Color Science Tested (Canon, Fuji, Nikon, Sony)

[TreeofLifeStairs]

I thought this was only slightly interesting since as noted before, it wasn’t actually science but a poll of people’s subjective preference.

I realize I’m guilty of brand loyalty and like to hear that my brand (Sony) is good. It was surprising how much better people thought it was though.

Am I to understand this correctly though, that he showed jpgs sooc, and that raw files would be much closer in appearance? That means this test is more a test of the camera’s jpg conversion. I never shoot in jpg so I guess this doesn’t really apply to me.

 

[waday]

I thought this was only slightly interesting since as noted before, it wasn’t actually science but a poll of people’s subjective preference.

I realize I’m guilty of brand loyalty and like to hear that my brand (Sony) is good. It was surprising how much better people thought it was though.

Am I to understand this correctly though, that he showed jpgs sooc, and that raw files would be much closer in appearance? That means this test is more a test of the camera’s jpg conversion. I never shoot in jpg so I guess this doesn’t really apply to me.

I watched this video when it was posted, so I may be forgetting, but... I don't think he indicated that it was science or that he was stating hard facts at all. He seemed to be pretty clear that the results were based on a survey of over a thousand people, and even indicated that he tried to tailor the questions so as not to skew the results. Regarding the term "science", IIRC, he said the term "color science" was being thrown around a lot so he wanted to test it.

Regarding the jpg vs raw, I think that was pretty much what he was saying, wasn't it? That, if taken in raw, everything should be about the same. But, when taken in jpg, the "brand" (i.e., jpg conversion) would be different. So, he surveyed his follows to find which "brand" was the most pleasing to the surveyees' eyes.

 

[Ysarex]

I thought this was only slightly interesting since as noted before, it wasn’t actually science but a poll of people’s subjective preference.

I realize I’m guilty of brand loyalty and like to hear that my brand (Sony) is good. It was surprising how much better people thought it was though.

Am I to understand this correctly though, that he showed jpgs sooc, and that raw files would be much closer in appearance? That means this test is more a test of the camera’s jpg conversion.

Absolutely, it is only a test of the cameras' JPEG processors. If you shoot and process raw files then the variations that concern you have to do with your brand raw converter's camera input profile. If you shoot and process raw files you have the option to create your own input profile in which case a similar test could be about "your colors."

Joe

I never shoot in jpg so I guess this doesn’t really apply to me.

 

[VidThreeNorth]

Every now and then I think of something to add to this, but then I think a bit more and decide that I really need to think about it even more. Maybe next life-time?

Anyway, one thing I thought was that I didn't think that Tony made up the term "Color Science". I had thought that it sounded like marketing jargon. But I poked around and this is what I found:

"The science of color is sometimes called chromatics, colorimetry, or simply color science. It includes the study of the perception of color by the human eye and brain, the origin of color in materials, color theory in art, and the physics of electromagnetic radiation in the visible range (that is, what is commonly referred to simply as light)." -- Wikipedia

Also:

Wyszecki, Günther; Stiles, W.S. (1982). Colour Science: Concepts and Methods, Quantitative Data and Formulae (2nd ed.). New York: Wiley Series in Pure and Applied Optics.

Ok. maybe it is a legitimate term after all. It still sounds like marketing jargon. . . .

 

[Ysarex]

Every now and then I think of something to add to this, but then I think a bit more and decide that I really need to think about it even more. Maybe next life-time?

Anyway, one thing I thought was that I didn't think that Tony made up the term "Color Science". I had thought that it sounded like marketing jargon. But I poked around and this is what I found:

"The science of color is sometimes called chromatics, colorimetry, or simply color science. It includes the study of the perception of color by the human eye and brain, the origin of color in materials, color theory in art, and the physics of electromagnetic radiation in the visible range (that is, what is commonly referred to simply as light)." -- Wikipedia

Also:

Wyszecki, Günther; Stiles, W.S. (1982). Colour Science: Concepts and Methods, Quantitative Data and Formulae (2nd ed.). New York: Wiley Series in Pure and Applied Optics.

