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: Thu, 24 Jun 2010 16:37:23 -0400 (EDT)
Klaus Karcher wrote:
>Roughly by the time this discussion got dogmatic traits (thanks to
>Marco's pontification),
"Dogmatic". My "pontification"...I see.
I did my best to be as clear and articulate and precise as I can be, spending considerable time making sure that what I would eventually deliver to the forum is written as comprehensibly as I am capable of.
Then people on the forum, just like you, Klaus, selectively read what I write, then decide, from the little they've read and understood, that I'm "dogmatic" (I guess because I don't roll over like a good doggie) and "pontificating", because they don't want to bothered with such "arcana" as I dabble in -- rather than allowing for and respectfully acknowledging the POSSIBILITY that I may be in good faith and my points may have validity.
This is, on your part, exactly the kind of superficial, condescending, contemptible dismissal of a fellow professional that I consider beyond description. So, congratulation to you, Klaus, for reaching such lower depths.
>I had a very amusing talk with Alexander
>Logvinenko (Research Professor at the Glasgow Caledonian University)
>about Metamerism, Color Constancy and Color Inconstancy.
How delightful that it was so amusing. As long as it's entertaining, it must be good.
>I'm very happy that Graeme broadened our view,
As opposed to my attempts to narrow everyone's perspectives with my "dogmatic pontifications". Got it.
>pointed to the contradictory meanings of "color constancy" and
>referenced the works of McCann.
Whose negation of my points is yet to be articulated comprehensibly by anyone here.
>Let us keep in mind that color is first and foremost a
>perception and not a physical property.
Whereas I verifiably said otherwise, in my usual "dogmatic" manner. I see. (Where are the quotes to back this up, by the way?)
>Even if it's often much simpler
>to treat human vision like a camera sensor with some white balancing
>capabilities, we should always be aware that this is a rough
>simplification that does not represent the truth.
Gosh, sounds like "pontificating" to me. Not to mention that it's talking past and completely beside the point of terminology brought up in MY thread (in case anyone forgot that I initiated it).
>/One/ meaning of "color constancy" fits well into this simplified assumption, but the
>other does not at all.
Let me sum up the state of this thread so far: I started by trying to remind the forum of some very real and verifiable terminologies. I offered, then provided sources for my statements.
Thanks to your efforts and those of others who are of like mind to you, this thread has now sunk into utter nonsense.
That is an achievement of sorts, though not the one I was hoping for.
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