There is a Knuth/TeX like elegance in the diagrams that you don't see on the web. More than the content that is amazing; and the visualizations that clearly took a very long time to make; it is a fabulous piece of art. Really really nice.
We know the typical LMS responses for human cones (e.g., Stockman-Sharpe) that could easily be plotted instead of the bell-curve-like things they use here - why? Is it good enough for illustration? You could say, kind of but then all the colors are kind of wrong too. For example, D65 is very blue here.
The article takes a really long time to get to the thing everyone should know: which is that our cones responses overlap a lot, and we get color sensations by (kind of) differencing them. Doing a matrix transform after ten pages to get to chromaticity is technically correct, but it's not the most accessible/intuitive way to teach this.
Nice effort but it would be better if it were closer to "real" color math.
There is a Knuth/TeX like elegance in the diagrams that you don't see on the web. More than the content that is amazing; and the visualizations that clearly took a very long time to make; it is a fabulous piece of art. Really really nice.
This is both interesting and weird!
We know the typical LMS responses for human cones (e.g., Stockman-Sharpe) that could easily be plotted instead of the bell-curve-like things they use here - why? Is it good enough for illustration? You could say, kind of but then all the colors are kind of wrong too. For example, D65 is very blue here.
The article takes a really long time to get to the thing everyone should know: which is that our cones responses overlap a lot, and we get color sensations by (kind of) differencing them. Doing a matrix transform after ten pages to get to chromaticity is technically correct, but it's not the most accessible/intuitive way to teach this.
Nice effort but it would be better if it were closer to "real" color math.