On 13/5/04 6:58 pm, "Steve Upton" wrote: > what might the difference be? I assure you there are not 16.7 displayable > colors on your laptop display. The human eye cannot even perceive that many.
How many displayable colours then? How many colours in your view does the human eye perceive? Please respond with credible references not dogma. > > When speaking in terms of color we are, by definition, speaking in terms of > human color perception. Who are the we? Where is your authority for this assertion? > > It's fair to say that what I do for a living is work on clarifying the > relationship between device numbers and perceivable colors. Matters a little, otherwise convince me with verifiable facts. > >>> >>> I can send 16.7 million different RGB NUMBER combinations to a PowerBook >>> display but it will only display 518,733 different colours. This means that >>> 16,258,483 of the RGB numbers are basically "wasted". >> >> Lets take a hypothetical blue car under controlled day lighting and >> photograph it, then display it in the very best of monitors (with any >> necessary adjustment if you prefer), how many colours does the image on such >> screen display? > > obviously that depends on a bunch of factors. They will all be in gamut > though. This does not answer the question. > >> Lets take a blue card, a yellow card and a red card, place >> them on a white background, again in a controlled lighting situation, >> photograph them, download such image in your super computer with super >> screen. How many colours do you perceive? How many colours do you perceive >> or able to count count in a typical black and white photograph? I am sure if >> you carryout this basic experiments it will become clear to you whether the >> world is that multi-chromatic, and most importantly whether you actually >> need all that extra gamut the cinema display offers if not for your "luxury" >> or if this is very harsh then your "choice". > > I know I could do one thing. I could measure the cards and determine if their > colors are in-gamut for your display. I could then setup my machine in one of > two different ways and get the following results: Again, my question is avoided > > - If I used a large enough working space to contain the colors, my camera > captured them effectively (might need a camera profile for that), and then a > printer with a larger enough gamut AND I had a good print profile, I could > probably match the card pretty closely. It may not look saturated enough on my > display but I would be aware of my display's limitations. How large or small is the working you are referring to. Then again my question is avoided. > This is a Pro list though isn't it? In my experience Pros are rarely satisfied > with GameBoy-level color. Of course, albeit not exactly a scientific forum. I was making a mistake. > >> Seeing is believing. Perhaps one day you would care to visit us and set up >> your laptop alongside the screens here, and see just what a confining visual >> world you are subjecting yourself to. > Are you really listening to yourself? If you want to talk about colour in scientific or philosophical; terms contact me off list. I must however acknowledge that your contributions had been more focused till now than mosy of the gibbering that had been posted in this thread. Thread Closed: says list mum. Regards Inno' =============================================================== GO TO http://www.prodig.org for ~ GUIDELINES ~ un/SUBSCRIBING ~ ITEMS for SALE
