- Joined
- Nov 7, 2008
- Messages
- 5,725
- Points
- 0
Especially to a camera.. but like eyeballs, cameras exhibit a great deal of variation from one model to another. I might be able to clearly see a difference in hue, but someone else might not. My Nikon camera might be able to easily show the difference between a couple nm, while my Casio camera might not.
When dealing with human perception in particular, this, in short, is the problem with science that tries to mathematically quantify that which is subjective. Of course there needs to be some scale that helps mathematically define color space for the purposes of creating balanced imagery or lighting, but when I see people throwing $50 explanations around and somewhat detailed math equations etc.. pertaining to something that is subjective and very much naturally variable it seems to me that there will ALWAYS be some unknown quantity, no matter how precise the math involved. And I love math.. I like to see it used wherever possible, whenever it's necessary. So far, no one has been able to satisfactorily explain to me why such detail is necessary, OR if it's even warranted. Because of the aforementioned natural variation I don't think it is, which is why I've taken such an interest in the subject. Personally I think that the color space chart and theory is being used as a sort of de facto standard that defines human color perception, but I don't think that it's even close to 100% accurate in that usage. Rayleigh effects, color blindness, natural photoreceptor variation, scotopic vs photopic sensitivity based on ambient light levels etc. are all examples of things that do not seem to be covered by the math and charts that have been presented here, all of which are very important parts of the issue of perception.
I'm not an expert though, and I could certainly be wrong, but so far no solid clarification of this usage and how it accounts for the variations and unknowns that have been mentioned has been put forth.
When dealing with human perception in particular, this, in short, is the problem with science that tries to mathematically quantify that which is subjective. Of course there needs to be some scale that helps mathematically define color space for the purposes of creating balanced imagery or lighting, but when I see people throwing $50 explanations around and somewhat detailed math equations etc.. pertaining to something that is subjective and very much naturally variable it seems to me that there will ALWAYS be some unknown quantity, no matter how precise the math involved. And I love math.. I like to see it used wherever possible, whenever it's necessary. So far, no one has been able to satisfactorily explain to me why such detail is necessary, OR if it's even warranted. Because of the aforementioned natural variation I don't think it is, which is why I've taken such an interest in the subject. Personally I think that the color space chart and theory is being used as a sort of de facto standard that defines human color perception, but I don't think that it's even close to 100% accurate in that usage. Rayleigh effects, color blindness, natural photoreceptor variation, scotopic vs photopic sensitivity based on ambient light levels etc. are all examples of things that do not seem to be covered by the math and charts that have been presented here, all of which are very important parts of the issue of perception.
I'm not an expert though, and I could certainly be wrong, but so far no solid clarification of this usage and how it accounts for the variations and unknowns that have been mentioned has been put forth.
Last edited: