For Rich and his fans.

Discussion in 'Digital SLR' started by Henry, Feb 1, 2010.

  1. Henry

    Ray Fischer Guest

    The problem is that he's responding to a lying troll with actual facts.
    Ray Fischer, Feb 5, 2010
    1. Advertisements

  2. Henry

    NameHere Guest

    Wherever did you read this? Must have been one of those "net-truths" that
    are so popular. The "net-truths" that float to the top of a Google search
    because it's the most plausible and popular, but wrong, explanation for
    those who can't think very clearly. The vast majority that don't want to
    try to understand nor take the time to educate themselves on anything more
    complex. This comprises the majority of all Google search-hits within the
    first 3 pages of them which are offered. Someone's feeding you some pretty
    good manure and keeping you in the dark. Do you feel like a fungus yet?

    When converting my images to CMYK from their RGB sources it's easy to see
    how many of the colors are not a match and get shifted. The reverse also
    true. Have you never done this in any editor with even something as simple
    as a Granger Calibration Chart? The shifts and obvious gaps between the two
    color-spaces are astounding.

    Here's an example to show you, starting with a 3000x3000 16-bit RGB Granger
    Chart as the source. Sorry, I don't have a CMYK Granger-like chart handy to
    show you the reverse. It can only be approximated in CMYK anyway. And I've
    already wasted far too much of my valuable time trying to educate you to
    begin with. Any CMYK to RGB conversion of anything would, of course, show
    far less disastrous results. Though, come to think of it, the CMYK to RGB
    is already implied in the right-panel because the CMYK space has to be
    converted back again to JPG's RGB and your monitor. This would explain the
    serious gaps in the colors re-presented.

    3 discreet units of information vs. 4 discreet units of information. There
    can only be a rough approximation between the two. And you want to argue
    about 8 vs. 10 vs. 12 senosr bit-depths while ignoring something even more
    simple for an example? Trying to go from RGB to CMYK is like trying to go
    from RGB to reconstruct Bayer's RGGB. Though I'll admit, with slightly
    less difficulty. Have someone explain to you why you can't reconstruct the
    sensor's RGGB data from the resulting RGB file and you'll start to
    comprehend why CMYK and RGB are not equivalent. I can't be bothered with
    trying to educate someone on something so rudimentary. I've tried that in
    the past and it was a painstaking task not unlike trying to teach a worm
    how to flip a light switch.

    I wasn't going to address the rest of your comments because I was trying to
    spare you the embarrassment. So I'll just address this one to show you why
    I didn't bother. You can thank me for not addressing the rest of your post.
    NameHere, Feb 5, 2010
    1. Advertisements

  3. Henry

    Ray Fischer Guest

    You're a stupid troll as well as a liar.
    Ray Fischer, Feb 5, 2010
  4. Henry

    NameHere Guest

    This comment being brought to you by a useless and ignorant newsgroup
    troll, Ray Fischer, who can't even comprehend the difference between the
    amount of 3-letter words in the english language and the amount of all
    4-letter words. (RGB vs. CMYK)

    I suspect his whole life has been lived in a world comprised of only
    3-letter words and the amount of available concepts portrayed by them. 4
    letters joined together are too complex for him, as well as the amount of
    permutations befuddling him even further. Any ideas that can be expressed
    with more than 3-letter words are so far outside his realm of comprehension
    it would be like asking someone having lived and learned their reality in
    the 2D space of Flatland to visualize and comprehend a tesseract.
    NameHere, Feb 5, 2010
  5. Henry

    NameHere Guest

    Just for curiosity, never having created a 16-bit CMYK Granger Chart
    before, I thought I'd see what happens in reverse. While I could not see an
    accurate representation of this chart on my monitor, it being in a lowly
    RBG color-space, the method to create both was identical. So the values
    applied to the pixels would have been identical in range as those contained
    in an original RGB Granger Chart (represented in the left panel in the
    above link). The only difference was working from 16-bit CMYK layers and
    data as the origin, as opposed to creating the original from 16-bit RGB

    Here's what happens when you try to cram a 16-bit CMYK color-space into an
    RGB one.

    This is precisely like trying to pour 65,536 gallons of information into a
    1 gallon bucket.

