For Rich and his fans.
in [Digital Cameras]
|
From: bugbear on 9 Feb 2010 05:18 NameHere wrote: > On Thu, 04 Feb 2010 14:14:45 +0000, bugbear > <bugbear(a)trim_papermule.co.uk_trim> wrote: > >> CMYK is a redundant colour space. It's equivalent (pace gamut concerns) >> to RGB. > > Wherever did you read this? Must have been one of those "net-truths" that > are so popular. The "net-truths" that float to the top of a Google search > because it's the most plausible and popular, but wrong, explanation for > those who can't think very clearly. The vast majority that don't want to > try to understand nor take the time to educate themselves on anything more > complex. This comprises the majority of all Google search-hits within the > first 3 pages of them which are offered. Someone's feeding you some pretty > good manure and keeping you in the dark. Do you feel like a fungus yet? > > When converting my images to CMYK from their RGB sources it's easy to see > how many of the colors are not a match and get shifted. The reverse also > true. Have you never done this in any editor with even something as simple > as a Granger Calibration Chart? The shifts and obvious gaps between the two > color-spaces are astounding. > > Here's an example to show you, starting with a 3000x3000 16-bit RGB Granger > Chart as the source. Sorry, I don't have a CMYK Granger-like chart handy to > show you the reverse. It can only be approximated in CMYK anyway. And I've > already wasted far too much of my valuable time trying to educate you to > begin with. Any CMYK to RGB conversion of anything would, of course, show > far less disastrous results. Though, come to think of it, the CMYK to RGB > is already implied in the right-panel because the CMYK space has to be > converted back again to JPG's RGB and your monitor. This would explain the > serious gaps in the colors re-presented. > > http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4071/4332259033_c0dced9de7_o.jpg > > > 3 discreet units of information vs. 4 discreet units of information. There > can only be a rough approximation between the two. And you want to argue > about 8 vs. 10 vs. 12 senosr bit-depths while ignoring something even more > simple for an example? Trying to go from RGB to CMYK is like trying to go > from RGB to reconstruct Bayer's RGGB. Though I'll admit, with slightly > less difficulty. Have someone explain to you why you can't reconstruct the > sensor's RGGB data from the resulting RGB file and you'll start to > comprehend why CMYK and RGB are not equivalent. I can't be bothered with > trying to educate someone on something so rudimentary. I've tried that in > the past and it was a painstaking task not unlike trying to teach a worm > how to flip a light switch. > > I wasn't going to address the rest of your comments because I was trying to > spare you the embarrassment. So I'll just address this one to show you why > I didn't bother. You can thank me for not addressing the rest of your post. Go and look up the word "gamut". BugBear
From: NameHere on 9 Feb 2010 11:57 On Tue, 09 Feb 2010 10:18:09 +0000, bugbear <bugbear(a)trim_papermule.co.uk_trim> wrote: >NameHere wrote: >> On Thu, 04 Feb 2010 14:14:45 +0000, bugbear >> <bugbear(a)trim_papermule.co.uk_trim> wrote: >> >>> CMYK is a redundant colour space. It's equivalent (pace gamut concerns) >>> to RGB. >> >> Wherever did you read this? Must have been one of those "net-truths" that >> are so popular. The "net-truths" that float to the top of a Google search >> because it's the most plausible and popular, but wrong, explanation for >> those who can't think very clearly. The vast majority that don't want to >> try to understand nor take the time to educate themselves on anything more >> complex. This comprises the majority of all Google search-hits within the >> first 3 pages of them which are offered. Someone's feeding you some pretty >> good manure and keeping you in the dark. Do you feel like a fungus yet? >> >> When converting my images to CMYK from their RGB sources it's easy to see >> how many of the colors are not a match and get shifted. The reverse also >> true. Have you never done this in any editor with even something as simple >> as a Granger Calibration Chart? The shifts and obvious gaps between the two >> color-spaces are astounding. >> >> Here's an example to show you, starting with a 3000x3000 16-bit RGB Granger >> Chart as the source. Sorry, I don't have a CMYK Granger-like chart handy to >> show you the reverse. It can only be approximated in CMYK anyway. And I've >> already wasted far too much of my valuable time trying to educate you to >> begin with. Any CMYK to RGB conversion of anything would, of course, show >> far less disastrous results. Though, come to think of it, the CMYK to RGB >> is already implied in the right-panel because the CMYK space has to be >> converted back again to JPG's RGB and your monitor. This would explain the >> serious gaps in the colors re-presented. >> >> http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4071/4332259033_c0dced9de7_o.jpg >> >> >> 3 discreet units of information vs. 4 discreet units of information. There >> can only be a rough approximation between the two. And you want to argue >> about 8 vs. 10 vs. 12 senosr bit-depths while ignoring something even more >> simple for an example? Trying to go from RGB to CMYK is like trying to go >> from RGB to reconstruct Bayer's RGGB. Though I'll admit, with slightly >> less difficulty. Have someone explain to you why you can't reconstruct the >> sensor's RGGB data from the resulting RGB file and you'll start to >> comprehend why CMYK and RGB are not equivalent. I can't be bothered with >> trying to educate someone on something so rudimentary. I've tried that in >> the past and it was a painstaking task not unlike trying to teach a worm >> how to flip a light switch. >> >> I wasn't going to address the rest of your comments because I was trying to >> spare you the embarrassment. So I'll just address this one to show you why >> I didn't bother. You can thank me for not addressing the rest of your post. > >Go and look up the word "gamut". > > BugBear Yes, you might want to do that. A good thing you left a note to yourself to remind you.
First
|
Prev
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Prev: P&S's pushed to the limit Next: Dpreview revamps its shabby reviewing style |