User talk:Wandell

Hello. Concerning your contribution, Brian Wandell, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from either web sites or printed material. This article appears to be a direct copy from http://white.stanford.edu/~brian/Biography.htm. As a copyright violation, Brian Wandell appears to qualify for speedy deletion under the speedy deletion criteria. Brian Wandell has been tagged for deletion, and may have been deleted by the time you see this message. If the source is a credible one, please consider rewriting the content and citing the source.

If you believe that the article is not a copyright violation, or if you have permission from the copyright holder to release the content freely under the GFDL, you can comment to that effect on Talk:Brian Wandell. If the article has already been deleted, but you have a proper release, you can reenter the content at Brian Wandell, after describing the release on the talk page. However, you may want to consider rewriting the content in your own words. Thank you, and please feel free to continue contributing to Wikipedia. Hatch68 06:37, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Autobiography Policy

Please read WP:Auto before adding or editing an article about Brian Wandell again. Thanks. - Hatch68 06:39, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Color balance

Hi, Brian, I see you're a sometimes wikipedia editor; I'm more seriously addicted, myself. Anyway, your edits to color balance have made for a long non-wikified and mostly unsourced lead section, and has made a significant redefinition of the meaning of the subject "color balance." Also it has taken the topic out of the lead paragraph, and refers now to the term color balance instead of speaking of the topic itself (see use–mention distinction). For these reasons, I think I should revert it until we talk about it. I agree that the current definition may not be the only or most usual interpretation of color balance; but it would be great to have sources if we're going to change the definition. Do you have sources to say to that color balance is the general color appearance mapping process, as opposed to just adjusting the amounts of primaries as the article currently say? I agree that a good AWB system is about the former, but these are not usually called color balance. In fact, it seems backward to say that white balance is about getting the neutrals right, when in really most camera AWB systems are aiming to do illuminant adaption; conversely, it seems to me that color balance usually refers to the simpler concept of just balancing the R, G, and B. Anyway, if we had any decent sources defining the term color balance, that would let us guide the article from a source, instead of from the gut, which would be better. Dicklyon (talk) 04:52, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here for example is a ref on color balance in Gimp; and here in Photoshop. These just work on the RGB channels, not on trying to get good matching color appearance. And this one talks about using filters to balance film; again, it's a balance without much of a matrix, primarily to get neutrals about right. Dicklyon (talk) 05:02, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I managed to preserve most of what you wrote, but reorganized quite a bit and taking the lead back closer to what it said before. I added the above refs for the simple meanings, and put the generalized meanings into sections; they still need sources. You have some good ones handy? Dicklyon (talk) 06:00, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Dick, I sure hope I am doing this right -- should I be putting this on your Talk page? Anyway, as your comments point out I don't really know what I am doing in this context. I would only make a few observations about color balance to you, and then I will get out of your way.

First, there is no authoritative definition of the terms color balance, white balance, neutral balance or whatever. Bob Hunt may have one view, Macadam another, Roy Berns, Mark Fairchild, and so forth. The people who wrote Gimp, Photoshop, and so forth will all have their own usage. Concerning the usage this and related terms, I think the situation is hopeless. It is a bit like the meaning of all those knobs on TV sets - color, chroma, this an that. Some marketing person decided to put a name on some knob built by an engineer at a specific product. The best you can do in a context like this is choose a clear definition for this article and remark on the inconsistencies in usage within the field. That was my effort in the previous edit. Sorry it didn't seem to work well for you.

Second, I am concerned about what this page teaches people about color balancing. To say that color balance algorithms work in a space, say RGB is not really precise. There are many RGB primaries - each display has a different one. Even describing color balance as a diagonal transform in some space is a poor way to teach the practice. Note that a diagonal transform in XYZ space can be defined as a general 3x3 in RGB space. The implementations of color balancing that I have seen commonly used solve directly for 3x3 Hence, it is much better to think of color balance independent of the color space.

I very much appreciate the work you are doing here. As you point out, I am a dabbler. I am not even sure I am doing this right. I greatly admire the work you and your colleagues are doing. Since I won't be able to be consistently helpful, I will get out of the way. If you would like to discuss this outside of this context, I will be glad to exchange e-mails with you. Wandell (talk) 05:21, 14 July 2008 (UTC).[reply]

You did right answering where the discussion started. We usually indent replies, using colons. I'll indent by two in case you want to adjust yours.

Thanks for your comments. This article has been a bit of trouble, since, as you note, there's no consistent definition to work from. In such cases, I try to represent multiple definitions; or sometimes I pick one and talk about inconsistencies; just depends how I'm leaning that day. It's not hopeless, and I'd be happy to hear more from you about what direction you think would improve the article. I did keep most of what you added, just not the new lead.

All of the white-point adaptation methods I have seen are diagonal matrices in some space (except that the original Bradford transform also had a bit of a nonlinearity that usually gets ignored, and maybe other methods do, too). Are there matrix methods that are NOT derived from a diagonal adjustment in some space? If so, point me at a source and I'll add something about that. Dicklyon (talk) 05:31, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unreferenced BLPs

Hello Wandell! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 1 of the articles that you created is tagged as an Unreferenced Biography of a Living Person. The biographies of living persons policy requires that all personal or potentially controversial information be sourced. In addition, to ensure verifiability, all biographies should be based on reliable sources. if you were to bring this article up to standards, it would greatly help us with the current 450 article backlog. Once the article is adequately referenced, please remove the {{unreferencedBLP}} tag. Here is the article:

Barney Jones - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 00:20, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Articles for deletion nomination of Barney Jones

I have nominated Barney Jones, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Barney Jones. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. JamieS93 14:57, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Barney Jones

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Barney Jones. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Barney Jones. Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:03, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]