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: Thu, 9 Jan 2020 12:54:03 -0700
On Jan 9, 2020, at 12:03 PM, Wire ~ via colorsync-users
<email@hidden <mailto:email@hidden>>
wrote:
>
> Greame's explanation gets to the heart of the matter: visual transducer.
>
> Consider a non-technical English definition for gamut as "a complete extent
> or range"
>
> What a camera does is not visual until the image is developed. Once it is,
> it manifests as a color experience that can be compared. Then you can
> ascertain completeness.
This was explained (clearer) far earlier.
An image, rendered from raw, in an RGB color space absolutely has a color
gamut. NO ONE has stated otherwise. A scanner that produces a JPEG (or TIFF) in
a color space produces an image with a color gamut. NO ONE has stated
otherwise. The fact remains, both the scanner and the camera do not have a
color gamut.
An apple isn't an apple pie. An apple is an apple. An apple pie can be made
from apples and other ingredients along with a process we call 'baking" into an
apple pie. To state an apple has a curst is wrong. To state an apple pie has a
curst isn't wrong.
> It's not that a camera has no gamut, it's more that it's sort of meaningless.
Facts are not meaningless to many of us here, the appear to be to you. No, it
IS that a camera has no color gamut. It isn't meaningless to others who've
expressed their understanding of how this actually works. If it were
meaningless to them, as it is to you, they wouldn't accept the facts of how
cameras work and express those facts.
I'm sorry that the facts have ruined your life and you find facts meaningless.
That's your choice.
> Until the camera transduces the scene into an image, you've
> just got spurious physics.
No, the capture device has no color gamut. It produces raw data whether you ask
for a JPEG or not. That raw has a color space but not necessarily a
colorimetric color space. There are colors we can see, it cannot record. There
are 'colors' (quotes on purpose) it can record we can't see.
This has all been hashed out days ago.
> Once it spits out a JPEG, you've got a gamut.
Or anything in an RGB color space! No one ever stated otherwise. The rendered
data has been encoded into a colorimetric color space and indeed, it's quite
easy for some of us to plot the color gamut of that image.
> We can all see that it really matters how you organize the abstractions in
> order to make sense of the system.
"We" means you're speaking for others and you should only speak for yourself
based on your understanding of hopefully the facts. The facts are again, and
again, and again, a digital camera, a scanner and humans do not have a color
gamut. Nearly everyone posting and the data from outside experts agree on that
fact. You don't have to however.
The rest (below) is unnecessary, assumptive and doesn't change the facts nearly
everyone posting here (expect you it seems) agrees upon.
> And as there are specific nuanced
> vernaculars with formal justifications, there are more common ordinary
> colloquial vernaculars that are as useful.
>
> All of the specific terms we are using work as both!
>
> No tyranny of thought is required, including a tyranny of correctness. Let
> truth be understood in relation to the principles and provisions of the
> matter at hand, and remain open to what seems to violate it, as this is yet
> another form of truth.
>
> IOW, following Occam's Razor, don't let your explanation get any more general
> than needed for your purposes.
My purposes is to express facts based on science (color science) learned from
others who do this for a living, have degrees in the subject, have produced
peer reviewed papers on the subject. Those experts are all in agreement about
this topic: capture devices like cameras and humans do not have a color gamut.
They have never stated that the results of the processed data doesn’t have a
color gamut. NEVER.
> If you are calling out camera gamut as a suspect concept, it's not because
> an sRGB JPEG is an invalid way of considering a camera's limits, but to
> examine the presuppositions of the images formation.
NO ONE EVER said a JPEG in a working space/color space doesn't have a gamut. No
one!
> This matters in surprising ways. If you think you are a professional
> photographer, you could consider that photojournalism is the most serious
> and important line of photographic endeavor. Truth is critical! In that
> profession, the camera is considered such an instrument of visual fidelity
> that raw processing is not permitted by press organizations because it's
> too editorial. It's in camera JPEG only. So does the camera have a gamut?
I am a processional photographer (at least before retiring, that was how I fed
my family).
Most of that profession was producing color transparencies so this idea about
JPEGs is moot.
I don't even capture JPEGs on my iphone anymore, I only produce and then
render, into a color space with a gamut, raw.
Truth is critical, the truth about digital cameras and color gamut, and the
truth about what color is to humans has been expressed days ago.
Why the need to regurgitate anything that doesn’t accept what at least a half
dozen actual color scientists have stated? Does the hole really need to be dug
deeper?
> WRT tree falling and reality, there's just no way to prove the sound apart
> from the hearer.
"The man of science has learned to believe in justification, not by faith, but
by verification".
-Thomas H. Huxley (1825-95) English biologist.
"I often say that when you can measure what you are speaking about, and express
it in numbers, you know something about it; but when you cannot measure it,
when you cannot express it in numbers, your knowledge is of a meagre and
unsatisfactory kind."
-Lord Kelvin
> The principles by which the world is organized are a near total mystery....
To perhaps you and those who ignore the current consensus based on the color
science.
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