Thank goodness we don’t have any discrete scalar measurement biological capabilities, then!

WRGB has the added accidental upside of taking poorly formed pictures and creating a less busted up presentation out of them.

How on earth do you trust the assembled viable sequences *in research*? It’s made up!

I am incredibly skeptical that *you* want a computer to generate content slop for you?

It’s like the worst DnD random dungeon.

Assembled Statistically Sequenced shit is so fucking dull and worthless.

It’s like a fucking budgie mirror for idiots.

The fascinating part is that even when you understand what is coming, the meaning is impenetrable. And likewise, once you’ve heard the meaningful representation, it is impossible to hear it naively again.

users.sussex.ac.uk/~cjd/SWS/ind...

You’ve seen the Sine Wave Speech demonstrations?

Indeed. And the decoding of air waves to sound is at least as complex as pictorial depiction decoding of stimuli into forms.

It just drives me to distraction that folks have this myth of “idealized pictorial depiction is a simulacrum of the stimuli” forced upon them, reinforced by the seduction.

“Filmic”, or more accurately, the unique relationship between total energy within a given region and the interrelationship of chrominance to luminance, is akin to a grammatical writing tool. Without it, we have a higher cognitive tax on the interpretation of the forms within a pictorial depiction.

Bingo.

And the deeper problem is that there is the incredible cognitive mechanisms that decompose and segment stimuli into forms that no one realizes without paying close attention.

The “essence” of the all-too-abused “filmic” term is what we all ought to realize as *a cognitive text*.

We are *so* brain wormed by the legitimated orthodoxy that no one has stopped to ask what we are trying to do.

There’s also a founding myth prevalent; that a pictorial depiction is idealized when the stimuli is presented as it was in front of the camera.

This brain worm needs to stop.

Indeed.

Ekroll was involved with a wonderful paper on the subject of techniques to avoid “Illusory Essences”.

doi.org/10.1177/1745....

Hence why undermining the language is important to create a friction between what folks *believe* they comprehend, and what is actually happening when we shape and form pictures from sensor energy catches.

Expected. It doesn’t exist as a construct beyond a few folks who have thought this through.

I’m sort of wrestling with a post on this subject, hence why I wanted to borrow the quotation.

Pictorial depiction is something folks need to focus on. Not the bullshit of “scene” and “display” rubbish.

May I borrow your quote?

Someone gets it.

In fact, calling the picture formation a “tone mapper” or “display rendering transform” is obfuscating nonsense.

It is quite literally the algorithm that crafts the pictorial depiction.

I’ll be long gone before folks abandon Giorgianni-Kodak’s bullshit ideology.

"how do I match these cameras"
"why do smartphones look like this"
"why are these skin tones different"
"how come these PTZ cameras have weird contrast"
"why do broadcast cameras use these charts"

the real question: where is the tonemapper?

I feel seen. Deeply seen.

You could inject the HDR, no?

And a complete biologically untenable pile of nonsense.

Vendor endorsed widget selling rubbish.