Re: basiccolor INPUT
Re: basiccolor INPUT
- Subject: Re: basiccolor INPUT
- From: José Ángel Bueno García <email@hidden>
- Date: Sun, 06 Nov 2011 17:22:06 +0000
Hello Andrew:
I feel confused about DSLR cameras as colorimetric or spectral devices
after read your post, and I think that has been discused previously on
the list, and the winner was... image capture devices are not spectral
devices unless such device be able to multispectral (three or more
filters) capture from a monochrome sensor.
How do you call to the soft transition in skin tone with high end
cameras? Is the spectral response of such device? Aren't CFA
primaries?
El día 6 de noviembre de 2011 16:51, Andrew Rodney
<email@hidden> escribió:
> On Nov 6, 2011, at 9:39 AM, José Ángel Bueno García wrote:
>
>> "As long as a camera has three or more sensors that span the visual
>> spectrum, then it will respond all the same stimuli as our visual
>> system."
>
> Digital cameras don't have a gamut, but rather a color mixing function. Basically, a color mixing function is a mathematical representation of a measured color as a function of the three standard monochromatic RGB primaries needed to duplicate a monochromatic observed color at its measured wavelength. Cameras don’t have primaries, they have spectral sensitivities, and the difference is important because a camera can capture all sorts of different primaries. Two different primaries may be captured as the same values by a camera, and the same primary may be captured as two different values by a camera (if the spectral power distributions of the primaries are different). A camera has colors it can capture and encode as unique values compared to others, that are imaginary (not visible) to us. They don't exist and therefor are not "colors". There are colors we can see, but the camera can't capture that are imaginary to it. Most of the colors the camera can "see" we can see as well. Yet some cameras can “see colors“ outside the spectral locus but usually every attempt is made to filter those out. More important is the fact that cameras “see colors“ inside the spectral locus differently than humans. So using the term gamut here gets messy.
>
> The point is that if you think of camera primaries you can come to many incorrect conclusions because cameras capture spectrally. On the other had, displays create colors using primaries. Primaries are defined colorimetrically so any color space defined using primaries is colorimetric. Native (raw) camera color spaces are almost never colorimetric, and therefore cannot be defined using primaries. Therefore, the measured pixel values don't even produce a gamut until they're mapped into a particular RGB space. Before then, *all* colors are (by definition) possible.
>
> Raw image data is in some native camera color space, but it is not a colorimetric color space, and has no single “correct” relationship to colorimetry. The same thing could be said about a color film negative.
> Someone has to make a choice of how to convert values in non-colorimetric color spaces to colorimetric ones. There are better and worse choices, but no single correct conversion (unless the “scene” you are photographing has only three independent colorants, like with film scanning).
>
> If we had spectral sensitivities for the camera, that would make the job of mapping to XYZ better and easier, but we'd still have decisions on what to do with the colors the camera encodes, that are imaginary to us.
>
> Andrew Rodney
> http://www.digitaldog.net/
Jose Bueno
_______________________________________________
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