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: Roger Breton via colorsync-users <email@hidden>
- Date: Sun, 12 Jan 2020 19:02:57 -0500
I'm glad the ICC exists, Wire.
ICC profiling may not be bullet proof but it's a set of tools that's better
than no tools at all, to deal with the complexity of "color" 😊
/ Roger
-----Original Message-----
From: colorsync-users
<colorsync-users-bounces+graxx=email@hidden> On Behalf Of Wire
~ via colorsync-users
Sent: Sunday, January 12, 2020 6:13 PM
To: 'colorsync-users?lists.apple.com' List <email@hidden>
Subject: Re: Humans (and cameras and scanners) do not have a color gamut (?)
As you the original point of how many colors the human eye can see:
This topic has become a big red herring.
The original quandry was about the term "billions of colors" and in the context
of the original post on the value of a 10 bpc data path to a display, the use
of that term is completely fine. To have a basic understanding of the
technology is to have no trouble with it.
(omg 100 posts later in a contest over the word gamut).
If you get super precise about this jargon, then the name of the ICC is absurd.
Where is this so-called "color" they talk about but in the eye of the beholder?
It should be the ICCC, the International Conjecture of Color Consortium because
all they have is a vast approximation.
The CIE doesn't suffer this because they steadfastly stand apart from the
terminology of the qualia and stick to the physics. They knew what they were up
against. It's commision on light—well, light the way the Swiss think about it
in French, anyways...
I appreciate Rodney's reading list. Thank you!
_______________________________________________
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