April 2024 - colorsync-users

CFP Announced: Color & Imaging Science (CIC32)
by Roberta Morehouse 23 Apr '24

23 Apr '24

IS&T Color and Imaging Conference (CIC32) 📅 October 28 - November 1, 2024 📍 Montreal, Canada 🔗 https://bit.ly/CIC32 We are thrilled to announce that the 32nd Color and Imaging Conference (CIC32) is coming to Montreal, Canada! Join us for a vibrant week of cutting-edge discussions, innovative research, and networking opportunities in color science and imaging. PROGRAM TOPICS - Color Perception and Cognition - Capture and Reproduction - Material and Color Appearance - Color in Illumination and Lighting - Color Theory - Image Quality - Multispectral Imaging - Specific Color Applications - Color in Computer Graphics - Color in Computer Vision - Motion Picture Imaging Pipeline 📝 CALL FOR PAPERS: Authors can submit original work for double-anonymized peer review. Accepted papers are published as Open Access in the proceedings. SUBMISSION OPTIONS: 1. Journal-first paper is a standard-length, publication-ready paper that appears in the Journal of Perceptual Imaging (JPI) or the Journal of Imaging Science and Technology (JIST) before the meeting and as a reprint in the CIC proceedings. 2. Conference paper of 4-6 pages published in the CIC proceedings. 3. Presentation-only paper is an extended abstract of 1-2 pages selected as an oral or interactive poster paper. View the call for papers and learn how to submit your research at https://bit.ly/CIC32-CFP. 🎟️ REGISTRATION: Opening late August 2024. Subscribe for notifications about CIC32: https://bit.ly/IST_Subscribe Don't miss this exciting opportunity to be part of CIC32 in Montreal! Join us for a week of learning, sharing, and advancing the field of color and imaging. Roberta Morehouse Communications and Marketing Manager Society for Imaging Science and Technology (IS&T)<http://www.imaging.org> —imaging across applications— IS&T is a non-profit organization dedicated to advancing science and technology in imaging. Please consider a donation.<https://www.imaging.org/site/IST/About_Us/Donations/IST/About/Donations.asp…> Please contact info(a)imaging.org<mailto:info@imaging.org> for immediate requests! Connect with us on LinkedIn<https://www.linkedin.com/company/society-for-imaging-science-and-technology…> and Twitter<https://twitter.com/ImagingOrg> @ImagingOrg

