. In the latter case, the 45/0 proves to be less anisotropic than the d/0.In the process, the computational performance of the DORT2002 has been significantly improved. After the modification of the DORT2002 in order to include the 45/0 geometry, the Gauss-Newton optimization algorithm for the solution of the inverse problem was qualified as the most appropriate one, after testing different optimization methods for performance, stability and accuracy. Finally, a new homotopic initial-value algorithm for routine tasks (spectral calculations) was introduced, which resulted in a further three-fold speedup of the whole algorithm.The paper and the graphics industries use two instruments with different optical geometry (d/0 and 45/0) to measure the quality of paper prints. The instruments have been reported to yield incompatible measurements and even rank samples differently in some cases, causing communication problems between these sectors of industry.A preliminary investigation concluded that the inter-instrument difference could be significantly influenced by external factors (background, calibration, heterogeneity of the medium). A simple methodology for eliminating these external factors and thereby minimizing the instrument differences has been derived. The measurements showed that, when the external factors are eliminated, and there is no fluorescence or gloss influence, the inter-instrument difference becomes small, depends on the instrument geometry, and varies systematically with the scattering, absorption, and transmittance properties of the sample.A detailed description of the impact of the geometry on the results has been presented regarding a large sample range. Simulations with the radiative transfer model DORT2002 showed that the instruments measurements follow the physical radiative transfer model except in cases of samples with extreme properties. The conclusion is that the physical explanation of the geometrical inter-instrument differences is based on the different degree of light permeation from the two geometries, which eventually results in a different degree of influence from near-surface bulk scattering. It was also shown that the d/0 instrument fulfils the assumptions of a diffuse field of reflected light from the medium only for samples that resemble the perfect diffuser but it yields an anisotropic field of reflected light when there is significant absorption or transmittance. In the latter case, the 45/0 proves to be less anisotropic than the d/0.In the process, the computational performance of the DORT2002 has been significantly improved. After the modification of the DORT2002 in order to include the 45/0 geometry, the Gauss-Newton optimization algorithm for the solution of the inverse problem was qualified as the most appropriate one, after testing different optimization methods for performance, stability and accuracy. Finally, a new homotopic initial-value algorithm for routine tasks (spectral calculations) was introduced, which resulted in a further three-fold speedup of the whole algorithm.</p> / QC 20100707 / PaperOpt, Paper Optics and Colour

The paper and the graphics industries use two instruments with different optical geometry (d/0 and 45/0) to measure the quality of paper prints. The instruments have been reported to yield incompatible measurements and even rank samples differently in some cases, causing communication problems between these sectors of industry.A preliminary investigation concluded that the inter-instrument difference could be significantly influenced by external factors (background, calibration, heterogeneity of the medium). A simple methodology for eliminating these external factors and thereby minimizing the instrument differences has been derived. The measurements showed that, when the external factors are eliminated, and there is no fluorescence or gloss influence, the inter-instrument difference becomes small, depends on the instrument geometry, and varies systematically with the scattering, absorption, and transmittance properties of the sample.A detailed description of the impact of the geometry on the results has been presented regarding a large sample range. Simulations with the radiative transfer model DORT2002 showed that the instruments measurements follow the physical radiative transfer model except in cases of samples with extreme properties. The conclusion is that the physical explanation of the geometrical inter-instrument differences is based on the different degree of light permeation from the two geometries, which eventually results in a different degree of influence from near-surface bulk scattering. It was also shown that the d/0 instrument fulfils the assumptions of a diffuse field of reflected light from the medium only for samples that resemble the perfect diffuser but it yields an anisotropic field of reflected light when there is significant absorption or transmittance. In the latter case, the 45/0 proves to be less anisotropic than the d/0.In the process, the computational performance of the DORT2002 has been significantly improved. After the modification of the DORT2002 in order to include the 45/0 geometry, the Gauss-Newton optimization algorithm for the solution of the inverse problem was qualified as the most appropriate one, after testing different optimization methods for performance, stability and accuracy. Finally, a new homotopic initial-value algorithm for routine tasks (spectral calculations) was introduced, which resulted in a further three-fold speedup of the whole algorithm.The paper and the graphics industries use two instruments with different optical geometry (d/0 and 45/0) to measure the quality of paper prints. The instruments have been reported to yield incompatible measurements and even rank samples differently in some cases, causing communication problems between these sectors of industry.A preliminary investigation concluded that the inter-instrument difference could be significantly influenced by external factors (background, calibration, heterogeneity of the medium). A simple methodology for eliminating these external factors and thereby minimizing the instrument differences has been derived. The measurements showed that, when the external factors are eliminated, and there is no fluorescence or gloss influence, the inter-instrument difference becomes small, depends on the instrument geometry, and varies systematically with the scattering, absorption, and transmittance properties of the sample.A detailed description of the impact of the geometry on the results has been presented regarding a large sample range. Simulations with the radiative transfer model DORT2002 showed that the instruments measurements follow the physical radiative transfer model except in cases of samples with extreme properties. The conclusion is that the physical explanation of the geometrical inter-instrument differences is based on the different degree of light permeation from the two geometries, which eventually results in a different degree of influence from near-surface bulk scattering. It was also shown that the d/0 instrument fulfils the assumptions of a diffuse field of reflected light from the medium only for samples that resemble the perfect diffuser but it yields an anisotropic field of reflected light when there is significant absorption or transmittance. In the latter case, the 45/0 proves to be less anisotropic than the d/0.In the process, the computational performance of the DORT2002 has been significantly improved. After the modification of the DORT2002 in order to include the 45/0 geometry, the Gauss-Newton optimization algorithm for the solution of the inverse problem was qualified as the most appropriate one, after testing different optimization methods for performance, stability and accuracy. Finally, a new homotopic initial-value algorithm for routine tasks (spectral calculations) was introduced, which resulted in a further three-fold speedup of the whole algorithm. / QC 20100707 / PaperOpt, Paper Optics and Colour