Re: NEC PA271Q "Native" chromaticities
Re: NEC PA271Q "Native" chromaticities
- Subject: Re: NEC PA271Q "Native" chromaticities
- From: Andrew Rodney via colorsync-users <email@hidden>
- Date: Tue, 7 Jan 2020 10:25:43 -0700
> On Jan 6, 2020, at 8:45 PM, Wire ~ via colorsync-users
> <email@hidden> wrote:
>
> Andrew,
>
> Seems like the axe being ground through this "color" parsing is a
> discontentment that display marketing should implicitly agree with the
> reckoning that a color doesn't count unless it's defined as distinct under
> a dE reckoning.
No, that's not my point whatsoever. I'm getting to a point where I'm not
willing to attempt to explain to you the colorimetric facts and further.
For a deltaE metric, we need TWO color values. Numbers. We calculate their
distance (difference).
A value of less than 1 (and depending on the formula) is usually agreed to be
perceptually identical colors. But I know of no one who would suggest a dE of
0.05 let alone 0.01 appear differently using a dE 2000 formula.
The two sRGB values I provided have a dE 2000 of 0.01, that's colorimetrically
a fact. They ARE the same perceived color.
> At the time the convention was established for counting colors in the sense
> of marketing speak, the ICC was just being formed. None of the tools you
> refer to existed, and it was still not uncommon for color computer graphic
> to offer purely indexed color.
It doesn't matter. “Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored.” ―
Aldous Huxley
And your history is way, way off. Do attempt to research when the ICC was
formed. Do attempt to research why we have a dE metric called CIE76. Do not
confuse the history of the ICC with the history of the CIE.
> Ok, so you have a more specific definition of color based on ICC.
I think you should examine the actual history of the ICC and the history of
colorimetry and deltaE specifically before posting again.
> Should the rest of the world be required to use your def?
Colorimetric facts do not cease to exist because of what's ignored by 'the rest
of the world' (whatever that implies by assumption).
> It's an absurd claim to say that color doesn't exist except under an ICC
> regime.
I never stated that, neither did Fairchild, Giorgianni and Madden, GATF, Sharma
or Rodney!
> I will repeat: The vendor claim means nothing more than a device data
> format, which happens to precisely define colors under a device regime
> where "color" is well understood to be a stimulus in context, not a
> sensation. 30 bit RGB data format is 1 billion colors in device context.
> It's not confusing unless you wish it were defined some other way.
The term color isn't defined here and it's largely misunderstood. We cannot see
billions of colors. Please attempt to find one color expert who claims the
standard observer model let alone any human can see billions of colors.
> If you wish the vendor to add an asterix (*) (Andrew Rodney has approved
> and endorses this devices colors under an ICC tolerance of xyz) that's
> fair! But don't suggest there's some general principle of the use of the
> word based on your prefs.
Colorimetric facts do not cease to exist because of what's ignored
> So where is your argument going?
It's falling on deaf ears for one person here but that doesn't matter as
Colorimetric facts do not cease to exist because of one person here has ignored!
> I might follow your thinking if it helped clarify matters for uninitiated
> users, but by your reasoning users should doubt a product which offers a
> useful feature such as 10 bpc datapath because ...
Note that statement is devoid of the word "color" so maybe, maybe you're
catching on the difference between color and bits encoded. Maybe. ;-)
We cannot see billions of colors let alone 16.7 million.
We CAN define billions of numbers through encoding and high bit encoding is
damn useful as I've outlined in an article dated 13 years ago! I'll let my
record stand.
> Why? Instead they should choose a display that offers ... What?
Note that statement is devoid of the word "color" so maybe, maybe you're
catching on.
We should choose a display based on it's actual attributes, not based on
language that's incorrect technically. No display produces billions of colors.
Some do produce billions of device values. I don’t know if you are purposely
trying not to understand this, or if you are really struggling with it.
> (*)Tell your dealer you want real color,
I get real color, colors I can see. I want the marketing people to use accurate
terms, not mangle them in an attempt to sell them to those who don't understand
that no display produces billions of colors.
> AR approved color! Remember: With
> ARColor, you can settle for less colors. ARColor is a registered trademark
> of Andrew Rodney Color Inc.
The absurd is the last refuge of a pundit without an argument. I'm done
replying to your absurdities. I'm sorry the colorimetric facts have ruined your
day sir.
Andrew Rodney
http://www.digitaldog.net/ <http://www.digitaldog.net/>
_______________________________________________
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