The picture formation — the part of the stage that is creating the colourimetry that we are looking at — is what is responsible here. A pure RGB per channel mapping does not produce this. Ever.
If one takes all “in gamut” values and forms pictures via a per channel mechanic, the foundational mechanic in forming the picture insulates against the polarity swings. Polarity swings are effectively what amount to errors:
- Clips and any number of other “colourimetric” issues.
- Bad Ideas such as CAMs or “Uniform Colour Models”.
When we parse a picture, we aren’t pretending we are standing there looking at a “scene”. In the assemblage of “cues” or “clues” that emerge out of the soup, some cues are powerful. By “powerful”, we can identify neurophysiological effects that cannot be overcome, as per Kingdom’s “rivalrous” demonstration:
The essence of something like HKE is likely a straight line path to these constellations of LGN field clusters of ON-OFF and OFF-ON responses, and the “polarity” that emerges. The delusional Cartesian “CAMs” and “UCS” are one of the reasons these polarity swings are being introduced in the formed pictures in the first place.
If one samples the polarities of generic RGB rendering, in the working space, the polarity is indicative of one direction. After the picture formation, the polarities have inverted in many cases. This is very plausibly a Bad Thing.
At the very least, most reasonable folks can look at the discs and literally visualize where the formed picture colourimetry is shredding apart, jumping “out” of the surface of the picture in many cases.
The peculiar “lustre” on those discs, is directly tied to what we can ontologize as the “twin” / “triple” (x2 for ON-OFF and OFF-ON chains at the very least) “chrominance-luminance” channels of the ON-OFF and OFF-ON cluster differentials. The greater the field differentials, the greater the “lustre” effect. The Laplacian analysis is far from a fluke.
It at least seems reasonable, then, that whatever magic soup one applies during the picture formation stage of imbuing meaning into the marks, that the underlying polarity should not be inverted. That is, if we compare the formed camera colourimetry or render colourimetry to the colourimetry in the formed pictures, a reasonable baseline is that the polarity should not invert.
Does that sound like what I am communicating? I honestly don’t even know how to reply to this.
The discussion is precisely about the polarity of the field relationships. The point of the analysis is not about determining what our ontologizing of “edge” is in a quantifiable sense, but rather the polarity and the polarity role in meaning.
TL;DR: It’s pretty reasonable to suggest that having polarity flip flop between the formed colourimetry of the camera data blob and the final, functional formed picture colourimetry, is a driving force in “HKE”, and is the Bad Thing that is leading to the “uncanny lustre”. Where the polarity is close to a null, the effect is lower than the sharper differentials. We can attribute polarity flip flops to:
- Errors of colourimetric handling introduced at various stages of the chain.
- Use of mythical “Colour Appearance Models” and / or “Uniform Colour Spaces”.
The latter is more relevant here, as that’s is what is forcing the polarity flip flops because the “models” are janky pantsed.
The “uncanny lustre” probability increases as the field differentials diverge, as can be visualized by these samples: