Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

  • View

  • Discuss

  • Share

We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).

×

Comment: Re:White balance and contrast in camera. (Score 1) 283

by drinkypoo (#49154329) Attached to: Is That Dress White and Gold Or Blue and Black?

(gold is FFD700, defined by HTML standards).

HA HA HA! YOU FELL INTO MY TRAP!

Pardon my caps, but I set a lot of these, and they are rarely stepped in so beautifully. That's my fault, of course. But, here we go.

When you hear the name of a color, you think of some color which you associate with that, or a thing which you think of as being that color which actually has a whole texture, reflectivity, depth, etc. But the truth is that the same name is being used right now by a dozen different paint companies to describe a dozen different colors, which are then described in thousands of different ways by the downstream users of the paint. There are some absolute color standards based on elements, oxides of the same and the like, but even those are frequently "abused". The truth, though, is that outside of a small handful of colors, they are not defined by any unifying principle. Your use of the HTML standards is particularly hilariously perfect, I really hope that you meant to put your foot there! Outside of web design, nobody but nobody gives a crap about that. Before that, we had the X rgb.txt file, which nobody outside of X-land cared about, which begat HTML colors by the way, junior. But meanwhile, over in the land of professional color, there were multiple competing color standards including AGFA and Pantone — and there still are.

It's interesting that part of this debate is also over the color "black" because "black" is what you see when you don't see anything, and if any part of the dress were truly black then the photograph would look like an editing mistake. Even the color black is subjective. That should be intuitively obvious to a web designer (who else would even mention HTML colors?) who has to deal with the real-world effects of differing black and white levels all day. I may be sitting at a monitor with 120% color (Adobe gamma) but I don't expect other people to have them. As far as I know, there is no color correction e.g. for Android which is not manual, and then the color adjustments become utterly perceptual.

I suspect that celebs are adept at perceiving the actual color of the dress because they have appeared in so many washed-out photographs.

Comment: Re:White balance and contrast in camera. (Score 1) 283

by drinkypoo (#49153513) Attached to: Is That Dress White and Gold Or Blue and Black?

pretty much every pixel in the "blue" area has a B value about 20%-30% higher than the R or G value. That, to me, makes it about as objectively blue as it's possible to be.

Are you kidding? It's possible to be balanced far more towards blue. But also, gold is not a color. I learned back in my Amiga-using, pixel-editing days that there's a lot of blue in most metallics. I don't know if that's an artifact of what happens to light when it bounces off of them, or what, sorry. Not a physicist. But I know that if you're trying to make something look metallic, you're going to be adding some blue to it.

Comment: Idiotic comparison (Score 1) 237

by drinkypoo (#49153283) Attached to: We Stopped At Two Nuclear Bombs; We Can Stop At Two Degrees.

Not only (as others have pointed out) did we not stop at two, but setting off nuclear bombs is just a thing you can decide not to do. We may well be past the point of climate runaway, and if that's so then we would have to engage in concerted effort to prevent the imminent demise of the relative condition of biostasis we've enjoyed all the time.

Or hell, maybe the next ice age cycle will solve the problem, through some as-yet-unimagined mechanism. The question then becomes whether we'll survive that.

Comment: Re:White balance and contrast in camera. (Score 2, Informative) 283

by drinkypoo (#49153269) Attached to: Is That Dress White and Gold Or Blue and Black?

The thing is, in the provided picture, the dress actually IS white and gold, or at least grey and gold. Load it up in an editor and snip pieces of it out if you don't believe me, look at them on their own, compare them to color swatches. That doesn't make the dress any particular color. It makes the picture a particular color. The "white"/"black" part is banging right around 50%, which is clearly neither white nor black.

The camera diddled the image, maybe it was diddled even more before we actually saw it. Then we're all amazed that it doesn't look like the thing. But people have accidentally been taking pictures of things which don't look like things since time immemorial. They're called shitty pictures.

Comment: They focused on the wrong bands (Score 1) 154

by damn_registrars (#49153211) Attached to: Can the Guitar Games Market Be Resurrected?
When they started releasing band-specific titles I thought maybe they were on to something.

Then they released Green Day. Really? Forget them. I don't want Green Day, I want Dire Straits.

They also released Metallica. Really? No, I don't want Metallica, I want Joe Satriani.

There were other specific titles where they screwed up by focusing on bands that sold out or were overrated as well, but those were two of the most egregious examples.

Comment: Re:It's funny (Score 3, Interesting) 237

by drinkypoo (#49153201) Attached to: We Stopped At Two Nuclear Bombs; We Can Stop At Two Degrees.

And neither side has any idea what to DO if they're right.

No, we know what needs to be done, we don't know how to force people to do it. And it very much takes force. The people whining about it seem to forget that this is how the world works. People with different ideas eventually come to blows because in the real world you can't do both things.

Comment: Re:Windows 7 doesn't need ISOs (Score 1) 121

by drinkypoo (#49151609) Attached to: Microsoft Finally Allows Customers To Legally Download Windows 7 ISOs

Doesn't invalidate my point. Window 7 still needs a service pack. One could call it service pack 2, for example. Alternatively Microsoft needs to find someone who can write an OS update routine which doesn't require dozens of restarts.

Microsoft is not likely to bother with another Windows 7 service pack. They are getting ready to bring out a whole other operating system, and give it away for free to the customers who would have downloaded such a thing.

One person's error is another person's data.

Working...