If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
LMS and CMF spectral sensitivities?
Am 12.01.2015 um 02:03 schrieb Dale:
does CIE measure the rods/cones/LMS spectral sensitivity chemically or by observer experiments? CIE defines three curves, and these curves are standardized, not a measurement procedure. They have only limited correlation to the cone response curves or the absorption curves of the receptors in the eye. Let it be as it is, these curves are official, and they are the base of the XYZ colorspace. Historically, they have been obtained from color-matching experiments (with the limited technology available back then), where Y is (proportional to) the luminance, and then normalizing the curves such that the area under each curve is one. I think rbar,gbar,bbar were designed to produce CIERGB tristimulus values with the spectral power distributions of colors perceived. No. Besides, there is no single RGB space. RGB is a derived colorspace, based on XYZ given three primaries. I think, xbar,ybar,zbar were designed for XYZ tristimulus values, particularly for the point of tristimulus vales with a luminous function, Y. No. X,Y,Z are *defined* by these curves. Greetings, Thomas |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
LMS and CMF spectral sensitivities?
On 2015-01-20, Thomas Richter wrote:
Am 12.01.2015 um 02:03 schrieb Dale: does CIE measure the rods/cones/LMS spectral sensitivity chemically or by observer experiments? CIE defines three curves, and these curves are standardized, not a measurement procedure. They have only limited correlation to the cone response curves or the absorption curves of the receptors in the eye. Let it be as it is, these curves are official, and they are the base of the XYZ colorspace. Historically, they have been obtained from color-matching experiments (with the limited technology available back then), where Y is (proportional to) the luminance, and then normalizing the curves such that the area under each curve is one. I think rbar,gbar,bbar were designed to produce CIERGB tristimulus values with the spectral power distributions of colors perceived. No. Besides, there is no single RGB space. RGB is a derived colorspace, based on XYZ given three primaries. I think, xbar,ybar,zbar were designed for XYZ tristimulus values, particularly for the point of tristimulus vales with a luminous function, Y. No. X,Y,Z are *defined* by these curves. Greetings, Thomas okay, LMS is still the response of the cones and photopic vision? scotopic is the rods, dim vision, and there is usually not much notice of it in the broader fields? XYZ is "thought" up to be a tri-stimulus space similiar to LMS with Y being as close to luminousity as possible, and X,Z carrying the color load? Xbar,ybar,zbar are the color matching functions used with spectral power distributions of colors, in color matching experiments, to get XYZ, and ybar is defined as V the luminousity efficency function which is close to M in LMS? XYZ is the "standard observer" (1931,1964?,199sum?) not xbar,ybar,zbar? the same process in put in place for the CIE RGB space, note your comment that RGB is more of a implementation, but I think it is the closest hues that can be associated with LMS a broader question ... since CIECAM02 defines LMS as the connection space for appearance matching, from XYZ, why not get rid of XYZ and use LMS for device matching too? if you use HSL,HSB,HSV,etc. for color definitions you have a luminous function, HSV is probably more like what an artist uses to paint, etc. anyways, ... you can get to device edit controls from HSV I think ... an open system would have to be color matching as default, but I see ICC has some factions and have some pieces/parts of appearance matching that seems to fit the facts I read -- (my whereabouts below) http://www.dalekelly.org |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
LMS and CMF spectral sensitivities?
