> Even if the article did not state anything about the actual effects of these differences.
You could have stopped typing there.
1,510 karma · joined January 31, 2013
You could have stopped typing there.
See 'unlawful', which is difficult to unpack to "some laws" or worse "not all laws", agree?
Along these lines, my point was that racism, bigotry, homo/transphobia is a cultural byproduct of an accumulation of speech and text that may be politically violent.
The hidden ideological ground that all laws are ethical and just at any given point in history is absurd.
Speech and words can be loaded with ideological stances. Those can amount to political violence over time, and normalize such against others.
Speech and words aren't passive, but rather loaded ideologically and politically.
This doesn't begin to decant the fallacy of "unlawful."
Quite a huge difference there.
https://agingmillennialengineer.com/2018/02/15/fuck-you-i-li...
*Edit: Set link to original military poster.
You sound like a perfect candidate to dig into Colour. There are a great many extremely knowledgeable people around that project that can help.
Mark Fairchild's Color Appearance Models is probably about the most canonical tome one can recommend, with the caveat above.
To do what you are seeking, you would need an accurate profile of your camera in question, as well as likely a spectrophotometer for the objects in question. It is a pretty tricky field.
I would encourage you to contact the Colour Science Twitter feed to get in on the Slack channel for help and guidance.
See you there!
The weapons and technologies of mass persuasion and reinforcement were paid for and researched under a for-profit system. It took a while to realize that there were other areas they could be readily adapted for further profit.
What is not expressed in saying "RGB" or "CMYK" are the other critical facets that define what they are referencing. In RGB, what are the colours of the three lights and what is the combined white point? In CMYK, what are the colours of the inks, the paper colour / type, and the illuminant in question? The mixture of the unsaid contexts are what define how colours result to a standard observer.
In the case of Lab, one must take care to assert that the same formulation has taken place before comparing values. For example, it isn't enough to just say "RGB" because of the facets above. What are the colours of primary lights in the source RGB space? The destination you are comparing? What are the white points? What is the white point assumed in the formulation for the Lab conversion?
Only when all of the contexts are identical do the values take on meaning, and a valid comparison within the limits of the encoding model is possible.
TL;DR:
* Make sure you are aware of the primaries of the RGB spaces being compared with Lab.
* Make sure your white points are aligned on the RGB spaces being compared with Lab.
* Make sure your RGB spaces are aligned to the white point of the Lab formulation in question.
* Make sure you are linearising your RGB spaces correctly before converting to Lab; every RGB space typically has a unique transfer function.
* Be well aware of the limitations of Lab, such as red turns yellow and blue turns purple hue nonlinearity etc.
* Be using an appropriate model for the intensities of light being compared. Lab, for example, is not well suited for anything beyond diffuse white reflectance values.
Colour should be able to handle all of the above points, and deliver great looking plots as well!
Reading this makes my stomach sore.
Remember that RGB is not a colour space. Neither is CMYK. Colour encoding models do not necessarily imply a colour space as outlined by the definition of an RGB colour space via ISO 22028-1.
Even Lab encodings will vary based upon the assumed white point.
Your "free market" can collapse into batshit loopy eugenics as it can a wonderful academic discourse.
Cultures require grooming like any garden.
The field of perception and "optical illusion" is another such foundation. See Carpentered World hypothesis for example.
Yet a good deal of investigation supports Foucault's position over the years.
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/05/170502112607.h...
The issue here is that it reaches right back to the core ideas around epistemology, and those, whether we are culturally mature enough to accept it or not, get murky.
> Maybe it's not possible.
Well said.
Charities for example, might have a designer working pro bono. However, within that capacity, they are essentially working under the same constraints a designer on a team would. Many libre / open source projects don't have the funding nor structure to hire a designer.
Let it be clear, contests and speculative efforts are a toxic cesspool. Encouraging designers to integrate with a team, pro bono or otherwise, is a trend away from contests and speculative garbage.
> from the likes of RED, Canon, Blackmagic etc
Guess which sensor in in some of BlackMagic's offerings?
Not entirely fair to Google here.
No one would have purchased the original iPhone were it not heavily subsidized by AT&T. No one. One could argue that the same forces apply today regarding most phone purchasers.
> and god knows what else when if much rather just pay like $49 for a properly made application with a permanent license.
Except the numbers of downloads show that this approach isn't gaining traction. In fact, look at how many applications switched to a subscription model the moment Apple permitted it?
On the side of development, subscriptions make sense. Software development isn't a one-off fee to make software these days, as 99.995% of the people here realize.
Isn't subscription the only sustainable model?
The better fact is to cite that a monkey is as accurate as a polygraph machine.
Remember that 50% numerical accuracy is _because it cannot be any lower_. If it could, it would be inversely utilized for accuracy.
More rubbish out of the polygraph playbook. AI is the modern Mechanical Turk when applied to the complex nonlinearities of human behavior.
Doubly so when one side is at odds with the other side's values. History is a good guide here: When one side is against a value system, negotiating isn't an option. Fight them.
It is an absolutely fact based statement. Sometimes being factual will rally the side required to win the war.
In hindsight, I truly believe that not only were his theories several generations ahead of their time, but also likely a critical body of work regarding epistemology that would relate to developments in AI etc.