User talk:Adoniscik

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] CCT

A, do you suppose there's anything to that claim that Luv 1960 is used to define correlated color temp? Here is a source that says it's 1976 L'u'v'. You got anything better?

Thanks for being a good and cooperative editor, even if we do have a few little fights. Dicklyon (talk) 07:14, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, too. The articles are rapidly improving. I added a reference to the article. If you doubt its veracity, you can find the same thing in Schanda's Understanding the CIE System, pg. 67 which contains this quotation from the CIE definition (pg.67):

The correlated color temperature is the temperature of a Planckian radiator having the chromaticity nearest the chromaticity associated with the given spectral distribution on a diagram where the (CIE 1931 standard observer based) u’, 2/3v’ coordinates of the Planckian locus and the test stimulus are depicted.

Now if you look at the definition of the CIE 1960 color space, you'll see that u' = u and 2v' = 3v, so they are effectively referring to Yuv (not to be confused with the video YUV!). So really, there is not that much difference between the chromaticities of Luv and L*u'v'. Both sources are correct, in a sense, but it is more accurate to refer to Luv (CIE UCS, 1960) because it came first (CIELUV is from 1976).--Adoniscik (talk) 07:32, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, that sounds pretty believable. I have refs that say closest in xy space, too, but that's obviously not believable. I was a bit surprised to find the one that said closest in u'v'; I presume it's just wrong, as opposed to an update. Dicklyon (talk) 07:38, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Radiometry

NB: luminance and illuminance are not radiometric quantities! They are photometric quantities. See Photometry (optics)#Photometric versus radiometric quantities for an explanation of the difference. --Srleffler (talk) 22:38, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I quoted more or less from the book (which I'm staring at now, pg. 748). Given that I was merely trying to understand the concept myself, you are a physicist, and the book's author isn't, I'll take your word for it.--Adoniscik (talk) 22:43, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, I see. These terms get confused a lot and usages differ between fields. It's probable that in photography and/or color science the terms are used the way the author says. The radiometry article at present introduces the terms using the optics definitions. It could be broadened to explain other usages, but that would require someone who knows more about it than I do.--Srleffler (talk) 04:31, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Actually, no, the terms couldn't possibly be used that way in another field, since it wouldn't make even dimensional sense. Two statements in Peres were simply misinterpreted and mangled together into one that made no sense. The 3rd edition statement is more explicitly clear, and I found that first, so I used it to fix the article. Then I found the 4th on Amazon. It says "measurement of light in narrow bands", which makes sense, and implies radiometric measurement. Then, a bit later, it says "the most common quantities measured are luminance..."; this latter really refers to a calculation more than a measurement. That is, by measuring radiometric quantities in many bands, the instrument gets the data needed to compute those photometric quantities (by combining the measurements, not on a per-wavelength basis). Sometimes one has to have a bit of understanding to interpret the sources. Dicklyon (talk) 05:14, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for showing me the light :)

[edit] Linotype

Hi... Thanks for editing in the links to the online copy of that book -- I wasn't aware of it. I'll fill in the other chapter links. Paul Koning (talk) 18:20, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Autochrome Lumière

Thanks for calling for references; I added some. Feel free to help. Dicklyon (talk) 06:57, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Re Template:Color space

  • Please can you fix your update so it collapses as it used to (i.e., into one line)

Done! Thanks for the alert. Sardanaphalus (talk) 02:50, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

  • The idea of sorting them separately through the inclusion of {{Category:Color space|µ}} was interesting...

Leaving the {{Category:Color space|µ}} outside the noinclude was another oversight; I must've been getting tired! Now fixed. Sardanaphalus (talk) 05:26, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Matt Bianco

With-respect-to-your-edit: Yes, it's difficult to find information about what they are up to these days, isn't it. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 20:44, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Whiteness

Come on, why couldn't you have just renamed the article, instead of deleting it? That's not on!--MacRusgail (talk) 17:13, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

There was nothing there, but you are right. YGM. --Adoniscik (talk) 17:27, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] DNB, DSB, Bulloch's Roll

Just in case you really want to know the answer is to be found here. They're all abbreviations used in the biographical entries for Fellows of the Royal Society in its Sackler Archive. A previous editor (who i shall not name but you can track down through the diffs if you really want) had copy&pasted these from Karl Pearson's entry into the Wikipedia article for no apparent reason. I deleted the lot in my recent edit. Qwfp (talk) 23:10, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, guv. That article does need some formatting polish, but it's not in my field of interest so I'll leave it to someone else. --Adoniscik (talk) 23:42, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
WikiThanks
Thanks for changing your mind and revisting it despite that! I agree it needs in-line citations though they can be difficult to find unless you wrote that bit of text. It is in my field of interest and so I hope to revisit it one day but I'm a bit busy elsewhere just now. Qwfp (talk) 10:55, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] ICC profile & ICC Profile

Why does WP:NAME#Lowercase second and subsequent words in titles fail the WP:CSD? Isn't this exactly what {{db-move}} exists to address? I looked at Help:Moving a page#Moving over an existing page. --Adoniscik(t, c) 16:34, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you're trying to ask. If you want to know why I didn't move/delete one of those pages, it's because the request was made on the talk page and there's no reason to move the talk page and not the article. Stifle (talk) 16:36, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] answers.com

  1. It does not refer to Encyclopedia ISBN 0028656938, but to an "Encyclopedia of Russian History, by the Gale Group, Inc." whoever it is.
  2. Wikipedia is not a repository of links to whatever is here on web. Wikipedia needs article text (referenced from valid sources), not just links to the whole wide world.
  3. All the more why would wikipedia promote a business which makes money on delivering information which it did not create. You have to provide direct links to the sources.

