Quote:
Originally Posted by Max Vondel
A big post.
For me what is real is what my brain perceives.
In reality you only have red. green, blue and light sensitive receptors
Any other colours are artifacts of you brains processing.
So who is to say what is real or not.
|
Good day Peter, I agree that in NB (or other palettes than RGB true color) you can pretty much use the palette of your choice. I did that when I mapped IR to blue or red in bicolor imaging blended with monochrome LUM. As long as you respect the ratios and are forthcoming about which color you map to each channel to emphasize the difference in composition. But then you don't start masking areas or post processing and replacing R,G or B colors based on taste or to emulate something else as you modify not only the ratios but also the visible structures and perception.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Max Vondel
So I find that you cannot apply all the same rules as you would for normal daylight photo's/perception to night time viewing or imaging.
|
That's a valid point and one flaw that Ivo pointed out with the AI training.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Max Vondel
Again I would apply the principle of extracting maximum information from a limited data set.
|
Absolutely. If the palette selected works in a way that you can accentuate the structures and boundaries in the real data then that's perfectly fine to choose a mapping that works to that end without any localised editing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Max Vondel
To me there is no holy grail about what is right and how it should be perceived/presented.
The illusion of perfection is largely in our minds
|
DSO don't change much over a lifetime so we're all imaging the same thing. Depending on the instrument we should be pretty close in what we're presenting. Not perfection but basic consistency in the data presented without too much creative thinking.