Re: Humans (and cameras and scanners) do not have a color gamut (?)
Re: Humans (and cameras and scanners) do not have a color gamut (?)
- Subject: Re: Humans (and cameras and scanners) do not have a color gamut (?)
- From: Andrew Rodney via colorsync-users <email@hidden>
- Date: Wed, 8 Jan 2020 09:20:55 -0700
None of the word salad below disputes the facts provided by actual, well know
and established color scientists that state, without a lick of ambiguity that
digital cameras do not have a color gamut.
You are free within your unreality bubble and confirmation bias to believe this
isn't so, or that the Earth is flat.
"Facts are facts and will not disappear on account of your likes."
-Jawaharlal Nehru
> On Jan 8, 2020, at 7:50 AM, Wire ~ via colorsync-users
> <email@hidden> wrote:
>
> Speaking for myself alone...
>
> I can intellectually appreciate all these finer points.
>
> And I enjoy the pedantic!
That's not the reason nor goal for this list.
> But there's an aspect of the burgeoning vernacular which becomes tedious
> when it's a fight for control.
Go away as you've promised if you find this tedious. It's tedious trying to get
through your unreality bubble of alternative facts you assume.
> So as to parsing this stuff, pick the level and degree of detail
> appropriate to the matter at hand, observe Occam's Razor, and goof around a
> bit.
>
> Under this preface, in context:
>
> Cameras in the conventional sense of photographic technology didn't change
> the world because they captured configurations of electromagnetic radiation
> and exposed a plate which was chemically engraved to reveal the pattern of
> rays passing from a scene through an aperture. No! Cameras affect us
> because they produce images!
>
> So vision is just such a basic and essential aspect of the topic of
> imaging, and color is so essential to vision that if you are gonna tear
> these apart it should be to make specific points about how the parts
> interrelate, not to establish a divine covenant — or coven of witches, with
> ritualistic rules and mantras — however academically well-informed your
> practices may be.
>
> Today a camera as most people possess one is a total colorimetric system.
> And a whole lot more! A whole web connected PC has been put inside. It
> emits fully colorimetrically formed images so reliably that even a phone
> cam can be a reference standard. And it lets you assemble edit and
> distribute anywhere with four-aces fidelity!
>
> So what's going on with this desire to cast colorimetry out of it?
>
> The only way this makes sense is if you think a camera is something other
> than what — for example — I just described.
>
> Maybe you think the camera ends at, idk, the sensor, or film plane? That's
> well and good, but please be specific about what constitutes the device you
> are describing so the context is clear.
>
> If you say a camera has no gamut,
You're still lost. I provided text by two well known and respected color
scientists, one including his entire factuality in on his comments that digital
cameras do NOT have a color gamut. THEY say a camera has no color gamut.
You're some guy (maybe 300lbs, sitting on a bed in your parents basement <g>),
hiding behind an alias disagreeing with the color science.
I take Fairchild and Parker and Iliah seriously and accept what they teach me,
I don't take you at all seriously and I doubt other's here do either.
Enough said on that!
Thanks for admitting off list (real man that you are) that indeed you don't
have a SpectraView and confirming my concept that your 3% then 10% better
metric was utterly made up, assumed and based on speculation, like your
inability to accept the writings of actual color scientists many here know and
respect.
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