Ok. maybe it is a legitimate term after all. It still sounds like marketing jargon. . . .

Used in the video and by the people lately throwing it around it is absolutely marketing jargon.

Joe

 

[n614cd]

Every now and then I think of something to add to this, but then I think a bit more and decide that I really need to think about it even more. Maybe next life-time?

Anyway, one thing I thought was that I didn't think that Tony made up the term "Color Science". I had thought that it sounded like marketing jargon. But I poked around and this is what I found:

"The science of color is sometimes called chromatics, colorimetry, or simply color science. It includes the study of the perception of color by the human eye and brain, the origin of color in materials, color theory in art, and the physics of electromagnetic radiation in the visible range (that is, what is commonly referred to simply as light)." -- Wikipedia

Also:

Wyszecki, Günther; Stiles, W.S. (1982). Colour Science: Concepts and Methods, Quantitative Data and Formulae (2nd ed.). New York: Wiley Series in Pure and Applied Optics.

Ok. maybe it is a legitimate term after all. It still sounds like marketing jargon. . . .

Used in the video and by the people lately throwing it around it is absolutely marketing jargon.

Joe

Are you sure? I went back and reread the definition, it specifically says perception of color. And how it is being used in the marketing? Users perception...

Tim

Sent from my SM-J737T using Tapatalk

 

[Tim Tucker 2]

Are you sure? I went back and reread the definition, it specifically says perception of color. And how it is being used in the marketing? Users perception...

It works because people want to be told that the cameras they buy are precision instruments backed up by science and fact. Most believe that what they see through their eyes in in fact the image focussed on the back of the retina, that things are absolute (including colour) and can be measured and recorded accurately where they will be seen accurately by the human eye. It is also true that most still think that colour theory describes the way colour works, where in fact it actually describes how the eye works.

Things were really shaken up by Newton when he split white light in a prism. In all it was discovered that there were around 200 visually perceived pure colours. Which raised a problem, if we saw colour accurately then only about 1/200 of the receptors in our eyes will be working when we view the world through a yellow filter. You would expect the image you see to be considerably darker as a result. But it isn't, brightness is maintained. The only conclusion was that the eye simply didn't work as an accurate recording device but maintained a consistency of vision in a wide range of different light conditions.

The actual way that the eye works was revealed by additive colour theory. It was discovered that we can reproduce nearly all visible colour by just using light of three different wavelengths, it does not prove that all light is RGB but that the eye only has three main colour receptors.

Cameras mimic this, they try to maintain the same consistency of vision as the human eye does in a wide variety of lighting conditions. This creates quite a contradiction, because the human eye does not see colour accurately it follows that the camera that reproduces colour the closest to how we see it must also record it inaccurately.

But we wouldn't buy many cameras if we are told that we don't see correctly, that our vision is flawed and therefore we've designed flaws in our camera to compensate, it is not as precision as you think nor as accurate as you wish it to be. Instead they are sold on their ability to achieve *your vision*. However because many want to believe that their vision is absolute so they also believe that the camera with the most visually accurate colour, what they see on a computer screen, is also the one designed to most accurately capture colour. In a way *colour science* is created by users to support their belief that their vision is absolute, what they see is correct.

 

[jcdeboever]

Are you sure? I went back and reread the definition, it specifically says perception of color. And how it is being used in the marketing? Users perception...

It works because people want to be told that the cameras they buy are precision instruments backed up by science and fact. Most believe that what they see through their eyes in in fact the image focussed on the back of the retina, that things are absolute (including colour) and can be measured and recorded accurately where they will be seen accurately by the human eye. It is also true that most still think that colour theory describes the way colour works, where in fact it actually describes how the eye works.

Things were really shaken up by Newton when he split white light in a prism. In all it was discovered that there were around 200 visually perceived pure colours. Which raised a problem, if we saw colour accurately then only about 1/200 of the receptors in our eyes will be working when we view the world through a yellow filter. You would expect the image you see to be considerably darker as a result. But it isn't, brightness is maintained. The only conclusion was that the eye simply didn't work as an accurate recording device but maintained a consistency of vision in a wide range of different light conditions.

