Jump to content

Talk:CIECAM02

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Former good article nomineeCIECAM02 was a Engineering and technology good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
July 25, 2008Good article nomineeNot listed

GA Review

[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:CIECAM02/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

This article does not meet the Good Article criteria. For starters, it is far too technical and not easy to understand (heck! I have a Ph.D. and I'm having trouble understanding all this!). Article sections are not organized very well, and most of the latter half of the article is just a collection of equations and graphs with a very poor description of how these equations connect together into the overall system. The article's text also doesn't really seem to point out much of the model's use, other than that it's used by Windows Vista's color system.

I also raise questions that the article meets the verifiability criterion (#2), as there are only six inline citations used by the article. Also, please move the non-inline-citations to a 'further reading' section, or convert them to inline citations. The only thing present in the reference section should be inline citations.

Sorry folks, but I'm afraid this article is quite a long way from being a good article. Dr. Cash (talk) 20:41, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

L, M, S vs R, G, B

[edit]

I wonder whether it’s a good idea to use the symbols L, M, S in describing colors in CAT02 and Hunt-Pointer-Estévez space, instead of R, G, and B. The latter seem to be pretty entrenched in the literature I see, including the draft of the CIECAM02 spec, the 6th edition of Hunt’s The Reproduction of Colour, and the second edition of Fairchilds Color Appearance Models. Additionally, using L for the long-wavelength cone response makes for easy confusion between Lw and LW, which would be seemingly much reduced if the former was called Rw instead. Cheers, jacobolus (t) 04:01, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I know why using R, G & B is potentially problematic, but in the relevant literature L is mostly used for luminance, like LA for the luminance of the adapting field, M for colourfulness, and s for saturation, so I kind of agree.

More sources

[edit]

These slides provide a fairly good overview of CIECAM02: http://www.cis.rit.edu/fairchild/PDFs/AppearanceLec.pdf

And the equations are also listed in this paper: http://www.polybytes.com/misc/Meet_CIECAM02.pdf

86.125.224.249 (talk) 07:32, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely add good sources that aren’t already mentioned! A agree that Mark Fairchild’s lecture slides are great. Notice they’re linked at the bottom of the “references” section. I’ve also found that other paper useful in the past. Go ahead and put it into the article. –jacobolus (t) 19:47, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

spelling (American vs. British English)

[edit]

I'm surprised that the spelling has been edited on this article from the British/Commonwealth predominant "colour" to the American predominant "color". The page has certainly started out using the "ou" form.

It's not a biggie, but I thought that Wikipedia etiquette discourages altering a page that way once it's started out with one flavour of spelling: https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:How_to_copy-edit#Correcting_spelling --XEmacs (talk) 00:30, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The 'color' spelling was used since January 2008, by User:Adoniscik who wrote most of the page. I don’t think he was a seasoned Wikipedia author at the time, so he probably just didn’t know that convention. –jacobolus (t) 07:48, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on CIECAM02. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:00, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Reverse Transformation

[edit]

Is there any reason there is only the forward transformation and not the reverse? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chilibat (talk • contribs) 23:07, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Either my book did not have it or I got tired. I don't remember, but it makes no difference; feel free to add it. --Adoniscik(t, c) 17:33, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Discovered that the last link in reference 5 points to a pornographic site (polybytes.com). I don't know how to fix this, maybe someone can help to correct this link? Gerard (talk) 22:08, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed, thanks. --Adoniscik(t, c) 17:32, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:CIECAM02&oldid=1200909509"