I have a calibration spider for my monitor. My colour vision is too far off to get it right. I perceive colours differently to my wife and kids and possibly many other people. Now armed with a set of pantone swatches each we can match up roughly to colours, but there are still a lot of colours called 'yellow' and that opens a whole additional can of worms.
So what indeed. I know people with "perfect pitch". I am sure you do too. It is not of relevance to this discussion. Those people, like all people, are not immune to delusion in their perceptions.
Please try and list the innumerable errant assumptions you claim I have made before replying again.
That's exactly what people doing pre-press do, they use instruments to calibrate video monitor to paper. Doing it by eye is not possible.
Agfa PressTune - Print standardization toolfor more accurate & consistent colors
I will admit it looks like you are being more careful in more recent posts. Hopefully its a good sign.
Like Bob, I'm outta here for today. Good day
Last edited:
I am careful in all my posts. Nothing has changed, just like both your continuing refusal/inability to list the innumerable errant assumptions you have stated that I have made and your repeated running away when the content of your contributions is questioned.
Last edited:
How I wish the tools could finish the job without the need to tweak the result by eye.
Last edited:
The things that you were saying at around time I said you were making errant assumptions were and still are in my opinion errant. You won't change your opinion and I won't change mine, each is already firmly decided. Over time other people reading along can make up their own minds as to what they think. Jakob is only perceptual research scholar here who's opinions I trust and respect. You haven't done anything so far to make one think you deserve the same.
Have you ever stated the underlying problems of subjective listening test and its difficulties of dealing with bias?
Yeah, let's see you try to tweak a true professional grade or medical display with a 14-bit or higher 3D LUT by eye.
Firstly, you have supplied absolutely nothing close to specifying any errant assumption I have made.
Secondly, my opinion is not fixed on anything, I am an open-minded scientist willing to engage in debate and I have no reason to pursue any particular cause.
Thirdly, anyone who does read along will have realised that Jakob and I are of much the same opinion - and certainly not of opinions that oppose each other.
Lastly, your review of my contributions is evidently meaningless.
Sorry, not enough time there. Was in prepress since the late 90s up to a couple of years ago. Nothing works really well for uncoated media. Eyes only gets you nowhere, tools alone gets you only part of the way.
Last edited:
I will admit it looks like you are being more careful in more recent posts. Hopefully its a good sign.
Like Bob, I'm outta here for today. Good day
The days are very short where you live
I seem to recall Mark saying he isn't interested in debate, or it serving no purpose, or such like.
I agree with Mark, as I usually do. We have found our path to knowledge based on not only some university training, but also with applied experience in the fields that we liked, supplementing our acquired wisdom with independent study.
The path of an academic is a narrow one. Usually constraining the individual into a 'box' of 'approved knowledge' where he works well, but keeping him from accepting actual experience which shows what 'approved knowledge' sometimes ignores. This is true now, as it was 400 years ago, in Galileo's time when he was criticized by Francisco Sizzi (Professor of Astronomy) in 1610: " Jupiter's moons are invisible to the naked eye and therefore have no influence on the earth, and therefore would be useless, and therefore do not exist."
Does this not appear to be the same sort of 'reasoning' by academics today, when we point out some new discovery? '-)
The path of an academic is a narrow one. Usually constraining the individual into a 'box' of 'approved knowledge' where he works well, but keeping him from accepting actual experience which shows what 'approved knowledge' sometimes ignores. This is true now, as it was 400 years ago, in Galileo's time when he was criticized by Francisco Sizzi (Professor of Astronomy) in 1610: " Jupiter's moons are invisible to the naked eye and therefore have no influence on the earth, and therefore would be useless, and therefore do not exist."
Does this not appear to be the same sort of 'reasoning' by academics today, when we point out some new discovery? '-)
If you are directing your comments at me, then your perception of me is incorrect. I started not as an academic but as a hobbyist like many here. My academic studies in neuroscience are therefore in addition to my practical and experimental skills in audio engineering. Under no circumstances could you describe my professional career or my viewpoint as narrow: I would suggest a sniff of hypocrisy is apparent.
I have little doubt that you and Mark will continue to discredit the knowledge I have brought to this discussion. But you ultimately lack an open mind and the wisdom of which you write. If you have anything evidential to offer, then please do so; If you have answers to the questions I have asked you, then please furnish us with them. But if all you have is another irrelevant anecdote, then I would suggest for the sake of your credibility, you simply keep quiet.
Most bizarrely, many of my contributions referred to our hysteretic non-linearity that should have been something for "subjectivists" such as yourselves to jump at. Instead you appear deaf to anything new and overly certain of your view of the world. The irrelevant responses have become tiresome to me and I suspect (judging by some I read) to other contributors too. Mark's posts in particular verge on the puerile. If you do have to keep contributing, please try and remain relevant.
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.