The only rationale for a narrow acceptance angle on a chromaticity measurement diffuser is if for some reason we wish to make a chromaticity measurement on one source of light, in the presence of other significant sources of light, in which case we would of course aim the "instrument" (camera with narrow-pattern diffuser in place) at the source of interest (from the place at which the influence of this light source is of interest).
Man, whoever made up that quote about a dog and his bone, never met Doug.
Anyway, yes we "tout" the narrow acceptance pattern of the original ColorRight. It can be advantageous in certain shooting situations. Actually, as you well know, we intended to make the product have a narrower "acceptance pattern," from the get go. Your own studies support that we did indeed accomplish this design goal. Your studies also support a greater level of neutrality for our product vs. other unnamed "prismed looking" type products (but who's keeping track). It was never our original desire to make a tool with a wide "acceptance pattern." We do, and have for a long time, recommended that in some shooting situations, an incident reading is preferred. In addition, your point that a narrow acceptance angle is not always preferred, is well taken.
The new product provides a very wide "acceptance angle." However, this new design is not due to some change in religion. It is again, born out of very practical considerations and feedback from our customer base. Just as when we moved from glass to a (yet more expensive) polymer to create an "unbreakable" product.
We had taken the current flat filter/ disk approach as far we could conceivably take it. We currently have the most neutral, the most light transmissive, and the thinnest & lightest product in this category (and by a wide margin, on all counts). The "acceptance angle," of course, was left essentially unchanged, although the latest version 4.0 does indeed have a somewhat wider acceptance angle. This was left unchanged, because, as you mentioned it was something of a trademark difference offered by our tool. It is more "precise," as it only considers a smaller portion of the light incident upon it. However, this precision also demands a greater understanding of light and color balance on the part of the customer. In other words, it is somewhat easier to "mess up" the reading due to an increase in precision if the operator knows little about color balance.
So, enter the colorcheetah. Whoa, wait a minute, why not just increase the "acceptance angle" of the flat product, you may ask. Glad you asked. Because, in reality, it just doesn't make that much of a difference. You can only go so far with a flat planar tool. It is never, ever going to be able to see up, left, or right, no matter what you do.
A flat tool is also never going to be able to truly capture light directly from a flash. Be it pop-up flash or external.
A simple flat tool can't weight the light, so the person making the color reference capture doesn't really need to know anything much about color balance to get a splendid result.
Basically, our goal is, and has always been, to make the simplest, easiest and most accurate color tools on the planet. Tools that "just work" right out of the box.
I believe (there's that word again) the colorcheetah takes us much further down this path.