`'Míkka>t 22:12, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] OK

Thanks for your fixes on Omar Khadr, much appreciated. (70 centimetres? did I really type that...lol). If you've got a chance, I'd appreciate if you'd pop around to the talk page of the article where there are some ongoing disputes about what is/isn't appropriate to include in the article.

Cheers,
Sherurcij (Speaker for the Dead) 17:32, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Heh, I have a very obsessive personality - something can capture my interest for months and it'll be pretty much all I work on. Transcribing his letters to his parents, getting permission from the family to license photos of him, even phoning US Naval officers to clarify details that weren't clear in press releases - to quote, "It's not stalking, it's journalism!". I actually asked about the framed reference list on the IRC channel, because I couldn't find it on any other "large articles" (George W. Bush for example) where I assumed they'd use it. For now, I'll keep my fingers crossed that nobody complains, and if they do I'll just pull out an old "If we limited our actions so as not to outpace technology, we would only stunt our development. We must move beyond the limits of technology, forcing technology to catch up to us" speech. ;) Sherurcij (Speaker for the Dead) 19:31, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Not a problem, I measured my wish to see it featured on the front page with my wish for it to contain all information, and decided the latter was more important - so chose not to cut out large sections and remove detail from it - I must admit it's my most-worked-on article on WP in years of editing :) Sherurcij (Speaker for the Dead) 02:54, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Mireds

Why not go all the way to 0 mireds, and go left-to-right? Dicklyon (talk) 21:20, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

It's all the same to me. I thought that would throw readers off, who are probably accustomed to seeing it the other way (I've never seen one go blue to red). I'll upload another one, this time with the brightness smoothened, and we can choose. --Adoniscik(t, c) 21:31, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] color temperature

Are those “further reading” books and all those external links actually not useful/relevant? I think it’s okay to have links to simpler high-level explanations, but I haven’t really looked at all of these links specifically. I just don’t think they should be removed without being checked out. I trust you if you say they really don’t add anything.

Ideally, the article would have some section with the most important papers, or the best overviews of the topic, separate from the footnotes, so that readers who want a deeper explanation than the Wikipedia article gives, can know where to look, without looking through the whole list of footnotes. Maybe the current books in the “further reading” section aren’t really appropriate for that purpose. If that is the case, they should be replaced with something else, I think. —jacobolus (t) 04:26, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Philip Jones Griffiths

You seem to have a deep interest in PJG - I can't help being curious why? (I met him once or twice in Bangkok and Phnom Penh, he was a charming man, and very kind. I recall him saying that the present moment is a wonderful one to be a photojournalist, with the events in Iraq and Afghanistan). PiCo (talk) 15:44, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Your edits to Kruithof curve

Hi, this is a friendly note to thank you for your edits to Kruithof curve and to suggest it would be helpful to other editors if you could try to use edit summaries for all edits. Also, I'd like to ask why did you remove all mention of the Purkinje effect, leaving only a link to the article in a See also section? - Neparis (talk) 01:23, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

The paragraph had not been backed with a reference since last July, so I axed it. The Purkinje article already explains what it is, and has a similar 'see also' link back to this one. --Adoniscik(t, c) 01:30, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Ok. Perhaps you could use an edit summary like "rm text unsourced since July 2007", so other editors can understand your reason at a glance? I have a citation for the paragraph, which is notable and relevant enough to include directly in the Kruithof curve article. You're probably already aware of WP:MOS: See also links are to be avoided as much as possible, and should be moved into the text itself. - Neparis (talk) 16:57, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Sorry for the inconvenience. I have a rule of thumb not to spend more time writing summaries than I do editing, so I reserve them for major editrs. I also militantly delete redundant See Also links, as you will see from my edit history. Thanks for co-operating! --Adoniscik(t, c) 16:59, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] What's going on in your head?

A, you've obviously got a lot of knowledge and sources, but I'm also often surprised by some of your off-the-wall suggestions and edits, like your latest merge proposal. If I knew more about you, I might have a better way to think about these things. So where are you coming from? What's your background? etc.; if you don't mind, I'd like to know. Dicklyon (talk) 17:57, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Post-graduate education in telecom, but drifted into film and photography (hence the interest in color science). The responsivity article already covers "sensitivity". Compare with spectral radiance and radiance, etc. --Adoniscik(t, c) 18:07, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. I realize the spectral sensitivity article is new and flaky, but I've long felt a need for such a thing; I don't think the responsivity fulfills it, since that's basically an output-orient concept that includes the system gain, whereas the spectral sensitivity is usually more normalized, or with unknown gain, or a quantum efficiency; in a system such as a cone cell, where the response is very nonlinear, but the spectral sensitivity is perfectly linear, you really need to separate these concepts. I think I goofed in using the term "responsivity" with respect to the cone cell plots a while back, since the curves are really about sensitivity, or how the first reaction of the opsins to light works, and not much to do with the response of the rest of the cell. Dicklyon (talk) 18:14, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
The thing is, "spectral sensitivity" does not apply just to biology, does it? Once you've generalized it, how different is the article going to look from responsivity? Or do you propose to use one for biology, and the other for machines? --Adoniscik(t, c) 18:19, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
No, it applies to film, sensors, all kinds of things. The generalization needs to not mix up linear combination of energy at different wavelengths with nonlinear response, as pointed out in Chesneys' Radiographic Imaging. Dicklyon (talk) 19:06, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] DOI bot

Hi, thanks for your feedback on DOI bot. I've disabled the feature for now, but still feel it's useful. Please feel free to discuss the matter at the DOI bot talk page! Thanks, Smith609 Talk 12:55, 28 May 2008 (UTC)