Re: Metamerism vs Color Inconstancy, again
Re: Metamerism vs Color Inconstancy, again
- Subject: Re: Metamerism vs Color Inconstancy, again
- From: Marco Ugolini <email@hidden>
- Date: Tue, 15 Jun 2010 14:22:49 -0700
- Thread-topic: Metamerism vs Color Inconstancy, again
Klaus Karcher wrote:
> Marco Ugolini wrote:
>
>> [...] That is why neither "metameric match" nor "metameric failure" applies
>> in instances of color inconstancy. It's a misleading and incorrect use of the
>> terms.
>
> But you agree that if we have a metameric match between two samples under one
> illuminant and a metameric failure between the same samples under another
> illuminant, we can conclude that there is a lack of color constancy for at
> least one of the samples?
Klaus,
I mentioned earlier that the two concepts are RELATED, but yet DISTINCT: any
ONE of the two specimens in a metameric pair which changes appearance under
a different illuminant is the one with a degree of color inconstancy. (Not
to mention that sometimes BOTH specimens can be color-inconstant.)
But metameric matches are about whether or not TWO specimens match one
another under ONE illuminant not about whether ONE specimen is
color-inconstant among TWO OR MORE illuminants.
To many, this distinction may sound subtle, but it's nonetheless real, not
specious. Whether or not a metameric match (or failure) between TWO
specimens exists is a distinct concept from, though related to, that of the
degree of ONE specimen's color constancy (or inconstancy).
It may not be the best possible example, but the fact that two liquids are
both wet (call it a "metameric wetness match") does not mean that they are
both the same TYPE of liquid too: one may be water, the other wine, or soda,
or milk, etc. -- both wet, but clearly different.
Though they match in one of their qualities (they are both WET),
individually they differ in their specific intrinsic nature and composition.
We would be wrong to say that, since they are both wet, hence they are the
same as one another, correct? The differences matters.
> [I think we are talking about the same topics with diferent approaches: while
> you try to differentiate between terms by means of definitions, I try to show
> the relationships between them.]
Well, no, I disagree. I don't see how a set of accurate definitions obscures
the relationships between clearly-defined elements of a situation: if
anything, it further clarifies them.
The definitions that I am bringing forth can be backed with references to
authoritative texts in color science. I'll be glad to list them, if you so
desire.
Now, we are not going to start refashioning a science-free terminology...are
we? I hope not, otherwise there is little left to discuss or agree upon in
that case, if people start making up their own individual glossaries based
on somewhat "malleable" or "convenient science".
Best.
Marco Ugolini
_______________________________________________
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