I don't think anyone here is laboring under a belief that color not a qualia. I defy you to show me something that isn't a qualia! So all of your well-made points seek to clarify a misunderstanding which none of us seem to have. :) If I keep parsing your comments I sense that you think the CIE doctrine is the be-all, end-all of the matter of the term. Madison Avenue prefers to disagree. Why is it more or less mysterious or un-wieldy than any other word In context? Yours in semantics/ On Mon, Jan 6, 2020 at 12:06 Andrew Rodney <andrew@digitaldog.net> wrote:
On Jan 6, 2020, at 12:32 PM, Wire ~ via colorsync-users < colorsync-users@lists.apple.com> wrote:
On Mon, Jan 6, 2020 at 06:52 Andrew Rodney via colorsync-users < colorsync-users@lists.apple.com> wrote:
I already provided an example in 24-bit encoding within sRGB where two sets of device values are the same color (deltaE of 0.01). Two numbers, ONE color.
It's just math to divide up numbers. Analogy. I have a 3 pound apple pie. I can make 16 slices to serve to company. I can make 8 bigger slices or 32 much smaller slices, it's still an 8 pound pie.
Hi Andrew, would you be so kind as to contextualize your observations?
http://digitaldog.net/files/ColorNumbersColorGamut.pdf
Why is it significant that there might be indistinguishable colors in an 8 bpc format vs an 10 bpc format?
The significance is that colors have to be observed as outlined by Fairchild and others. If you can't see it, it's not a color. There are numbers that don't define colors. I provided an example in ProPhoto RGB. There are differing sets of numbers that are the same color. I provided an example in sRGB using 24-bit encoding.
Aren't Indistinguishable colors a trivial concern? Just turn off your screen and bamm! :)
Colors are always observable. Some triplets of color numbers are not. Some close triplets are the same observed color. We can define 16.7 million numbers but we can't see them all as colors. Because depending on the color space, the numbers fall outside human vision (and as such can't be called colors.
There are groups of numbers in that 16.7 million sets that appear as the same color. Depending on the color space, there are groups of numbers that in 16.7 million sets are invisible. They are not colors. There are numbers used in all kinds of industries and in science that define things we can't see. Colors are seen, not all color numbers (device values) are visible or indistinguishable.
I know of no color expert or resource that states the standard observer model provides the visibility of 16.7 million colors. While I know of no total agreement, I've heard figures of 7-12 million. 16.7 is simply a value that's new and 'special' due to the encoding of 8-bits per color NUMBERS on computer systems. That doesn't make them colors. That you can divide up numbers into billions of values doesn't make them colors and certainly doesn't make them when visisble., indistinguishable; my 24 bit sRGB example illustrates that.
The marketeers have "counted" the "colors". It's as simple as this. And the claim is no lie🎱
No, they have not! They have counted the numbers of encoding values. Just like in my Pie analogy, no matter how you slice up a 3lb pie into tinier pieces, it's still 3 pounds. This isn't to say high bit encoding isn't useful; it absolutely is! And I've gone on record discussing where it is useful:
http://digitaldog.net/files/TheHighBitdepthDebate.pdf
If you're gonna trudge on about invisible colors, we should keep in mind that as well as color blindness, which is quite common 1/13 men I think, there are some people—very rare and typically women—who can see well beyond the spectrum locus, like they can see a fourth primary. Also, from an anthropological perspective, local populations have been found that can distinguish within certain ranges, say green, much better than average.
There really is no such thing as an invisible color. If you can't see it, it's not a color. I can't speak to the 'Standard color blind Observer' as I don't know if any such studies were ever done on this group. I CAN speak of the Standard Observer based on perpetual experiments dating back to the 1930's and the theoretical plot of what the Standard Observer can see as colors. And I can plot device values in some color spaces, numbers, that fall outside what the Standard Observer can see as colors. Hence, if we are to believe experts like Fairchild, they are NOT colors. They ARE numbers.
Then there is the psychological adaptation: you can learn to observe.
You can't see R0/G255/B0 in ProPhoto RGB any more than you can see into the infrared spectrum.
And there's the matter of unconscious bias, as this whole topic of the physics of the qualia is being encountered under the even more strange and elusive regime of language.
You can't see R0/G255/B0 in ProPhoto RGB any more than you can see into the infrared spectrum.
It seems like what you are saying is the "billions of colors" claim is a spooky bit of both?
It's not spooky, it's simply wrong if we agree, as many experts like Fairchild do, that color is a perceptual attribute of (in this case) humans.
If you don't need 10 bpc that's fine.
Yes, it is and it's useful as outlined in the article above about editing high bit data. That doesn't change two facts: 1. We can't see 16.7 million colors let alone billions. 2. We can define millions and billions of numbers. 3, There are numbers we can define that we cannot see and thus, they are not colors. They are numbers.
Per Florian's comment about cal headroom, and Roger's question about HW LUTs, putting the extra bits in the display can add life to good 'ol 24bit color systems.
I never stated that wasn't the case and totally agree that high bit data is very useful. As you can see, I've provided articles on that topic. The usefulness of high bit data isn't under debate, never was.
If what you are saying is a high fidelity image can be built from a small palette, isn't that called half-toning? Aren't you DTP nerds?! omg2
That isn't what I'm saying and never did. I hope the text above will make my position clear.