mathematical tools. And lossy to boot, notions not always
comprehensible to the layman. What gives.
I was struck yesterday by an article int the Guardian wherein a
commentator was wondering why the fashion inductry indulges in
expensive and elaborate fashion shows, which showcased clothes
that were unrealistic, and when business revenues came mainly
from accessories anyway. Apart form seeing these as advertising, the
more interesting question might lie with the will to show clothes
and fabrics as aesthetic experiences.
The same thing is at work with jpeg images. One is not concerned
with the color of a dress so much as the visual experience
of someone wearing it in a particular light, time of day, movement.
Jpeg images are photographs.
Indeed, one could go on to consider many fabrics as embodiments of
the reflective nature of light, where objects mirror each other
and the shirt whith the pineapple motif is in on the joke. And
beauty is everywhere, as all that distressed demim we have been
wearing for a while will attest. But aggressively, photographed in
fashion magazines which really are part of the businees of selling
us something new to wear.
So the first step in the making of a jpeg image is often conversion
to a different color space, from RGB to a Lab variety. Those serious
technicians make a point of emphasing the differences between the
lossy and non-lossy versions of the algorithm less a confrère end
up with a product that might be solely machine-read and thus derail on
the unfortunate information loss of a lossy. And further accounts of
the luminance, red-channel, blue-channel color scheme are reluctant to reveal
what is really at work in the use of a luminance channel. Here it is:
No comments:
Post a Comment