Andrew, Seems like the axe being ground through this "color" parsing is a discontentment that display marketing should implicitly agree with the reckoning that a color doesn't count unless it's defined as distinct under a dE reckoning. At the time the convention was established for counting colors in the sense of marketing speak, the ICC was just being formed. None of the tools you refer to existed, and it was still not uncommon for color computer graphic to offer purely indexed color. Ok, so you have a more specific definition of color based on ICC. Should the rest of the world be required to use your def? It's an absurd claim to say that color doesn't exist except under an ICC regime. I will repeat: The vendor claim means nothing more than a device data format, which happens to precisely define colors under a device regime where "color" is well understood to be a stimulus in context, not a sensation. 30 bit RGB data format is 1 billion colors in device context. It's not confusing unless you wish it were defined some other way. If you wish the vendor to add an asterix (*) (Andrew Rodney has approved and endorses this devices colors under an ICC tolerance of xyz) that's fair! But don't suggest there's some general principle of the use of the word based on your prefs. So where is your argument going? I might follow your thinking if it helped clarify matters for uninitiated users, but by your reasoning users should doubt a product which offers a useful feature such as 10 bpc datapath because ... Why? Instead they should choose a display that offers ... What? About 200K ARcolors(*) (*)Tell your dealer you want real color, AR approved color! Remember: With ARColor, you can settle for less colors. ARColor is a registered trademark of Andrew Rodney Color Inc.

Andrew, The gap here is that you feel the term "color" has to mean a distinguishable measures under your pedagogical / doctrinal system — which no doubt is of the highest quality —and I think term "color" mean — in context of the original quaery— a stimulus produced by a display device according to its input data format. To you, it seems my definition of color is incorrect and must be thrown out. Why? My sense is that its to control the dialog. You feel there's an orthodoxy and ignorant others are misguided for not following the one true way of [insert pedigree list]. As long as you expect me to adhere to your doctrine, I am going to be wrong and ignorant to you. You have avoided confronting this gap by called me ignorant. I am not claiming any specific level of knowledge beyond my attempt to support the observation that in the context of the original question, a "color" can be reasonably considered to be a stimulus from a display device, while noting that the range of stimuli a modern display in sRGB-mode produces can enumerated and found to be especially unique under common conventions for display performance. Pick the color space of your preference. As to whether you personally choose to count these stimuli as colors, it's your call. But the use of the term "color" colloquially to mean the range of names for stimuli is common and well understood. As to the significance of perceptual uniqueness of device stimuli, and the need for this: the whole point of high bpc data formats is to ensure that the stimuli are NOT perceptiually unique, because the viewer experiences this as banding! My god. Your attempt to commandeer the term color and claim it for some pedagogical priesthood is weirdly counter to the personal intellectual influences you cite, except maybe for Kierkegaard! He was a bit of a Jesus freak in the best possible sense :) The paradox is your doctrinal system expects me to observe its facts in a way that if color sensation were treated with the same tyrannical approach, we would not have the science and tools we all enjoy today! On Tue, Jan 7, 2020 at 9:25 AM Andrew Rodney <andrew@digitaldog.net> wrote:

On Jan 6, 2020, at 8:45 PM, Wire ~ via colorsync-users < colorsync-users@lists.apple.com> wrote:

Andrew,

Seems like the axe being ground through this "color" parsing is a discontentment that display marketing should implicitly agree with the reckoning that a color doesn't count unless it's defined as distinct under a dE reckoning.

No, that's not my point whatsoever. I'm getting to a point where I'm not willing to attempt to explain to you the colorimetric facts and further. For a deltaE metric, we need TWO color values. Numbers. We calculate their distance (difference). A value of less than 1 (and depending on the formula) is usually agreed to be perceptually identical colors. But I know of no one who would suggest a dE of 0.05 let alone 0.01 appear differently using a dE 2000 formula. The two sRGB values I provided have a dE 2000 of 0.01, that's colorimetrically a fact. They ARE the same perceived color.

At the time the convention was established for counting colors in the sense of marketing speak, the ICC was just being formed. None of the tools you refer to existed, and it was still not uncommon for color computer graphic to offer purely indexed color.

It doesn't matter. “Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored.” ― Aldous Huxley And your history is way, way off. Do attempt to research when the ICC was formed. Do attempt to research why we have a dE metric called CIE76. Do not confuse the history of the ICC with the history of the CIE.

Ok, so you have a more specific definition of color based on ICC.

I think you should examine the actual history of the ICC and the history of colorimetry and deltaE specifically before posting again.

Should the rest of the world be required to use your def?

Colorimetric facts do not cease to exist because of what's ignored by 'the rest of the world' (whatever that implies by assumption).

It's an absurd claim to say that color doesn't exist except under an ICC regime.

I never stated that, neither did Fairchild, Giorgianni and Madden, GATF, Sharma or Rodney!

I will repeat: The vendor claim means nothing more than a device data format, which happens to precisely define colors under a device regime where "color" is well understood to be a stimulus in context, not a sensation. 30 bit RGB data format is 1 billion colors in device context. It's not confusing unless you wish it were defined some other way.

The term color isn't defined here and it's largely misunderstood. We cannot see billions of colors. Please attempt to find one color expert who claims the standard observer model let alone any human can see billions of colors.

If you wish the vendor to add an asterix (*) (Andrew Rodney has approved and endorses this devices colors under an ICC tolerance of xyz) that's fair! But don't suggest there's some general principle of the use of the word based on your prefs.

Colorimetric facts do not cease to exist because of what's ignored

So where is your argument going?

It's falling on deaf ears for one person here but that doesn't matter as Colorimetric facts do not cease to exist because of one person here has ignored!

I might follow your thinking if it helped clarify matters for uninitiated users, but by your reasoning users should doubt a product which offers a useful feature such as 10 bpc datapath because ...

Note that statement is devoid of the word "color" so maybe, maybe you're catching on the difference between color and bits encoded. Maybe. ;-) We cannot see billions of colors let alone 16.7 million. We CAN define billions of numbers through encoding and high bit encoding is damn useful as I've outlined in an article dated 13 years ago! I'll let my record stand.

Why? Instead they should choose a display that offers ... What?

Note that statement is devoid of the word "color" so maybe, maybe you're catching on. We should choose a display based on it's actual attributes, not based on language that's incorrect technically. No display produces billions of colors. Some do produce billions of device values. I don’t know if you are purposely trying not to understand this, or if you are really struggling with it.

(*)Tell your dealer you want real color,

I get real color, colors I can see. I want the marketing people to use accurate terms, not mangle them in an attempt to sell them to those who don't understand that no display produces billions of colors.

AR approved color! Remember: With ARColor, you can settle for less colors. ARColor is a registered trademark of Andrew Rodney Color Inc.

The absurd is the last refuge of a pundit without an argument. I'm done replying to your absurdities. I'm sorry the colorimetric facts have ruined your day sir.

Andrew Rodney http://www.digitaldog.net/