This is what I'm saying Andrew, so the generalization we can read in the paper is false.
Which paper and what is false?
By definition, scene referred means the colors measured at the scene (if done) and that which is output colorimetrically match. Lab in (measured scene color) = Lab out. When people (like Doug) speak of color accuracy, it better be that case, otherwise how can we define accuracy? Scene referred is colorimetrically accurate but it may not be pleasing or produce a match to something else.
As you know, those of us who have tried doing reproductions digitally, it's really, really hard work. But a scene referred image
may not match the original. It may require editing to produce that match. It's therefore no longer
scene referred. It's not colorimetrically an accurate reproduction but it may produce a match. We know about issues with Metameric failures which can take place in various areas of this reproduction chain (camera, what's seen on a display, what's output on a printer).
Say the goal is a visual match but some of the measured color (of say a painting) has to differ to produce a visual match, it's not scene referred any longer.
It can still be scene referred but it's not
pleasing because there's a mismatch somewhere and when we edit the area of that image to provide a match, it's no longer scene referred. It's been rendered for the goal of a match.
if a render with the same contrast and colours as the original scene, i.e. a totally accurate reproduction, looks less pleasing to anyone than some processing derived from it, it's fine, but it's a totally subjective story.
Yes, no question. But it is output referred IF in order to get the pleasing result, a match, the image had to be edited. It is no longer scene referred. And that's not a problem, it's the solution.
Again, when discussing the two terms (scene or output referred), each defines the measured color and the resulting color having the same or differing
measured values.