Because 3x3 fits are generally pretty poor for more chromaticity pure values. I consider the general 3x3 fits a continuum:
- Reasonably acceptable - at the achromatic axis origin
- Moderately acceptable - as values move away from the origin, but close
- Poor - as we move out toward the edges of the locus
- Nonsense - values fit to beyond the locus
This is also part of the domain confusion here, as a three primary based fit reprojects the locus for the camera “observer”, as below.
And this list is merely the isoluminant chromaticity aspect. We could probably argue that in terms of flicker photometric luminance the values could be considered along a similar scale.
Yes. Because a domain is different from a range. At risk of using a goofy analogy… a domain is a banana, while a range is a count of bananas. We can discuss slicing up the domain of a banana, but speaking of slices outside the banana is nonsense.
Subtle language nuance can lead to incorrect inference, so I try to use language that insulates against these inferences. A closed domain is a bounded limit, with nothing beyond. For example, if we forget that a 3x3 CAT is domain bound, we might consider plotting the results in accordance with the Standard Observer Illuminant E model. If we realize that the Standard Observer is domain bound, we’d also realize that in order to properly project it into a normalized CIE xy projection, we’d have to reproject the locus itself, to account for the entire reprojection of the domain.
In the end, tristimulus is tristimulus in terms of a numerical metric. The domains, on the other hand, matter significantly.
You are quite correct that using “from” and “to” is probably weak, given that I place value on the formed image, and in that light, I do not believe the image exists in the open domain tristimulus, but rather is formed via mechanics.
As for “range”, see above. I believe it is an inappropriate use that can lead to incorrect inferences.
Yes, more or less. A “creative flourish” is something that could be considered strictly “creative”, hence, according to Merriam-Webster “a decorative or finishing detail”. I’d be less inclined to place technical facets under the umbrella term, though.
Is this not covered by the two booleans of “Expand Chroma” and “Expand Brightness”? Are there other perceptual qualia here being overlooked?
Merriam-Webster:
any of the definable aspects that make up a subject (as of contemplation) or an object (as of consideration)
I’m not fond of “Display Rendering Transform”, hence I don’t use it, as it comes with some directionality, and lessens the influence of the image formation chain. Dye density layer crosstalk in subtractive mediums, or even per channel crosstalk in additive systems, is a critical and fundamental component in terms of the formed image / picture. That mechanic, as well as the result, does not rest in the open domain tristimulus, or in the case of actual subtractive creative film, in the spectral energy outside of the camera.
Saying “rendering” therefore, is both too general, and lessens the mechanics of the actual image formation in terms of mechanics.
I use the term “chroma” in the CIE sense, as I believe that’s the appropriate term for distance to an achromatic adapted axis.
colourfulness of an area judged as a proportion of the brightness of a similarly illuminated area that appears grey, white or highly transmitting.
Many folks erroneously use the term “saturation” here.
Laden is simply “heavy”.
Qualia is a term used in quite a few colour science papers, and has origins that track back a long ways to possibly 1675.
a property (such as redness) considered apart from things having the property
a property as it is experienced as distinct from any source it might have in a physical object.
Generally speaking, it’s a phenomenological term.
Likely redundant with the use of “appearance” and “percept”, but to clearly distinguish as the phenomenological aspect of human sense, not the erroneous idea of an attribute of an object.
percept: an impression of an object obtained by use of the senses
As above.
If the takeaway was simply “more control of the rendering”, then you gravely misinterpreted what was said.
I spoke of breaking down the image formation chain such that components can be isolated, as well as drawing a connection to the ICC protocol, where some of these facets are enumerated.
“Intent” from the ICC idea of “rendering intent”.
“Facets” being components.
“Flourishes” being largely creative embellishments.
“Qualia” being things that are specifically related to sensation in the phenomenological sense.
Hope this helps.