1 0

Re: Monitor/display suggestions?
by Henry Davis 05 Apr '24

05 Apr '24

Wayne, I'm not saying that the subject at hand is of little importance - it’s worse than that. What I’ve said is that the results of this kind of classification could be meaningless. It’s certainly not meaningless to the people crafting it and also not meaningless for manufacturers. However, the classification only considers one side of the equation - I have yet to learn how it addresses observers. The best it can offer is a probability based on a model of some “standard” observer. I’m not trying to be argumentative but so far not a single post has addressed what is for me the main issue. The observer can't be overlooked before proceeding. Both of your points tell of the importance of the project. You start out by denying that it’s a “badge” or advert rating (please tell what it's specifically being called) and from then on the quirks of the observer are left out of the conversation. It seems that a far greater amount of explanation is due to account for perception variations prior to the quantification of display mechanics. The cart has been put before the horse. Why not classify, quantify, systematize human perception and then go from there? Surely there are many varieties found in perceptual variation, perhaps so many that the goal here would become a matter of lowering the bar to the point of uselessness. Take the key color people in movie-making. The color timer/adjuster and other key decision makers need to find agreement. But what if they don’t see color anything like each other. Earlier I mentioned that color people ask each others’ opinions - it’s what they do - they don’t ask about display classifications. Just yesterday I saw a documentary explain that the person selecting the color palette for a TV program was actually color blind. The colors chosen were horrible for everyone else. Would a display classification do much for that? What if the disagreement isn’t quite that bad? If the displays are in the ballpark a classification won’t smooth out the differences. And there’s the audience perception to consider. The best case is 100% agreement for all parties. Impossible. There’s a good chance than none of the parties will be in 100% agreement even if the given display classification predicts the best chance of that. Great, we’ve got that going for us. I don’t believe display color can be dumbed down to be any better than fast food but if the goal is finding agreement the winner might be akin to fast food. The problem is solved by getting people together that have excellent color perception, people already in agreement to be “close enough”. Display manufactureres aren’t striving for the lowest common denominator - especially for movies, and color perception is still tested for certain occupations. Henry Davis > On Mar 29, 2024, at 2:48 PM, waynebretl(a)cox.net wrote: > > Hi Henry, > > I don't think anyone is proposing this as a "badge" or advertised rating (at least not for 3-color displays - multispectral displays are another thing). > > It IS important for display and equipment designers in two ways: > 1) Products viewed by mass audiences and more than one person with a given adjustment (TVs, movie projectors): > Suppose there is a display with limited gamut and range of variation within which a large percentage of viewers will find the mismatch acceptable. A small fraction of the audience will experience a relatively poorer match, but the provider is willing to live with it. As you might say, "that's life with 3-color reproduction." Now substitute a laser display with wide gamut - more, possibly most, viewers experience a noticeable mismatch. The metric is meant to let the provider decide whether the trade-off is worth it or not. This is an issue currently under discussion in the movie industry. > 2) Critical individual viewers (in industries where color match is critical): > The narrower gamut (wider spectra) display may have acceptable observer mismatch for most users when calibrated by a spectrometer using standard observer color matching functions, while the wider gamut display may have enough observer variation to require a particular visual adjustment to modify the instrumental calibration point for many users. Again, the proposed metric is helpful for the display/equipment designer to evaluate the probability of requiring such a visual adjustments of the display per individual user. > > Regards, > Wayne > -----Original Message----- > From: Henry Davis via colorsync-users <colorsync-users(a)lists.apple.com> > Sent: Friday, March 29, 2024 10:59 AM > To: colorsync-users(a)lists.apple.com > Subject: Re: Monitor/display suggestions? > > Thank you for that, Wayne. > > And yet while considering the “consumer report” the observer remains ignorant of his own perculiarities. At this point I can’t help but think that all of this data is meaningless to a random observer. If I were comparing displays such a badge would be as meaningless to me as the unknown visual perception of the other observers looking on with me. It can’t say that WE are seeing pretty much the same colors because we aren’t a random group of standard observers. We are “this” group, we are not “most” groups. The most it can say is that there’s a better chance, maybe, maybe not. > > I see two sides to the equation - one side is data the other side is a “normal” or “standard" observer. In this thread only one side is being addressed. Since nobody else seems to want to address it I guess I will be alone on that side of the equation. I’m ok with that. > > Henry Davis > >> On Mar 29, 2024, at 1:31 PM, WAYNE BRETL <waynebretl(a)cox.net> wrote: >> >> Hi Henry, >> >> The purpose of the observer metamerism calculation is to allow display designers to estimate the trade-off between statistical variation in observer color matches and gamut, as an effect of