|
Antonymous posted:super cool and informative post this is awesome, you rock
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2022 20:47
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2024 16:09 |
|
|
this whole lesson about colour standards has been awesome and unexpected
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2022 21:15
|
|
|
Frosted Flake posted:They’re allowed to clean (parts of) them but they aren’t allowed to do full workshop level repairs or services and I believe some of the fouled parts need to be sent to the contractor. Great plan for when your supply line is under attack because you're not a colonial occupier anymore and the enemy has aircraft.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2022 21:29
|
|
|
To bring it back to Pantone, their colors are just points in that XYZ horseshoe. I guess they have some color management system that makes sure software and printers agree on what color is what from their catalogue. But XYZ is an open standard and there are handheld devices that you can point at something and it will tell you the XYZ color. And if a printer is calibrated, a display is calibrated, and a design software translates the colors on screen correctly to the printer's color space (this is something you can calibrate too if somehow the software can't handle it, but adobe products have a CMYK color mode that does this well) there's no need for a middle man like pantone. What you see is what you get. And if it's plastic or anodized aluminum and you want to make sure it's exactly the color the designer wanted you can do that too, just check the XYZ coordinate. And if a designer is working off an off the shelf screen and not a calibrated one the pantone system is worse than useless, since they have no idea if the colors of their screen are correct anyway. seems like a scam that is right to go away edit: before digital displays it makes a ton of sense. A printer of an advertisement in new york needs to print the brand color the same as a factory in mexico paints it on the part, same as a factory in vietnam dyes it on a branded hat, they all have a copy of the pantone book and they check their swatch against their paint/dye/ink and find it all agrees. that makes total sense. now you have digital displays and it makes no sense. Antonymous has issued a correction as of 21:41 on Oct 31, 2022 |
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2022 21:36
|
|
|
mastershakeman posted:This rules keep going
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2022 21:46
|
|
|
Antonymous posted:To bring it back to Pantone, their colors are just points in that XYZ horseshoe. I guess they have some color management system that makes sure software and printers agree on what color is what from their catalogue. You still have a copy of the Pantone book though, like they still make it. Like I don't feel like being The Pantone Defender much further but it feels like "you can just use this specific coordinate system that exactly describes perceptual colors, why do you need this thing specifically designed for use by the printing and manufacturing industry??" is making the same assumption every first principles tech startup does in that they can just think their way around this well-established industry thing, idk.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2022 21:56
|
|
|
I agree their business makes a lot less sense now, though, so whatever.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2022 21:57
|
|
|
Antonymous posted:And if a designer is working off an off the shelf screen and not a calibrated one the pantone system is worse than useless, since they have no idea if the colors of their screen are correct anyway. seems like a scam that is right to go away The logic's the other way around. If you're properly applying Pantone, it's by picking the color from a print swatch (or having it communicated from someone who picked it from a print swatch), at which point how closely your own setup approximating the color becomes irrelevant--ie you know you're working on something for Stanford, ergo you know the red on it is #201, whether it's on a calibrated display that gets it exactly right, a calibrated display that gets it as close to right as displays can, an uncalibrated display, a '90s display that gets it to the closest out of a list of 256, an '80s display that gets it to just red, the red colored pencil you grabbed from the box, or whatever crosshatching with a graphite pencil you chose to represent red. And the production side doesn't need a sample to analyze and the equipment to analyze it, they can just go to a proven blend. It's more something that could and should be replaced by a public standard. Just speccing XYZ turns into a mess of each print/paint/plastic shop needing to home in with test runs for every new production run.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2022 22:01
|
|
|
How did people colour match before? Like how did 18th c states tell mills in different places what colour the uniforms they needed when they ordered them?Did they send pattern pieces in the envelope with the order or something? Or, Austrian gun carriages were yellow, how did they coordinate a uniform yellow paint across 6 languages and a wide geographic area?
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2022 22:07
|
|
|
Frosted Flake posted:How did people colour match before? Like how did 18th c states tell mills in different places what colour the uniforms they needed when they ordered them?Did they send pattern pieces in the envelope with the order or something? if it worked the same way as paint pigments, you could just say I want "Naples yellow" and that would refer to the raw pigment (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naples_yellow) and you'd hope the saturation was right but things would probably just vary and people would live with it for the most part
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2022 22:11
|
|
|
Good Soldier Svejk posted:if it worked the same way as paint pigments, you could just say I want "Naples yellow" and that would refer to the raw pigment (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naples_yellow) and you'd hope the saturation was right but things would probably just vary and people would live with it for the most part Yeah I think you'd just say what specific kind of pigment you want, then just live with it when it comes back vaguely off because that's just how things are.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2022 22:22
|
|
|
Though if you were making something for the king that had to be exactly right I assume you'd probably go through a few rounds of test pieces before dying or printing the final thing. For anyone else, who cares good enough.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2022 22:23
|
|
|
Shame Boy posted:Though if you were making something for the king that had to be exactly right I assume you'd probably go through a few rounds of test pieces before dying or printing the final thing. For anyone else, who cares good enough. Oh for sure Though I am now thinking how cool it must have been to be living in the 1800s when all these new synthetic colors were being produced and you could be like "yoooo, new yellow just dropped check it out it's cadmium" less cool that they are largely toxic but hey
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2022 22:25
|
|
|
That reminds me though, there was a video I watched forever ago from this girl who makes incredibly intricate and accurate medieval outfits by hand who was explaining that for most of human history cloth was incredibly expensive, it required a ton of manual labor to make it and dye it etc, and you can even find portraits of nobility where they're clearly wearing clothes that have been patched or modified to update them to the current style, because buying an entirely new outfit was that expensive. Her point was that fashion being so cheap as to be disposable is probably a real fuckin' bad thing, and also idk maybe we all should learn to sew so we can mend poo poo. Anyone know what I'm talking about, I'd like to watch that again I really liked it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2022 22:29
|
|
|
Good Soldier Svejk posted:Oh for sure
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2022 22:31
|
|
|
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=68ugkg9RePc
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2022 22:34
|
|
|
We should just stop wearing clothes, just pocket belts and jackets when it's cold
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2022 22:37
|
|
|
clothing definitely peaked with tunics and cloaks pants are tools of the oppressors
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2022 22:38
|
|
|
the white hand posted:jeffery here's going to be complying with the wishes of capital now. pictured little known secret in the 80s that let furrys get gay married
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2022 23:18
|
|
|
In my socialist utopia, everyone wears single-use paper clothes, you pick out your outfit and have it made at a public printer, you can wear all kinds of different stuff but there's only one specific color for every day of the year
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2022 23:36
|
|
|
Mandoric posted:The logic's the other way around. If you're properly applying Pantone, it's by picking the color from a print swatch (or having it communicated from someone who picked it from a print swatch), at which point how closely your own setup approximating the color becomes irrelevant--ie you know you're working on something for Stanford, ergo you know the red on it is #201, whether it's on a calibrated display that gets it exactly right, a calibrated display that gets it as close to right as displays can, an uncalibrated display, a '90s display that gets it to the closest out of a list of 256, an '80s display that gets it to just red, the red colored pencil you grabbed from the box, or whatever crosshatching with a graphite pencil you chose to represent red. And the production side doesn't need a sample to analyze and the equipment to analyze it, they can just go to a proven blend. that makes sense thanks.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2022 23:39
|
|
|
Teriyaki Hairpiece posted:In my socialist utopia, everyone wears single-use paper clothes, you pick out your outfit and have it made at a public printer, you can wear all kinds of different stuff but there's only one specific color for every day of the year In my socialist utopia, everyone gets their 20 favourite outfits for free and any additional clothing costs $100,000.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2022 23:56
|
|
|
Antonymous posted:HDR also just means brighter colors, not more colors like some advertising claims. Better than any effortpost I’ve probably ever made, but I disagree with this line; newer research shows physical brightness really is yet another axis of color matching. This is usually described as ‘color volume’ rather than color space. There is just no way to simplify this poo poo, to make it worse color/luminance changes spatially and temporally are also important. It’s hard too, with my wife’s loving SCRAPBOOKING getting a decent color match was a goddamn nightmare back when I did color engineering for a living,. And to simplify Pantone, it’s supposed to offer replicated printing results within certain restrictions for printed materials, emissive displays are ‘eh, kinda’ for reasons involving both gamuts and finishes.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2022 23:57
|
|
|
Chamale posted:In my socialist utopia, everyone gets their 20 favourite outfits for free and any additional clothing costs $100,000. I'll take 20 pairs of pants so I can make 20 pairs of cutoffs.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2022 23:59
|
|
|
CRUSTY MINGE posted:I'll take 20 pairs of pants so I can make 20 pairs of cutoffs. couldn't you just get 20 pairs of cutoffs instead of making them yourself?