Am 21.01.2015 um 06:42 schrieb Dale:
okay, LMS is still the response of the cones and photopic vision? LMS is not XYZ. LMS space is defined by the sensitivity curves of the cones. Rod vision is (for this purpose) irrelevant. XYZ is "thought" up to be a tri-stimulus space similiar to LMS with Y being as close to luminousity as possible, and X,Z carrying the color load? No, once again, XYZ space is not LMS space. The X, Y and Z curves are "somewhat" arbitrary and not (directly) related to the cone response curves. Y is lumiance (approximately), X and Z add color information, but XYZ is not an opponent colorspace (like YCbCr) Xbar,ybar,zbar are the color matching functions used with spectral power distributions of colors, in color matching experiments, to get XYZ, and ybar is defined as V the luminousity efficency function which is close to M in LMS? Well, not really. Y is "observed luminance", and to that, all cones contribute, more or less. Mostly M, yes, but not only. XYZ is the "standard observer" (1931,1964?,199sum?) not xbar,ybar,zbar? XYZ coordinates are defined by the response curves x,y,z, these define the "standard observer". the same process in put in place for the CIE RGB space, note your comment that RGB is more of a implementation, but I think it is the closest hues that can be associated with LMS There is no "CIE RGB color space". There are multiple RGB color spaces (sRGB, ITU 601, ITU 709,...). since CIECAM02 defines LMS as the connection space for appearance matching, from XYZ, why not get rid of XYZ and use LMS for device matching too? Why would it make any difference? XYZ is standardized, so there are tables you can use. LMS is not. Depending on the researcher, the experiment, the observers... LMS space is a little different. But even if one would standardize LMS space, what difference would it make? LMS to XYZ is a linear matrix multiplication, thus there isn't much to do, and there are no advantages. Besides, XYZ has been defined for various targets in mind, for example to have always positive coordinates for all physically possible light sensations. Greetings, Thomas |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
LMS and CMF spectral sensitivities?
On 2015-01-21, Thomas Richter wrote:
Am 21.01.2015 um 06:42 schrieb Dale: thanks for your time in both responses Thomas okay, LMS is still the response of the cones and photopic vision? LMS is not XYZ. LMS space is defined by the sensitivity curves of the cones. Rod vision is (for this purpose) irrelevant. XYZ is "thought" up to be a tri-stimulus space similiar to LMS with Y being as close to luminousity as possible, and X,Z carrying the color load? No, once again, XYZ space is not LMS space. The X, Y and Z curves are "somewhat" arbitrary and not (directly) related to the cone response curves. Y is lumiance (approximately), X and Z add color information, but XYZ is not an opponent colorspace (like YCbCr) Xbar,ybar,zbar are the color matching functions used with spectral power distributions of colors, in color matching experiments, to get XYZ, and ybar is defined as V the luminousity efficency function which is close to M in LMS? Well, not really. Y is "observed luminance", and to that, all cones contribute, more or less. Mostly M, yes, but not only. XYZ is the "standard observer" (1931,1964?,199sum?) not xbar,ybar,zbar? XYZ coordinates are defined by the response curves x,y,z, these define the "standard observer". the same process in put in place for the CIE RGB space, note your comment that RGB is more of a implementation, but I think it is the closest hues that can be associated with LMS There is no "CIE RGB color space". There are multiple RGB color spaces (sRGB, ITU 601, ITU 709,...). since CIECAM02 defines LMS as the connection space for appearance matching, from XYZ, why not get rid of XYZ and use LMS for device matching too? Why would it make any difference? XYZ is standardized, so there are tables you can use. LMS is not. Depending on the researcher, the experiment, the observers... LMS space is a little different. But even if one would standardize LMS space, what difference would it make? LMS to XYZ is a linear matrix multiplication, thus there isn't much to do, and there are no advantages. Besides, XYZ has been defined for various targets in mind, for example to have always positive coordinates for all physically possible light sensations. Greetings, Thomas -- (my whereabouts below) http://www.dalekelly.org |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
LMS and CMF spectral sensitivities?
On 21.01.2015 13:04, Thomas Richter wrote:
There is no "CIE RGB color space". This is not exactly true: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CIE_193...GB_color_space Of course, this is just one among many RGB spaces. Greetings, Ingo |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Spectral Resposne of a Colour CCD camera | Niblock | Large Format Photography Equipment | 2 | February 3rd 06 01:47 PM |
Different DSLR sensitivities | RichA | Digital SLR Cameras | 8 | July 27th 05 04:48 AM |
Light Meter Spectral Response | Dan Quinn | Medium Format Photography Equipment | 93 | September 16th 04 11:18 AM |