narrower spectrum primaries (wider gamut) or wider spectra (smaller gamut). That is all Rfik or anyone here has claimed, I think. It is not a marketing gimmick, because it always predicts this trade-off and therefore does not lend itself to claims of both wide gamut and better matching. "Tweaks," meaning small adjustments in the wide gamut primaries cannot cure the mismatch problem - a fact which you and Refik seem to be in violent *agreement* on. >> >> Refik's mention that a display designed using multiple primaries can improve the tradeoff should not confuse anyone on the above truth for three-primary displays. >> >>> On 03/29/2024 8:08 AM MST Henry Davis via colorsync-users <colorsync-users(a)lists.apple.com> wrote: >>> >>> >>> Hi Refik, >>> >>> Sorry but what you’ve said here is dumbfounding to me and counter to what I think I’ve been reading in the posts so far. Your lead sentence reads: >>> >>>> "Observer metamerism cannot be reduced by “tweaking” a display." >>> >>> I'm lost. >>> >>> I’ve read posts saying that OM is found to be less with certain displays and because of this there is the idea that displays can be classified accordingly. Instead of using the word “tweak” in my post I could have said that manufacturers could produce monitors that cause less OM. They could do this by “tweaking” the design of the output of a display. >>> >>> The index you mention seems to be more of a metric, a measurement, rather than a “feature”. If the index is a metric it must establish some sort of baseline for OM or it is useless. The index points to variations that must be related to differences in display design. At this point I re-read your first sentence and get crossed up. Is what you’re getting at a totally new kind of display like printers with more than 4 colorants? >>> >>> If this is all about the pursuit of a novel display invention then please say so. If this is only about classifying current displays for a marketing badge or something like that then please say so. If it s about doing both then say so. I think this might eliminate some confusion. >>> >>> I’m going to sit back for now, read more posts if they arrive and think more about my failure to understand what this is all about. Thank you for making an effort toward clarity. I am not a color scientist, just a casual observer here but I do work in the printing trade. My opinion is that there will never be a display that overcomes the variations of human perception. Measurement can only point to things that cannot be determined with the kind of accuracy desired. Theatre audiences will continue to experience the visuals of a movie differently just as they experience the sound differently - and perhaps the plot itself. Good luck. >>> >>> As a musician I encounter people who are tone deaf or tonally challenged. I understand that tone deaf people perceive percussion instruments in a way that agrees more with what other listeners hear. If you reduce the orchestra to only percussion instruments there is far greater agreement on what is heard. >>> >>> Is the root of the problem the display or the natural variations of the viewer? There are vision tests and there are hearing tests. We either learn to live with it or we change the entire nature of the orchestra. >>> >>> Henry Davis >>> >>>> On Mar 29, 2024, at 9:43 AM, Refik Telhan <rtelhan(a)icloud.com> wrote: >>>> >>>> Hi Henry, >>>> >>>> Observer metamerism cannot be reduced by “tweaking” a display. A WCG display can be tweaked for a closer visual match to a print sample in the desktop viewer just for a “particular” observer. But doing so typically makes the visual match between the two worse for other observers. >>>> >>>> The observer metameric mismatch index is a “design” feature of a display. Using four or more primaries can get things from both sides. But this would involve a total resdesign of the display and driving technology. >>>> >>>> Refik Telhan >>>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: Henry Davis via colorsync-users <colorsync-users(a)lists.apple.com <mailto:colorsync-users@lists.apple.com> <mailto:colorsync-users@lists.apple.com <mailto:colorsync-users@lists.apple.com>>> >>>> Reply-To: Henry Davis <davishr(a)bellsouth.net <mailto:davishr@bellsouth.net> <mailto:davishr@bellsouth.net <mailto:davishr@bellsouth.net>>> >>>> Date: 29 March 2024 Friday 03:12 >>>> To: <colorsync-users(a)lists.apple.com <mailto:colorsync-users@lists.apple.com> <mailto:colorsync-users@lists.apple.com <mailto:colorsync-users@lists.apple.com>>> >>>> Subject: Re: Monitor/display suggestions? >>>> >>>> I understand that it's possible to reduce it with display tweaking but doesn't measuring OM itself involve a large margin of error - maybe beyond what’s worth the effort in the first place? >>>> >>>> Henry Davis >>>> >>>>> On Mar 28, 2024, at 7:47 PM, Refik Telhan via colorsync-users <colorsync-users(a)lists.apple.com <mailto:colorsync-users@lists.apple.com><mailto:colorsync-users@lists.apple.com <mailto:colorsync-users@lists.apple.com>>> wrote: >>>> <Snip> >>>>> >>>>> The only solution to reduce observer metameric mismatch that is related with narrow band primaries is to increase the number of primaries beyond three. >>>>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored. >>> colorsync-users mailing list (colorsync-users(a)lists.apple.com) >>> Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription: >>> https://lists.apple.com/mailman/options/colorsync-users/waynebretl%40cox.net >>> >>> This email sent to waynebretl(a)cox.net > > _______________________________________________ > Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored. > colorsync-users mailing list (colorsync-users(a)lists.apple.com) > Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription: > https://lists.apple.com/mailman/options/colorsync-users/waynebretl%40cox.net > > This email sent to waynebretl(a)cox.net >

8 23

SAVE THE DATE: IS&T Color & Imaging Conference
by Roberta Morehouse 04 Apr '24

04 Apr '24

Join us for an exhilarating week of color science and imaging at the IS&T Color and Imaging Conference (CIC32) in Montreal, Canada! From OCT 28 - NOV 1, 2024, immerse yourself in a diverse array of courses, workshops, talks, sessions, and demos. Whether you're delving into the intricacies of display technology in XR or exploring the latest advancements in facial recognition, CIC offers a platform to connect, learn, and share innovation. Discover cutting-edge research, engage in stimulating discussions, and network with fellow enthusiasts and experts in the field. Save the date for CIC 32 and be part of this dynamic community pushing the boundaries of color and imaging technology. Click on the link below to stay informed about the latest updates on the Call for Papers and registration. Don't miss this opportunity to be at the forefront of color science and imaging! Join us at CIC 32 in Montreal, where innovation meets inspiration. Receive updates here: http://eepurl.com/iawbff Color and Imaging Conference (CIC32) October 28 - November 1, 2024 Montreal, Canada https://imaging.org Roberta Morehouse Communications and Marketing Manager Society for Imaging Science and Technology (IS&T)<http://www.imaging.org> —imaging across applications— IS&T is a non-profit organization dedicated to advancing science and technology in imaging. Connect with us on LinkedIn<https://www.linkedin.com/company/society-for-imaging-science-and-technology…> and Twitter<https://twitter.com/ImagingOrg> @ImagingOrg

1 0

Re: Monitor/display suggestions?
by Refik Telhan 04 Apr '24

04 Apr '24

Hi Andy, >From the way it is expressing itself in my daily field work, observer metamerism is already a very real problem. But I can also understand the reluctance of my colleagues to address the problem directly. The idea of using standard color gamut displays for soft proofing is probably seen by many as taking a step back. However, the whole issue needs to be discussed from the stand point of its usefulness in managing the print production process. A lot distance has already been covered. Refik Telhan From: Andreas Kraushaar <andreas.kraushaar(a)gmx.de> Date: 3 April 2024 Wednesday 09:53 To: "rtelhan(a)icloud.com" <rtelhan(a)icloud.com>, 'Henry Davis' <davishr(a)bellsouth.net>, <colorsync-users(a)lists.apple.com> Subject: RE: Monitor/display suggestions? Hi Refik, if we don’t find an editor (people being motivated – and not only idealistically), we might consider starting a revision. Otherwise, it will remain as is … lets see if observer metamerism become a real problem. regards Andy Dr.-Ing. Andreas Kraushaar Abt. Vorstufentechnik Fogra Forschungsinstitut für Medientechnologien e.V. Einsteinring 1a 85609 Aschheim b. München Telefon: +49 89. 431 82 - 335 Telefax: +49 89. 431 82 - 100 E-mail: kraushaar(a)fogra.org Internet: www.fogra.org From: Refik Telhan <rtelhan(a)icloud.com> Sent: 03 April 2024 01:57 To: andreas.kraushaar(a)gmx.de; 'Henry Davis' <davishr(a)bellsouth.net>; colorsync-users(a)lists.apple.com Subject: Re: Monitor/display suggestions? Hi Andy, The article by Steve Le Moan et. al is already on my reading list. It is one of the many attempts to quantify observer metameric mismatch. This issue may not have resonated much some years ago. But it is now a growing problem as we are seeing more displays with even narrower bandwidth primaries. I have started measuring the monitor white spectrally when observer metameric mismatch problems began surfacing in 2017 when my clients started replacing their CG 211s with WCG displays from different vendors. The problem is very much real. All of my clients had problems in adjusting themselves to the new situation and some are still having problems. As I have written in a previous message, I have even witnessed a situation where one of the observers in a multi observer color correction session asked the operator to reduce magenta in a grayscale image thinking that the image was a 4-color CMYK gray image. I hope by the time ISO 12646 and ISO 14861 go into the revision process, an established metrics on observer metameric mismatch becomes part of these standards in either the normative or the informative section. Refik Telhan -----Original Message----- From: Andreas Kraushaar <andreas.kraushaar(a)gmx.de <mailto:andreas.kraushaar@gmx.de>> Date: 2 April 2024 Tuesday 10:39 To: "rtelhan(a)icloud.com <mailto:rtelhan@icloud.com>" <rtelhan(a)icloud.com <mailto:rtelhan@icloud.com>>, 'Henry Davis' <davishr(a)bellsouth.net <mailto:davishr@bellsouth.net>>, <colorsync-users(a)lists.apple.com <mailto:colorsync-users@lists.apple.com>> Subject: RE: Monitor/display suggestions? Hi Refik, all, after 20+ years in standardization I can say that any industry gets the standards it deserves. We did create ISO 12646 to specify criteria for demanding graphic arts work and we are testing monitors https://fogra.org/en/certification/prepress-technology/softproof-monitor <https://fogra.org/en/certification/prepress-technology/softproof-monitor>. So if there would be a pain/motivation to update this ... Regards Andy PS: BTW, we also developed a method to indicate the observer metamerism potential (and presented it at European Display Conference) - but the feedback was zero. https://fogra.org/en/downloads/work-tools/softproof-lighting <https://fogra.org/en/downloads/work-tools/softproof-lighting> look for: An observer-metamerism sensitivity index for electronic displays Dr.-Ing. Andreas Kraushaar Abt. Vorstufentechnik Fogra Forschungsinstitut für Medientechnologien e.V. Einsteinring 1a 85609 Aschheim b. München Telefon: +49 89. 431 82 - 335 Telefax: +49 89. 431 82 - 100 E-mail: kraushaar(a)fogra.org <mailto:kraushaar@fogra.org> Internet: www.fogra.org

