You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
You may wonder why we didn’t just use L*a*b*’s hue and chroma measures, then, we could have just use L*a*b*! However, when we tried using it in design, L*a*b* was too inconsistent perceptually.
But the article does not explain why HCT doesn't use CAM16 J for the "tone" value instead of CIELAB L*. Wouldn't we have the same benefit of only working with one standard color system and not having to glue together L* and Ch in the solver?
Yeah, this is to get a quotable response to add to Wikipedia. But I'm also actually curious: is being able to get the contrast from the XYZ (skipping the CAM) that useful? Maybe there's some reasoning I've missed here?
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
The Science of Color & Design explains why HCT uses CAM16 Ch instead of CIELAB chroma:
But the article does not explain why HCT doesn't use CAM16 J for the "tone" value instead of CIELAB L*. Wouldn't we have the same benefit of only working with one standard color system and not having to glue together L* and Ch in the solver?
Yeah, this is to get a quotable response to add to Wikipedia. But I'm also actually curious: is being able to get the contrast from the XYZ (skipping the CAM) that useful? Maybe there's some reasoning I've missed here?
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: