Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Too Much Color

keithcirkel.co.uk

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 71 posts

Re: Too Much Color

#51

Post by tstrimple »

kalaksi wrote: post #37
cratermoon wrote: post #2

What's My JND? 0.0089 Can you beat it? https://www.keithcirkel.co.uk/whats-my-jnd/?r=A30iKP__7_Hb #WhatsMyJND

https://www.keithcirkel.co.uk/whats-my-jnd/?r=AG4mKP____6_ "This shouldn't be possible. I'm not saying that you cheated, but not not saying that." 0.0011. The quote seems a bit hyperbolic. There were maybe 2-3 that I didn't see and missed. 1-2 that I didn't hit perfectly but close enough. Display probably affects results (but didn't change any settings for this). I have a Dell IPS. I also moved my head around a bit,…

I got the same results you did. I think this is testing our monitors more so than our eyes. Given the forum we're on, I expect far better than average display devices being used which could help explain why basically everyone is doing far, far better than "average" according to the site.

Re: Too Much Color

#53

Post by cmovq »

I've always assumed minifiers were a kind of lossless compression. I guess this optimization makes it lossy? Even if we can't tell the difference between oklch(0.659432 0.304219 234.75238) and oklch(.659 .304 234.752) they're still different colors.

Re: Too Much Color

#55

Post by pezezin »

taeric wrote: post #43

This reminds me of the amusing tendency of people to use the full double for recording lat/long of locations.

It depends on your use case. Storing WGS84 coordinates as 32-bit floats can incur on errors of several meters. It might be good for your fitness tracking application, but not for serious GIS usage.

Case in point: many years ago I was working on some software to generate 3D models from drone pictures. The first step of the pipeline was to convert from WGS84 to ECEF (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth-centered,_Earth-fixed_co...), an absolute Cartesian coordinate system. Well, it turns out that at the scales involved, 6.371 million meters, 32-bit floats have a precision of half a meter, so the resulting models were totally broken.

Moving to 64-bit floats fixed this issue.

Re: Too Much Color

#56

Post by jcelerier »

cratermoon wrote: post #2

What's My JND? 0.0089 Can you beat it? https://www.keithcirkel.co.uk/whats-my-jnd/?r=A30iKP__7_Hb #WhatsMyJND

so basically this thread confirms that we're all getting worse color that we can actually see because I guess of some terrible lab measurement that got carried over like gospel? (0.0021 here, on a semi-cheap acer IPS screen)

    > At its core this formula gives you a single number: how far apart two colours look. 0.0 means identical, 100.0 means you're comparing black and white. The magic number to remember is the "Just Noticeable Difference" (JND). For dE00, JND is around 2.0. Below that, people struggle to tell two colours apart. Below 1.0, basically no one can. So anything under 2.0 is "close enough" and anything under 1.0 is "you're kidding yourself."

Re: Too Much Color

#58

Post by rerdavies »

Theodores wrote: post #31

Ahhh, NASA numbers! My favourite, particularly in SVG files, and more recently in colours. What is a NASA number? Allegedly, within NASA, there is only a need for so many decimal places. If I can remember correctly, nine digits would get a spacecraft to land within a metre on the rock formerly known as the planet Pluto. So no need for that, unless you are going to 'occupy Pluto', building a few AI datacentres there.…

Good design speaks to credibility, with some justification. If somebody doesn't care about whether their webpages look good, it suggests that they also didn't care about whether their content was accurate.

Re: Too Much Color

#59

Post by taeric »

pezezin wrote: post #55
taeric wrote: post #43

This reminds me of the amusing tendency of people to use the full double for recording lat/long of locations.

It depends on your use case. Storing WGS84 coordinates as 32-bit floats can incur on errors of several meters. It might be good for your fitness tracking application, but not for serious GIS usage. Case in point: many years ago I was working on some software to generate 3D models from drone pictures. The first step of the pipeline was to convert from WGS84 to ECEF ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth-centered,_Earth…

Isn't that more of using a float to represent the number? Would be akin to trying to represent .5. Which, if your goal is to represent decimals, you are best off not using floats.

Granted, just storing it as a 32 bit integer is probably difficult for most uses. BCD just isn't common for most programmers. (Or fixed point, in general.)

Post reply on HN