2 2

Re: Monitor/display suggestions?
by Nagy Péter 03 Apr '24

03 Apr '24

Hi Dimitri, Actually most of the contributions have a wisdom. NEC is out of the game, meaning (if you have the budget), you would have to choose something from the EIZO CG line. That’s the best you can have, currently (for a commercial application). BenQ is marketing a professional graphic display line with impressive specifications. I have mixed experience with them; while the hardware is good, they discontinued supporting their older models (can’t calibrate them anymore, as the software is obsolete). This is something which will not happen with EIZO. ASUS is also boasting, their ProArt line said to be DCI-P3, Adobe RGB and gaming-ready all at once. Impressive, if true… personally, I have my doubts. As others said, if you have a limited budget, you can still have a good (non-hardware calibrated) display from LG or DELL. In this case, I would recommend buying a Calibrite device, to maintain color quality. As to Refik’s arguments: I do see the problems with wide gamut. The best match for me (to a printed piece) is still an ancient (2008) QUATO 213, calibrated with an old Mac. However, in day-to-day production the small gamut is a limit, so I don’t see a way back to use sRGB monitors as an approval platform. Kind regards, Péter Nagy

9 19

Re: 1931 vs 1976.. how about CIELAB?
by Jeff Nova 01 Apr '24

01 Apr '24

Could the same be said about CIELAB? As far as I can tell, there are a good number of spaces that are superior in every way, explicitly designed for that very purpose? > Yes. The expert advice is to prefer 1976, but people are in the habit > of using 1931, perhaps because they don't know any better, or perhaps > because "that's what everyone else uses".

2 1

1931 vs 1976
by Jeff Nova 01 Apr '24

01 Apr '24

It seems the chromaticity diagram from CIE 1931 is the only one really used, although 1976 is considered to be a significant improvement. Do I have that right? We are deciding which to show first in our software, and I'd love any input I can get from the colorati! - J Jeff Nova Chief Executive Officer Colorhythm https://colorhythm.com Mobile: +1 510-710-9590 Main: +1 415-399-9921 *This electronic mail and the documents accompanying it are considered trade secret, confidential and/or proprietary by Colorhythm LLC. This information is intended for use by the individual or entity to whom this e-mail is addressed. If you are not the intended recipient, be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information is prohibited.*

2 1