Philosophy of Progress (was Re: Gamma calibration)
Philosophy of Progress (was Re: Gamma calibration)
- Subject: Philosophy of Progress (was Re: Gamma calibration)
- From: Wire ~ via colorsync-users <email@hidden>
- Date: Sun, 12 Jan 2020 07:40:14 -0800
On Sun, Jan 12, 2020 at 01:44 Scott Martin via colorsync-users <
email@hidden> wrote:
>
> > On Jan 12, 2020, at 3:13 AM, Roger Breton via colorsync-users <
> email@hidden> wrote:
> >
> > Judging by the shape of the graph in the shadows, I am tempted to
> concluded
> > that there is "poor separation of tones"?
>
> [...]
PS: if you want to see more examples and dialog about how color gamut
> comparisons can yield false conclusions, check out the "Polarized M3
> Observations” section of my i1Pro3+ review.
> www.on-sight.com/xrite-i1pro3-review/ — Scott Martin
Hi Scott, read your writeup and the synopsis of the products features made
overall sense, but I missed the justification per false conclusions: I saw
the comparison of measurement plots but didn't follow how you think the
changes revealed in the plots will or won't influence final print quality?
It makes sense to me that taking into account fine points of distinction
between the way the instrument sees and eyes see will affect the plots.
This is elementary to the process.
And it certainly makes sense that normalizing variables of perception
results in more repeatable evaluations across scenarios... The review begs
this question.
What I'm wondering is are the optical qualities of texture and florescence
part of the visual experience or not? How do you decide to include or omit
these effects when evaluating the total system performance? And why do you
draw the line here or there?
Digression to context: Long ago I noticed that product reviews can be
oblivious to progress. This first occurred to me reading car reviews that
one year a magazine would report a model as being strong then in a
subsequent year the same magazine would denigrate the same model as
wanting, sometimes for the exact parameter that was before lauded. What the
rags avoided was contextualizing and reconciling how or why the strength
became a weakness, the advantage a liability. I realized the car business
doesn't thrive on doing transportation well, in fact it avoids considering
actual transportation metrics. It thrives on making you want something to
replace this year what it told you to want last year. Now that we are well
into the Anthropocene, this mentality of progress is seen to have
disastrous geopolitical and environmental characteristics. But what can we
do?! How could we know?! I love driving!
The mentality of progress as being nothing more than incremental subjective
advances that ignore legacies is now pervasive across industries, brought
on hard by the personal computer industry, which sees fit to destroy the
past in order to secure us into a future of relief from the horrendous
defects of their previous products. Meanwhile deep fakes and fear that
further progress will be even worse. If computer guys and technologists are
so smart, why aren't San Francisco bay area and Seattle two of the finest
metropolises in the world? Instead they are home to great problems of
poverty and displacement, environmental distress in many forms. Why did
Detroit collapse?!
Getting back to this Xrite review: I notice that after 20 years of advances
in ICC color measurement technology, the industry is still announcing—and
reviewers enthusiastically reporting—that the promise of color management
is about to been realized, and per your review, progress means you should
want not only the old thing you may already have and the new thing that you
should get to replace it, but both! In a couple years a new Xrite product
will be out and you should want that too. With generous trade up
allowances. Your transmissive scenario gains suggest that until now the
world has still be struggling with poor white balance?! I suddenly
understood the other poster's comment that wondered if maybe Xrite had
already solved the transmissive media challenge with EZ color decades ago
but this had not been noticed or was forgotten.
But moreover, it's the repeatability of the new visual medium destroying
the beauty of media? As the devices become perfected, they are ever more
literal windows. The most perfect the medium is at replication, the most
substanceless it becomes; its just a portal. What's on the other side? Do
the replication well enough and we will become lost in house of mirrors.
I was thinking about how such much of the current philosophical
conversation is rehashing old stories about tech from eatlier dayz and how
intellectual property and the web isn't helping us remember very well,
because actually knowing is not economically energetic.
Coming back around:
So question for this Xrite product. It no doubt is the finest of its kind,
but what about it leaves you wanting something that will be available in
the next rev? IOW imagine your review saying 'this product gets some things
right but these are gonna be meh compared to [insert future features]'.
What will these future features be and might we just wait?
Of course you can't have tomorrows features without todays churn! Put
another way, our economy is predicated on not knowing what's going on. This
is paradoxically weird considering everything we consume offers itself
under a presupposition that the people who offer it know exactly what's
going on.
The motto of the World Bank is "Working for a poverty free world"
Why do I get the sense this motto is their promise the job is never gonna
get done...
I was rewatching James Cameron's Avatar last nite w my teenage kids and
marveling at the (almost obscene) colorz presented on a well aligned Sony
projector.
/wire
_______________________________________________
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