Re: Metamerism vs Color Inconstancy, again
Re: Metamerism vs Color Inconstancy, again
- Subject: Re: Metamerism vs Color Inconstancy, again
- From: José Ángel Bueno García <email@hidden>
- Date: Thu, 24 Jun 2010 22:47:12 +0200
You may have in acount too that translations, for those of us who
english is not our mother language, that the mean of many (translated)
terms used in publications we can afford, are not accurate and very
dificult to understand with basic tools. I have a collection of five
diccionairies of Science and Technology and can´t find the really mean
the word "subtense" in Ultra-
Large Color Difference and Small Subtense". Sure they don´t work for
me as I expected, and have the possibility to talk to Rafael Huertas
at Granada University.
The best way to avoid stress in comunication is to use the most
accurate language with consensus in definitions.
Salud
Jose bueno
2010/6/24 Klaus Karcher <email@hidden>:
> Ernst Dinkla wrote:
>>
>> john castronovo schreef:
>>
>>
>>> That's a vocabulary lesson that the lay person doesn't need to know,
>>> but in here I think it's important that we agree on such terms because
>>> it makes these posts easier and more clear in the future. Perhaps,
>>> because I'm not a color scientist, I don't have enough information in
>>> my head already to be confused by it. :o)
>>
>> When Ben Goren asked for a good demonstration of metamerism his message
>> was perfectly worded for that request yet the first reply was one that
>> put dots on i's that were already dotted in my opinion. I think in the
>> next two messages they came to the same conclusion. However since then
>> the tap on orthodox citations of color bibles has been wide open.
>> Provoked by some messages without doubt, confused by some related
>> questions but also without no other objective than taking the higher
>> ground in what becomes a debating contest rather than an exchange of
>> ideas.
>>
>> Then when someone else opens a fire plug to take the debate to another
>> level of abstract thinking and terminology, we get the message that
>> there's already too much water spilled. In my opinion that first reply
>> wasn't even necessary and I still have some (to me) interesting questions
>> unanswered. Graeme is my champion but I wonder whether he actually wants
>> to dot the i's here or just finish this thread with the right method.
>> I don't mind if it goes either way.
>>
>
> Roughly by the time this discussion got dogmatic traits (thanks to Marco's
> pontification), I had a very amusing talk with Alexander Logvinenko
> (Research Professor at the Glasgow Caledonian University) about Metamerism,
> Color Constancy and Color Inconstancy. We were sitting in the Helsinki
> Airport Café on our way back from CGIV and he talked about the same topic
> Graeme summarized so aptly:
>
>> "Color Constancy" seems to be used in the color and vision
>> literature for two distinct phenomena: one is the robustness
>> of a color under different illuminants - something that is strongly
>> related
>> to metamerism, and the other is the human visual systems ability to
>> estimate and "see" the underlying color of things, discounting the
>> illumination conditions. [...]
>> There may be a slight bias towards using "Color inconstancy" for the
>> former, and "Color constancy" for the latter, but having one not be
>> the inverse of the other seems very confusing.
>
> He recommended an article by Alan R. Robertson:
> <http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/114180297/abstract> and told me
> about the (rare) occasions when scientists of different disciplines meet at
> the same conference, using the same words (color constancy / color
> inconstancy) with completely different meanings. Some talk primarily about
> color /inconstancy/ in a sense merely related to physical properties of
> light and sample plus chromatic adaptation) -- and others talk about color
> /constancy/ (in spite of "physical" inconstancy) from a neuroscientific
> point of view. It might seem bizarre when a physicist uses an example to
> demonstrate color /inconstancy/ while a neuroscientist uses nearly the same
> example to explain color /constancy/. Alexander's statement culminated in
> the invocation: "Please, scientists: talk with each other and try to settle
> on a coherent terminology -- for the sake of your student's mental health!"
>
> I'm very happy that Graeme broadened our view, pointed to the contradictory
> meanings of "color constancy" and referenced the works of McCann. Let us
> keep in mind that color is first and foremost a perception and not a
> physical property. 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. /One/ meaning of "color constancy" fits well into this simplified
> assumption, but the other does not at all.
>
> Klaus
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>
_______________________________________________
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