Re: 1 billion colors
Re: 1 billion colors
- Subject: Re: 1 billion colors
- From: Wire ~ via colorsync-users <email@hidden>
- Date: Mon, 6 Jan 2020 12:44:31 -0800
I don't think anyone here is laboring under a belief that color not a
qualia.
I defy you to show me something that isn't a qualia!
So all of your well-made points seek to clarify a misunderstanding which
none of us seem to have. :)
If I keep parsing your comments I sense that you think the CIE doctrine is
the be-all, end-all of the matter of the term.
Madison Avenue prefers to disagree.
Why is it more or less mysterious or un-wieldy than any other word In
context?
Yours in semantics/
On Mon, Jan 6, 2020 at 12:06 Andrew Rodney <email@hidden> wrote:
>
> > On Jan 6, 2020, at 12:32 PM, Wire ~ via colorsync-users <
> email@hidden> wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, Jan 6, 2020 at 06:52 Andrew Rodney via colorsync-users <
> > email@hidden> wrote:
> >
> >> I already provided an example in 24-bit encoding within sRGB where two
> >> sets of device values are the same color (deltaE of 0.01). Two numbers,
> ONE
> >> color.
> >>
> >> It's just math to divide up numbers. Analogy. I have a 3 pound apple
> pie.
> >> I can make 16 slices to serve to company. I can make 8 bigger slices or
> 32
> >> much smaller slices, it's still an 8 pound pie.
> >
> >
> > Hi Andrew, would you be so kind as to contextualize your observations?
>
> http://digitaldog.net/files/ColorNumbersColorGamut.pdf
>
>
> > Why is it significant that there might be indistinguishable colors in an
> 8
> > bpc format vs an 10 bpc format?
>
> The significance is that colors have to be observed as outlined by
> Fairchild and others. If you can't see it, it's not a color.
> There are numbers that don't define colors. I provided an example in
> ProPhoto RGB.
> There are differing sets of numbers that are the same color. I provided an
> example in sRGB using 24-bit encoding.
>
>
> > Aren't Indistinguishable colors a trivial concern? Just turn off your
> > screen and bamm! :)
>
> Colors are always observable. Some triplets of color numbers are not. Some
> close triplets are the same observed color.
> We can define 16.7 million numbers but we can't see them all as colors.
> Because depending on the color space, the numbers fall outside human vision
> (and as such can't be called colors.
>
> There are groups of numbers in that 16.7 million sets that appear as the
> same color.
> Depending on the color space, there are groups of numbers that in 16.7
> million sets are invisible. They are not colors.
> There are numbers used in all kinds of industries and in science that
> define things we can't see. Colors are seen, not all color numbers (device
> values) are visible or indistinguishable.
>
> I know of no color expert or resource that states the standard observer
> model provides the visibility of 16.7 million colors. While I know of no
> total agreement, I've heard figures of 7-12 million. 16.7 is simply a value
> that's new and 'special' due to the encoding of 8-bits per color NUMBERS on
> computer systems. That doesn't make them colors. That you can divide up
> numbers into billions of values doesn't make them colors and certainly
> doesn't make them when visisble., indistinguishable; my 24 bit sRGB example
> illustrates that.
>
>
> > The marketeers have "counted" the "colors". It's as simple as this. And
> the
> > claim is no lie🎱
>
> No, they have not! They have counted the numbers of encoding values. Just
> like in my Pie analogy, no matter how you slice up a 3lb pie into tinier
> pieces, it's still 3 pounds.
> This isn't to say high bit encoding isn't useful; it absolutely is! And
> I've gone on record discussing where it is useful:
>
> http://digitaldog.net/files/TheHighBitdepthDebate.pdf
>
> > If you're gonna trudge on about invisible colors, we should keep in mind
> > that as well as color blindness, which is quite common 1/13 men I think,
> > there are some people—very rare and typically women—who can see well
> beyond
> > the spectrum locus, like they can see a fourth primary. Also, from an
> > anthropological perspective, local populations have been found that can
> > distinguish within certain ranges, say green, much better than average.
>
> There really is no such thing as an invisible color. If you can't see it,
> it's not a color.
> I can't speak to the 'Standard color blind Observer' as I don't know if
> any such studies were ever done on this group.
> I CAN speak of the Standard Observer based on perpetual experiments dating
> back to the 1930's and the theoretical plot of what the Standard Observer
> can see as colors.
> And I can plot device values in some color spaces, numbers, that fall
> outside what the Standard Observer can see as colors. Hence, if we are to
> believe experts like Fairchild, they are NOT colors. They ARE numbers.
>
> > Then there is the psychological adaptation: you can learn to observe.
>
> You can't see R0/G255/B0 in ProPhoto RGB any more than you can see into
> the infrared spectrum.
>
> > And there's the matter of unconscious bias, as this whole topic of the
> > physics of the qualia is being encountered under the even more strange
> and
> > elusive regime of language.
>
> You can't see R0/G255/B0 in ProPhoto RGB any more than you can see into
> the infrared spectrum.
>
> > It seems like what you are saying is the "billions of colors" claim is a
> > spooky bit of both?
>
> It's not spooky, it's simply wrong if we agree, as many experts like
> Fairchild do, that color is a perceptual attribute of (in this case)
> humans.
>
> > If you don't need 10 bpc that's fine.
>
> Yes, it is and it's useful as outlined in the article above about editing
> high bit data. That doesn't change two facts:
> 1. We can't see 16.7 million colors let alone billions.
> 2. We can define millions and billions of numbers.
> 3, There are numbers we can define that we cannot see and thus, they are
> not colors. They are numbers.
>
>
> > Per Florian's comment about cal headroom, and Roger's question about HW
> > LUTs, putting the extra bits in the display can add life to good 'ol
> 24bit
> > color systems.
>
> I never stated that wasn't the case and totally agree that high bit data
> is very useful. As you can see, I've provided articles on that topic. The
> usefulness of high bit data isn't under debate, never was.
>
> > If what you are saying is a high fidelity image can be built from a small
> > palette, isn't that called half-toning? Aren't you DTP nerds?! omg2
>
> That isn't what I'm saying and never did. I hope the text above will make
> my position clear.
>
>
_______________________________________________
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