Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: [1]   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Some color magic?!?  (Read 1239 times)
MarkM
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 335



WWW
« on: November 10, 2012, 05:45:29 PM »
ReplyReply

Here's one to make you scratch your head. Reading through it I couldn't help thinking they were going through an awful lot of work to 'discover' subtractive color models. I'd be interested to hear what the color wonks here think:

http://www.fastcompany.com/3002676/magical-tech-behind-paper-ipads-color-mixing-perfection
Logged

Czornyj
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1422



WWW
« Reply #1 on: November 10, 2012, 07:38:19 PM »
ReplyReply

Interesting link, thanks for sharing. I think there's no such a thing like subtractive color space - all CMYK profiles have LUTs witch colorimetric characterizations of various color combinations, so they use a brute-force method to predict what result we'll get when we mix paints.
Logged

Schewe
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5497


WWW
« Reply #2 on: November 10, 2012, 10:34:49 PM »
ReplyReply

Here's one to make you scratch your head.

Blah, blah, blah...additive RGB primaries, blah, blah, blah, subtractive CMY primaries...the color you mix is the color you use. A color will be some set of numbers–and pretty much every reproducible color can fit in a large gamut RGB color space. Not sure at all how useful that link actually is.
Logged
MarkM
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 335



WWW
« Reply #3 on: November 10, 2012, 10:37:44 PM »
ReplyReply

My hunch is that the marketing team is trying to make something very simple and well-understood seem revolutionary.
Logged

Rhossydd
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1965


WWW
« Reply #4 on: November 11, 2012, 03:03:33 AM »
ReplyReply

From the OP's link
"Open the color picker, and choose a color midway between yellow and blue. Any kindergartner will tell you the result should be green--but no matter what machine or software you're using, you'll get a drab gray"
Really ? I get green here.

I really don't understand their problem, you want a colour ? click on it.
Logged
Simon Garrett
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 387


« Reply #5 on: November 11, 2012, 04:11:07 AM »
ReplyReply

They seem to be saying that, depending on the mathematics of the colour space you're using, adding colour numbers might not always have the perceptual effect that you want. 






In cyperspace, no one can hear you yawn. 

Logged
Czornyj
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1422



WWW
« Reply #6 on: November 11, 2012, 06:03:20 AM »
ReplyReply

My hunch is that the marketing team is trying to make something very simple and well-understood seem revolutionary.

If it's so simple, why we use all that expansive profiling software and spectrophotometers to create huge LUT profiles for printers? Why we can characterize a (well calibrated) display with a simple RGB matrix profile, but we don't even think about using CMY(+n) matrix profiles for our printers? Why there's no synthetic CMY(+n) working space?
« Last Edit: November 11, 2012, 06:08:17 AM by Czornyj » Logged

Tim Lookingbill
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1199



WWW
« Reply #7 on: November 11, 2012, 01:12:50 PM »
ReplyReply

The only thing that made real sense from a scientific POV was the Kubelka-Munk function (first I've heard of it) in its attempt to describe color visually through a spectral reflectance model. That's a concrete visual description I notice quite a bit out in nature when the sun shines directly on different colored surfaces with differing reflection characteristics.

Where it falls apart for me is the failure of the article and/or the app to tie the math with the theory and show it within the app interface. I understand what happens when you mix paints especially of different formulation and branding. I could see the article and app wasn't about to go that deep. However, I didn't see knobs, sliders or a color palette that made any more sense than Photoshop's color picker. I just see samples and screenshots that suggest paint is duller and less saturated than I remember. Hoped they based their color appearance on high quality paints like $15 an ounce Windsor Newton watercolors.

It appears the app is just trying to mimic basic paint mixing by controlling luminance and hue appearance in the process. That I understand is very hard to accomplish when using Layers in Photoshop to create overlay complimentary color fills over each and have it mix like paint. Multiply and Overlay blend modes always alter the mix both in luminance and hue.

But then Photoshop wasn't meant to be a paint program, but an interface built on photographic technology which AGAIN that article failed to mention thusly confusing the issue even more.

They're young lions, might as well let them have their day in the sun. Hope they sell a lot of apps.
« Last Edit: November 11, 2012, 01:18:08 PM by tlooknbill » Logged
MarkM
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 335



WWW
« Reply #8 on: November 11, 2012, 04:02:46 PM »
ReplyReply

Interesting link, thanks for sharing. I think there's no such a thing like subtractive color space - all CMYK profiles have LUTs witch colorimetric characterizations of various color combinations, so they use a brute-force method to predict what result we'll get when we mix paints.

It's easy to create a subtractive color model that is essentially the compliment of additive models. It's something that's well known and has been around for a long time. Ducos du Hauron was granted a French patent in 1869 for describing subtractive color for use in photography and screen printing.

The problem, and the reason we need to jump through so many hoops to get good color from our printers, is one of manufacturing, technology, and the vagaries of the real world. Substrates scatter light in unpredictable ways; we can't make perfectly absorbing block dyes without unwanted absorptions; etc. So we need to go through a lot of trouble for the extra bit accuracy. But it doesn't invalidate the theory any more than inaccuracy from friction invalidate Newton's. There's a good discussion on the subtractive models and their problems in chapter 7 of Henry Kang's 'Computational Color Technology.'

I think article is pretty murky, but I shouldn't be so critical of the developers. Modeling what happens when you mix paint IS pretty challenging and isn't easily described using either simple additive or subtractive models. Having said that, Kubelka–Munk isn't a rediscovered breakthrough from the past—it's described an Wyszecki & Stiles and commonly used in industrial color matching.
Logged

Pages: [1]   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad