But behind? That’s your premise isn’t it? And presumably only in shadows?
From what I've observed, yes.
It may be true, I can’t this damn SS to run and compare with the two EyeOne Pro’s I have. Or a ColorMunki for that matter. There is however, a lot more measurement data being collected and averaged, not that this guarantees better sampling (but one would hope so).
Regardless of the type of transducer being used, be it a microphone, CMOS sensor, CCD sensor, barometer, thermometer, or the sensor in a spectrophotometer, multiple measurements doesn't contribute anything to increasing the quality of the measurement itself. You can take 1000 measurements with an inferior transducer and never achieve the same quality that you can with one single reading from a higher quality transducer. This is easily demonstrated by comparing the output at ISO 1600 from a point and shoot to a $3000+ full frame camera. Averaging measurements is of course useful when profiling to attain the average value that a printer and media combination produce but I would be extremely surprised if such benefit could be ascertained from a 10mm x 10mm patch. I would think that to be useful that data would need to be sampled from different spots on the media
. Printing out multiple targets for example and averaging them together would accomplish that.
The Eye One Pro might require hundreds of measurements in order to mitigate ∆E as a result of the noise inherent in the sensor itself. A less noisy sensor might not require that. We definitely know that the Eye One Pro spends a lot of time using those multiple measurements to detect the edges of a patch and it's also been demonstrated that using larger patches with the Eye One Pro, yields a lower ∆E from scan to scan. Based on how the device performs I'd say the increased samples don't contribute anything to the quality of the measurement, but rather, they are required 1) by design to detect the boundaries of a patch and 2) to smooth the noise and thus reduce ∆E from scan to scan. Those multiple sample points wouldn't improve its ability to extract shadow detail.
This doesn't in any way support that the Spectroscan/lino is better than the Eye One Pro but, I don't believe the Eye One Pro's multiple measurements do anything to improve the quality of the samples it takes. It will serve to smooth out the noise and as such reduce ∆E but I'd say that's about it. Even then, the Spectrolino's ∆E from scan to scan is about half that of the Eye One Pro.