Quote:
Originally Posted by Andy01
That's fascinating Rick but a bit confusing for a layman like me - they all look pretty good so which one is supposedly the correct one?  |
Andy, the first two images (the very blue ones) use the averaged colour of all the stars in the field as a white reference. This is probably justifiable if you have a field that contains a "typical" mix of star types, but for a globular cluster I would say the results are incorrect.
Using a G2V star (same as our sun) as the white reference gives us the two reddest images. I'd consider these images have a high degree of correctness for life forms that grew up on Earth or other planets revolving around a G2V star
The version with correction for galactic dust extinction shows the colour as it would appear from outside the Milky Way.
Using an average spiral galaxy as a white reference can be justified on the basis that a galaxy contains a nice mix of stars, and not everybody grows up looking (not directly, please!) at a G2V sun. These versions also have a high degree of correctness, IMO, and might appeal to silicon based life forms.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SimmoW
Wow, that's an impressive tool, even more justifying my embracing the Dark Side of 'your'cult Rick!
Yes, interesting that there are a variety of scientific justifications for different colours. I suppose that what layer masks are for 
Hurry up and get it released! |
Our cult gets the best stuff, Simon, and PhotometricColorCalibration rolls off the tongue nearly as well as "Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn."
Layer masks are for wusses that can't see numeric L*c*h* values in their head
I hope it will be out soon but that's up to Juan... I'm really looking forward to large scale pixel rejection. No more painstakingly removing satellite trails
