Thursday, February 27, 2020
5:00pm - 6:00pm PST (Los Angeles time / UTC-01:00am)
Please join us for the next meeting of this virtual working group (VWG). Future meeting dates include:
3/5/2020: 9:30am
3/12/2020: 5pm
3/19/2020: 9:30am
3/26/2020: 5pm
Dropbox Paper link for this group:
We will be using the same GoToMeeting url and phone numbers as in previous groups.
You may join via computer/smartphone (preferred) which will allow you to see any presentations or documents that are shared or you can join using a telephone which will be an audio only experience.
Please note that meetings are recorded and transcribed and open to the public. By participating you are agreeing to the ACESCentral Virtual Working Group Participation Guidelines
Audio Only
You can also dial in using your phone.
Dial the closest number to your location and then follow the prompts to enter the access code. United States: +1 (669) 224-3319 Access Code: 241-798-885
Agreed, Matthias and I talked about our next steps being twofold: 1. discuss the concept of the ‘confidence gamut’ which we start ed last night, and 2. decide on qualitative and then match with quantitative algorithm ‘ideals’
If it looks good and produce plausible values, we are maybe good, without having to abide or be constrained by a requirement that might not be practical or possible at all to fulfill
Starting with qualitative metrics makes good sense. They can also be thought of as the source for quantitative metrics (i.e., as their translation, expression) and chances are that no matter what set of quantitative metrics are defined they won’t fully capture the qualitative ones. This has certainly been the experience of color reproduction in photography and graphic arts and pretty much all attempts at putting quantitative metrics first have failed (either because of incompleteness or because of being over-restrictive, as you say). I’d also think of specific metrics/objectives as indications/guidance, rather than as absolute requirements …