This doesn’t make any sense.
At a (overly simplistic) neurophysiological level, there are combinatorial On-Off and Off-On differential cells. When the field is “equal”, the signal is a “null”. There’s a pretty solid amount of research to suggest that this polarity is of tremendous importance in the heuristics of visual cognition. From the null, the dynamic is either “up” or “down”, where we can make a direct line from the “down” polarity to being broadly correlated to reflectance.
Here’s a riff on the Briggs demonstration in achromatic to showcase the articulation fields.
One does not have to accept the claim outright, but simply examine the formed pictures and evaluate where fields of “uncanny” pop out. It has a direct relationship to this polarity dynamic. And of course, every single one of these bogus CAMs, which are nothing more than glorified luminance-devoid-of-chrominance “mappers”, cause this very polarity problem.
Any reasonable person can cognize the uncanny bridge being crossed. Compare the picture formation of the endless CAM attempts with the Laplacian evaluation, that showcases the polarity issues rather elegantly.
Take a close look at how all of these bogus CAMs amount to nothing more than a crappy luminance mapper, and how uncannily similar they are to the projection below. I can say “Crappy Luminance Mapper” because I wrote one from scratch and didn’t have to fit it to nonsense “research”:
See that mountain range? That’s a ridiculous luminance-devoid-chrominance map. See the same clefts that manifest in literally all of these bogus CAM models?
If one notes the achromatic strip in this bogus variation of my creation, one will note that the max(RGB) trick holds true here too.
Remember, research going very far back has already solved the chromatic strength of chromaticity angles for the global frame. This is an already solved problem. The problem these bogus Cartesian models are attempting to solve is already solved, and cannot be solved without considering the articulation field.
It should then come as no surprise that creative colour film was not a CAM. It was a basic, balanced to stasis model… Just like RGB, with the added wonderful density axis.
Beyond all of these “Colour Appearance Models” and “Uniform Colour Spaces” being nothing more than delusional nonsense, with specific respect to picture formation, they are the defacto cause of the polarity problem.
Again, and I cannot stress this enough, creative colour film was a basic balanced model. No really. And creative colour film continues to shame every one of these digital shibboleths.
