Here is a fantastic, comprehensive and engaging article on...well...practically everything to do with color, as it pertains to human perception (even touching upon philosophy) cinematography and then ultimately to the "Conundrum" of trying to establish standards in the new film to digital processes that have overtaken movie-making.

http://www.theasc.com/magazine/jan05/conundrum/index.html

There is a link to PT2 of the article at the end of PT1, page 7.

BTW, this part caught my eye and might be of interest to some folks here:

"The consensus on the 2K DLP projectors of today is that sequential contrast, roughly 1,800:1 (D-ILA has less) in a typical viewing environment, is approaching the appearance of a Kodak Vision release print. Vision print stock actually has a density contrast ratio of 8,000:1, or 13 stops, but the projection booth’s port glass, ambient light and light scatter caused by reflection reduce it to a little over 2,000:1. The more expensive Vision Premier print stock has a contrast ratio of about 250,000:1, or 18 stops to the power of 2. (Humans can distinguish 30 stops.)"

In reference to the 2K projectors, note the article is from 2005. Regarding the film specs, it's interesting to contemplate the project of home cinema and "accuracy" given the ever widening contrast specs (and black floors) of projectors, vs the limitations of some film stocks used in cinematography (e.g. the Kodak Vision release prints).

The Mother of All Articles on Color (http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=910048)

Yep, color is complicated alright, but here is how to cope ;)

http://sajwan.files.wordpress.com/2008/06/calvin_and_hobbes-black_white_pics.jpg

Although it was predominantly an ad for the ASC's then-new committee, it did raise some good points.

Metamerism continues to be a fastinating field, and is a candidate for why displays with different light sources (eg. xenon, mercury, phosphor, LED) calibrated to the same tristimulus values are regarded by some as looking different.

I've never encountered the concept of mesopic vision before. It raises some interesting issues on what effect dynamic gamma, dynamic irises, pulse width modulation of greyscales, large deltaE divergences in the lowest few IRE in otherwise well-calibrated equipment, and so forth have on the subtle concept of "believability" in image reproduction. It would suggest that the range of our vision most susceptable to image errors overlaps the same range where most of the errors occur.

The article wasn't without its share of errors, though. Eg. listing Peter Jackson as Australian.

I don't see an error there - Peter comes from the eastern Australian state of New Zealand? :D

I don't see an error there - Peter comes from the eastern Australian state of New Zealand? :D
Yeah, it's just like telling Canadians they come from America's northern state. Does down like a charm.

It was a joke ;) - Aussies love our cousins from 'across the ditch'.

It was a joke ;)
That wasn't lost on me. ;)