The actual way that the eye works was revealed by additive colour theory. It was discovered that we can reproduce nearly all visible colour by just using light of three different wavelengths, it does not prove that all light is RGB but that the eye only has three main colour receptors.

Cameras mimic this, they try to maintain the same consistency of vision as the human eye does in a wide variety of lighting conditions. This creates quite a contradiction, because the human eye does not see colour accurately it follows that the camera that reproduces colour the closest to how we see it must also record it inaccurately.

But we wouldn't buy many cameras if we are told that we don't see correctly, that our vision is flawed and therefore we've designed flaws in our camera to compensate, it is not as precision as you think nor as accurate as you wish it to be. Instead they are sold on their ability to achieve *your vision*. However because many want to believe that their vision is absolute so they also believe that the camera with the most visually accurate colour, what they see on a computer screen, is also the one designed to most accurately capture colour. In a way *colour science* is created by users to support their belief that their vision is absolute, what they see is correct.

AKA, Fujifilm film simulations.

 

[Ysarex]

Every now and then I think of something to add to this, but then I think a bit more and decide that I really need to think about it even more. Maybe next life-time?

Anyway, one thing I thought was that I didn't think that Tony made up the term "Color Science". I had thought that it sounded like marketing jargon. But I poked around and this is what I found:

"The science of color is sometimes called chromatics, colorimetry, or simply color science. It includes the study of the perception of color by the human eye and brain, the origin of color in materials, color theory in art, and the physics of electromagnetic radiation in the visible range (that is, what is commonly referred to simply as light)." -- Wikipedia

Also:

Wyszecki, Günther; Stiles, W.S. (1982). Colour Science: Concepts and Methods, Quantitative Data and Formulae (2nd ed.). New York: Wiley Series in Pure and Applied Optics.

Ok. maybe it is a legitimate term after all. It still sounds like marketing jargon. . . .

Used in the video and by the people lately throwing it around it is absolutely marketing jargon.

Joe

Are you sure? I went back and reread the definition, it specifically says perception of color. And how it is being used in the marketing? Users perception...

Tim

Sent from my SM-J737T using Tapatalk

The term science is easiest to accept and understand when it's hard science. My son is a physicist -- now that's science. Not science: I'm an artist and as Calvin's dad explains many of us are insane. Here's an hilarious bit of entertainment: get 7 or 8 different dictionaries and look up the word color. They don't know what it is. Many will default into the lexicographer's most egregious sin and define color as color. Color is Hue they'll say -- duh. At the next level of error they'll try and define color by describing the mechanisms that produce it still failing to define it. Color is a property of objects or color is a property of light. Pretty soon you start reading about nanometers and wavelengths but you don't get a definition of color. That's because color has no physicality but we tend to think about it as if it did. We're confused.

As a component of conscious human visual perception, color is a sensation in the occipital cortex of the brain produced when the retina of the eye is stimulated by either reflected or direct light energy in the visible spectrum between 400 and 750 nanometers.

Now let's take that definition and distill it down to the essential fact: color is a sensation. It's very much like pain. We know what causes pain but, how bad does it hurt; on a scale of 1 to 10? WTF doc? 1 to 10? It hurts!!!! Draw some blood and test it for Pete's sake! Look at it under your damn microscope! It hurts!!!!!

Human perception is fascinating and worth considerable study by scientists, but it's a tricky business to study because we can't grow it in a petri dish, look at it under a microscope or bombard it in a collider. Human perception is messy because it's connected to so much else that is human experience. The color you see is effected by how you feel. How you feel is effected by color. The scientists who study human perception don't have the luxury of just doing hard science. Do we call it science if it has to deal with human feelings? I tell my students that they must never try to work with the color in photographs when they are stressed or tired or upset or hung over or..... The "see what you want to see" lobe of the human brain is activated by stress. The scientists haven't found the "see what you want to see" lobe yet in the brain but we insane artists know for a fact it exists.

So when you encounter the term color science and you can detect that no matter how remote it's connected to someone that wants to sell you something the first most appropriate reaction is to laugh and then consult your friend Hobbes.

Joe