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2022 00:02
|
|
|
redneck nazgul posted:couldn't you just get 20 pairs of cutoffs instead of making them yourself? It would be a gradual thing, like my leftover trousers from the military. Every year a pair was selected for how ratty it had become. I could have a little sacrificial ceremony, bring in some satanists to round it out with a sacrificial goat shaped soy block.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2022 00:06
|
|
|
Shame Boy posted:That reminds me though, there was a video I watched forever ago from this girl who makes incredibly intricate and accurate medieval outfits by hand who was explaining that for most of human history cloth was incredibly expensive, it required a ton of manual labor to make it and dye it etc, and you can even find portraits of nobility where they're clearly wearing clothes that have been patched or modified to update them to the current style, because buying an entirely new outfit was that expensive. Her point was that fashion being so cheap as to be disposable is probably a real fuckin' bad thing, and also idk maybe we all should learn to sew so we can mend poo poo. I’m pretty sure you’re talking about Bernadette Banner. I remember seeing it as well, but I don’t know which video it was.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2022 00:09
|
|
|
redneck nazgul posted:couldn't you just get 20 pairs of cutoffs instead of making them yourself? use the cutoff legs to make more clothes
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2022 00:17
|
|
|
RandolphCarter posted:use the cutoff legs to make more clothes gulag
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2022 00:18
|
|
|
Remulak posted:Better than any effortpost I’ve probably ever made, but I disagree with this line; newer research shows physical brightness really is yet another axis of color matching. This is usually described as ‘color volume’ rather than color space. Yeah, that's cause the word color is too ambiguous. like,  Is this different shades of one color or 10 different colors? lined up like this you can see its one color I think, but if I just showed you just the brightest and the darkest next to each other and said "there is only one color in this picture" you'd think I'm being pedantic. So definitely brighter colors does mean different colors, more colors in that sense, and brightness affects perception of hue and saturation. But my post stops in 1976, which is when L*a*b* was introduced and that much better separates what is brightness and what is 'color'. It's not a model you can look as a 2D graph and really get, just a better mathematical map that pulls out those non linearities when you're working in a digital environment. If you ever edit a photo in L*a*b* and use a matrix it's very crazy how much control you have and how natural it looks. I think apple uses it so when you dim your phone's backlight the colors very naturally dim along with it and keep their relative appearance. There is an effect where in a dark environment very saturated colors look brighter than an equivalent white light that L*a*b* can't account for, it can't separate saturation and relative luminance like that. I think of little LEDs on electronics, blue red and green, that shine in my house at night - they seem really bright at night but not in the day! So for that there's this monster thing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CIECAM02 that tries to get color context involved, like how a color looks in the background of another color under what lighting and how long you've been looking at it. and it has 6 dimensions. Actually I don't know anything about CIECAM02 except that it exists and tries to incorporate how context affects perception. anyway that wraps up color perception maybe later I can talk about illuminant -> object reflectance -> camera sensor -> display -> human vision and how messy that all is lol. color is a nightmare Antonymous has issued a correction as of 00:27 on Nov 1, 2022 |
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2022 00:23
|
|
|
Shame Boy posted:That reminds me though, there was a video I watched forever ago from this girl who makes incredibly intricate and accurate medieval outfits by hand who was explaining that for most of human history cloth was incredibly expensive, it required a ton of manual labor to make it and dye it etc, and you can even find portraits of nobility where they're clearly wearing clothes that have been patched or modified to update them to the current style, because buying an entirely new outfit was that expensive. Her point was that fashion being so cheap as to be disposable is probably a real fuckin' bad thing, and also idk maybe we all should learn to sew so we can mend poo poo. Was she the one who was forced to put out a vid like "stop sending me requests to make your loving clothes im a goddamn historian not a seamstress it takes 2000 hours to make this no you cannot pay me $500 for a dress"
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2022 00:42
|
|
|
Shame Boy posted:That reminds me though, there was a video I watched forever ago from this girl who makes incredibly intricate and accurate medieval outfits by hand who was explaining that for most of human history cloth was incredibly expensive, it required a ton of manual labor to make it and dye it etc, and you can even find portraits of nobility where they're clearly wearing clothes that have been patched or modified to update them to the current style, because buying an entirely new outfit was that expensive. Her point was that fashion being so cheap as to be disposable is probably a real fuckin' bad thing, and also idk maybe we all should learn to sew so we can mend poo poo. This sounds as tedious as the car people who insist everyone should have nothing better to do then know how to do deep maintenance on their vehicles.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2022 00:42
|
|
|
Spazzle posted:This sounds as tedious as the car people who insist everyone should have nothing better to do then know how to do deep maintenance on their vehicles. Everyone should know a bit of sewing it’s not hard to do little bits of maintenance. I know people who will throw out $100 shirts over a button lmao SniperWoreConverse posted:Was she the one who was forced to put out a vid like "stop sending me requests to make your loving clothes im a goddamn historian not a seamstress it takes 2000 hours to make this no you cannot pay me $500 for a dress" 
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2022 00:46
|
|
|
redneck nazgul posted:gulag drat it
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2022 00:46
|
|
|
HashtagGirlboss posted:Everyone should know a bit of sewing it’s not hard to do little bits of maintenance. I know people who will throw out $100 shirts over a button lmao At least being able to do a basic hem on pants can really make a world of difference too
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2022 00:47
|
|
|
in my socialist utopia there are no clothes. this is also true of my socialist dystopia because I’m very lazy with my themes.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2022 00:51
|
|
|
The only good color is octarine.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2022 00:54
|
|
|
I appreciate when people make effort posts in CSPAM 
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2022 00:54
|
|
|
Biplane posted:The only good color is octarine.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2022 00:55
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2024 16:09 |
|
|
Dr. Jerrold Coe posted:I appreciate when people make effort posts in CSPAM
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2022 00:55
|
|