On Wed, 2021-12-29 at 12:19 -0700, home user wrote:
I wonder how many people don't even know about them, and use them
without knowing it, as was the case for me.
To me, the idea of a zero-width line would mean non-printing, so I
would avoid it. In fact, when I print tables and charts, one of the
things I experiment with is quite thin lines and not 100% black, as
they tend to make tables ugly and more cluttered.
Color perception is complex and tricky. I'm a long-time
of fluorescent minerals. My collection is big. Color perception is
important in this hobby. A book(*) that I read many years ago
talked about color perception. I remember context (my term) being a
part of that. Time also matters. Most monitors are sRGB, which
covers less than 50% of the range of colors people can see. I've
longed for much better color gamuts for monitors for a long time.
Perception certainly is a huge part of it. What you view adjacent to
an object affects how you perceive it. e.g. The old butcher's trick of
putting green plastic around their meat display to make it look redder.
Most monitors (and various video systems) have a very limited gamut,
they rely on contrasts between things to avoid looking dull. Cameras
do the same thing, and often deliberately emphasise contrasting colours
to try and make things pop out at you. You can see that with news
bulletins where they've done night filming, and there'll be a black
halo around deep blue lighting (where the system has overcompensated).
When it comes to monitors, the actual tint (or hue) of the red phosphor
isn't pure red. Not only isn't it 100% saturated red, but it's often
not red (on most old domestic CRT TVs it actually verged towards
orange). Likewise, with the blue and green phosphors not being 100%
mono-chromatic, and not being precisely the same tint on each screen.
Apart from meaning you couldn't get pure, or accurate colours, it meant
each screen looked different. You get similar impreciseness whether
it's CRT, plasma, or LCD.
Also, there's a limit to the range between the dimmest visible
emissions and the brightest possible ones. There's a technical limit
to how much they can emit, as well as compete with ambient lighting,
and as to how much you want to see. e.g. You don't want super bright
emissions when viewing TV in a dark room, it hurts your eyes.
One of the tricks employed by TV/monitor manufacturers to say they've
improved their colour gamut is to have increased the possible emission
brightness further (therefore increased the range of possible colours).
Yet, you can rarely use that full range, the super bright is too
bright. And many things are filmed to use the full contrast range no
matter what the scene is. It only tends to be the arty directors that
shoot for more realistic look: A bright sunny day gets a full-contrast
picture, indoors gets less contrast. Where you could have set up your
wide-range display to show both nicely.
Translate that back to computer displays: When typing black text on
white background (representing what you'll eventually print on paper).
You don't want 100% burning bright white background simulating your
paper background, on a super-bright emitting screen. But that's how
most things are usually set up. Then, when you look at a photo on the
same set-up, it looks oddly too dim (because it is, comparatively
speaking). Word processors ought to let you display a non-100% white
typing background, one that the printer isn't going to try and print.
Linux 3.10.0-1160.49.1.el7.x86_64 #1 SMP Tue Nov 30 15:51:32 UTC 2021 x86_64
Boilerplate: All unexpected mail to my mailbox is automatically deleted.
I will only get to see the messages that are posted to the mailing list.