Re: Instruments and models Vs. Accuracy
Re: Instruments and models Vs. Accuracy
- Subject: Re: Instruments and models Vs. Accuracy
- From: Mitchell Rosen <email@hidden>
- Date: Thu, 22 Sep 2005 09:55:13 -0400
I came across this on the list from about a week ago:
In a message dated Wed, 14 Sep 2005 01:53:44, Marco Ugolini wrote:
I was at the Munsell Color Science Lab in Rochester last June, and, when
asked, the very people who are perfecting the CIECAM model (Mark Fairchild,
in particular) specifically said that CIECAM is still in the research phase
and NOT ready for the consumer market.
This seemed odd, so I asked Mark himself. Below is what he replied.
Mark Fairchild wrote:
I don't recall the conversation or the context from the summer
course. I certainly do talk about color appearance modeling being
an area of active research, but I stress that more for the iCAM
stuff that is even more complex. I know for sure that I have talked
about CIECAM02 as being very mature compared to CIECAM97s and that I
am unaware of any immediate issues that require the CIE to be
working on a revision. There is no committee doing such work. A
few difficulties have been identified (like mathematical misbehavior
when unreal colors are sent through), but I don't think those
preclude the model being used in practical applications. I might
well have said that it should be used with care to make sure that
the extra parameters aren't used to do more harm than good. I have
no doubt that there are plenty of people out there that can use it
with care and I would suspect that Microsoft is making the
simplifying assumptions required to make it work in practical
applications. You could look at Rod's recent work (to be presented
at CIC on perceptual color gamuts and how CIECAM02 can predict them)
as an example of how well it can do.
Bottom line ... I have no concerns with anyone using CIECAM02 in
color management applications as long as they use it with knowledge
and care. (BTW: Knowledge and care are also required to use CIELAB
in similar applications!!).
-------------
As a student in our lab last summer, Marco Ugolini is certainly
welcome to quote us in as accurate a way he can and as he did above,
we expect it will be done in good faith. We are happy to clarify
when appropriate.
But, we were saddened to see the rest of Marco Ugolini's email of
Sept. 14 where he went on to accuse Mark of purposely misleading on
CIECAM02 perhaps due to a hypothetical financial relationship with
Microsoft????? The absurdity and hurtfulness of this conjecture is
many-fold. For one thing, in the Munsell Lab's 22 year history, we
have never had a financial relationship with Microsoft - not so much
as having them buy lunch for a faculty member. Second, Mark
Fairchild is the most outspoken individual I have ever met on the
topic of absolute separation of the interests of corporate sponsors
from the interests of intellectual integrity. If you really wanted
to hurt him, you chose the right words. And thirdly, if we were to
have Microsoft become a project sponsor in the future (it could
happen any time - they are interested in our research and in our
students) we would never accept terms from them or any sponsor that
would prevent our research from being publishable or to encroach on
our free intellectual expression. If we ever felt uncomfortable
talking about a subject, we would tell you.
There is never a need to guess as to who our project sponsors are.
They are publicly acknowleged in our publications and in our annual
report (available at web site below).
- Mitchell Rosen
Munsell Color Science Laboratory
Rochester Institute of Technology
http://www.mcsl.rit.edu
_______________________________________________
Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored.
Colorsync-users mailing list (email@hidden)
Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription:
This email sent to email@hidden