Date: Sat, 6 Sep 2008 17:45:48 -0700 From: Gary Kline <kline@thought.org> To: Polytropon <freebsd@edvax.de> Cc: FreeBSD Mailing List <freebsd-questions@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: which gray is best for print? Message-ID: <20080907004547.GA27611@thought.org> In-Reply-To: <20080906135346.d16975e7.freebsd@edvax.de> References: <20080903231439.GA98955@thought.org> <20080905170804.GB20329@melon.esperance-linux.co.uk> <20080905200601.GA81339@thought.org> <20080905223859.8ad56b37.freebsd@edvax.de> <20080906033645.GA93841@thought.org> <20080906135346.d16975e7.freebsd@edvax.de>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
{ After spending hours looking for a used ThinkPad....}
On Sat, Sep 06, 2008 at 01:53:46PM +0200, Polytropon wrote:
> On Fri, 5 Sep 2008 20:36:45 -0700, Gary Kline <kline@thought.org> wrote:
> > So you're saying that the "white" on my [monster] CRT is not the
> > same as on a future LCD Display? rats:)
>
> Exactly. And compare the "black", too, best way to differentiate
> with CRT and LCD side by side with a fullscreen color "black".
>
Isn't it dark-gray, tho? or as "black" as a dark tube gets,
rather than "true-black"?
>
>
> > --I can't see much
> > difference in my new laserjet from my HP500 DeskJet, but then it
> > wasn't a main concern ... .
>
> Human perception is another thing. Just because *I* can't notice
> something, it doesn't imply that (1) others can't and (2) it isn't
> there. In order to make a human person *feel* the change of a
> sensory input is linear (e. g. the light intensity increases), you
> need to increase the actual input in a logarithmic way.
>
> http://www.neuro.uu.se/fysiologi/gu/nbb/lectures/WebFech.html
>
tHis I'll check out; you've piqued my curiousity, even tho this
gets further from whatever I was talking about:-) ...Not only
are the psychological varioations, but neurophysiological ones as
well. And gender diffs too. My better two-thirds says that I
may as well be color-blind, and she's probably right. What I
will avoid is having some *Ugly* combos like black on dark blue.
No, I am Not kidding. Or yellow typeface on White bg. It's like
the shriek/skreek of chalk against a blackboard. Makes my skin crawl.
>
>
> > I took all 5 quarters of physics, like most of us, but never got
> > far into optics.
>
> Physics comes in 5 quarters? 5 * 0.25 = 1.25... :-)
>
>
>
> > And certainly, nothing like *this*.
>
> I learned about this when I studied psychology and computational
> visualistics, but the RGB vs. CMY stuff (additive and subtractive
> color combination) was part of the basal school education in the
> GDR.
You got me there, man. I took plenty of psych courses over the
years, but nothing involving computation. Congrats.
>
>
>
> > the
> > quality of my writing is much more important that the colors of
> > typeface or background.
>
> I really applaud this attitude. You won't find them very often
> across the web, sadly, because "style is more important than content".
> I've seen things, man, ...
>
Hm. About the only time form/style can top function/contact,
IMHO, is when you're being forced to watch a very nicely
stylized ad. {On the web.} I've seen a couple. O/wise, the way
a piece works wins. I listened to an interview on NPR several
months ago who said that, "I think of people who don't watch web
advertisement as thieves," or sometime similar. Isn't a primary
function of the web to allow *us* to control what we see?
>
>
> > But this is an interesting side-bar.
>
> It's a very important topic to know about when you're doing DTP
> stuff. Exact color calibration is very important in this field.
> So you can understand why there's still a niche market for quality
> CRT monitors and quality printing devices. Of course, color
> temperatures and other settings like contrast and brightness
> are to be considered, too.
>
Sure, but I'll happy leave this niche to people more qualified.
I'm below the bottom/barrel here.
>
>
> > Really! So far, in my tests [staring at a CRT], I find an
> > off-white reads most easily against a very dark blue. 000033;
> > or whatever 333366 is. Still experimenting.
>
> it's very individual how colors are percepted. If someone with
> deuteranopia looks at certain color combinations where others
> may say: "Looks good!", they could say: "I don't see text there."
>
> At least for printed material, black on white is good, and it
> even can be used for projection media (beamer).
i May be off on this one, but I'm seeing more dark grays on my
ink+paper journals. Hard to tell since with the years sight
loses sharpness as our lenses become sclerotic and full of gunk.
Which all goes back to the original point:: what's the best
--oh, no-- what *are* the best combinations of off-white and
darkgray, bluegray, or almost-black-bluegray?
>
> When I was at university, some guys put up a presentation with
> black text on dark bluie background, 10pt serife font. Bah!
> Unreadable in the last row.
didn't i mumble something like this above? 25 years ago my eyes
were much better, but not That much. i hope someone complained
... seriously.
>
>
>
> --
> Polytropon
> From Magdeburg, Germany
> Happy FreeBSD user since 4.0
> Andra moi ennepe, Mousa, ...
--
Gary Kline kline@thought.org http://www.thought.org Public Service Unix
http://jottings.thought.org http://transfinite.thought.org
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20080907004547.GA27611>