    It is interesting to also note that if all of you had the original chart
    data, that all of your monitors will not show you the same image that
    anyone else is seeing, due to their own individual limitations and your
    graphic-card's limitations too. Most of the original values being well
    outside the scope of anyone's hardware. This is why a digitally created
    Granger Chart is a good analysis tool.

    If you'd like to create your own using any editor, simple instructions can
    be found at <>

    If you try to make a 16-bit CMYK Granger Chart be advised that you won't be
    able to see much of anything until after you convert both layers to an RGB
    color-space. Then you will see something similar to what I posted above. I
    would also advise using an HIS spectrum gradient rather than the method
    suggested at luminous-landscape. The "rainbow" gradient default in
    Photoslop is horrendously lacking in hues. I just got through comparing the
    two and was surprised yet again at how limited that Photoslop truly is.
    NameHere, Feb 5, 2010
  6. Henry

    Ray Fischer Guest

    Go away, asshole troll.
    Ray Fischer, Feb 6, 2010
  7. Henry

    Ray Fischer Guest

    It's trivial to prove, mathematically, that CMYK is redundant.

    The RGB color 0,0,0 can be converted to the CMYK color space as
    both 1,1,1,0 and 0,0,0,1. Since CMYK has at least one color that
    can be represented with two different quads then CMYK is redundant.
    RGB is not redundant because there is no case where one color can be
    represented by two different triples.
    Ray Fischer, Feb 9, 2010
  8. Henry

    NameHere Guest

    Except for the fact that 100% saturation of cyan magenta and yellow does
    not make black. Ever print with an early printer that only had a CMY
    cartridge? Of course not. You probably don't even have a printer, much less
    a camera. Even less, a mind.

    First off, you don't know that RGB 000 is more closely equivalent to
    255,255,255,x CMYK in an 8-bit depth color-space.

    Secondly, the closest that 255,255,255,0 CMYK can convert to in RGB is
    19,44,44. This is why CMY printers could only print a muddy dark blue-green
    for their blacks.

    I'd tell you to go to Oz, scarecrow, but even miracles couldn't help
    something as devoid of hay in that gunny-sack which you pathetically call a

    Go educate yourself. Start by asking your mommy to explain what all those
    things are in your box of crayons.
    NameHere, Feb 9, 2010
  9. Henry

    NameHere Guest

    Oh look, another idiot troll that doesn't even know what RGB and CMYK
    NameHere, Feb 9, 2010
  10. Henry

    NameHere Guest

    Yes, you might want to do that. A good thing you left a note to yourself to
    remind you.
    NameHere, Feb 9, 2010
  11. Henry

    Ray Fischer Guest

    Wrong again, dumbshit. If you actually do the math (which is,
    admittedly, asking far too much of a moron like you) then you
    see that my example above is wholly correct.
    Since when do inks care about the number of bits used in a color
    space, moron?
    Yes, idiot, I do know that because unlike you I am not a moron and I
    do know how to convert RGB to CMYK and back. If you look at the
    actual formula you will see that black is derived FROM the CMY values,
    which means that CMY is wholly equivalent to RGB and the black is
    mathematicaly redundant.
    Wrong again, dumbshit. 255,255,255,0 CMYK is 0,0,0 in RGB. CMYK is a
    SUBTRACTIVE color space and when you remove all of cyan, meganta, and
    yellow you have nothing left. No red, green, or blue.
    You're a stupid asshole, too stupid to realize what a moron you are.
    Ray Fischer, Feb 9, 2010
  12. Henry

    Ray Fischer Guest

    Go away, dumbshit. Try again when YOU learn what they mean.
    Ray Fischer, Feb 9, 2010
  13. Henry

    NameHere Guest

    When you can figure out the difference between 1,1,1 and 255,255,255; let
    us all know. While you're at it, print your last line above on some paper
    and stick it to your forehead with a staple-gun. But flip it horizontally
    before printing, so you can read it when you learn how to use a mirror too.
    NameHere, Feb 9, 2010
  14. Henry

    Ray Fischer Guest

    Oh look, the stupid asshole cannot figure out how to normalize 0-255
    to 0-1. No wonder it doesn't know anything about color spaces.
    Ray Fischer, Feb 10, 2010
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.