Return-Path: <tiff-bounces@lists.maptools.org>
Received: from inas006.isp.belgacom.be (localhost [127.0.0.1])
        by inav003.isp.belgacom.be (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11/Skynet-IN-AV-3.00) with ESMTP id k8HGBaiJ010518
        for <joris.at.lebbeke@skynet.be>; Sun, 17 Sep 2006 18:11:37 +0200
        (envelope-from <tiff-bounces@lists.maptools.org>)
Received: from inmx008.isp.belgacom.be (inmx008.isp.belgacom.be [195.238.5.88])
        by inas006.isp.belgacom.be (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11/Skynet-IN-AS-2.03) with ESMTP id k8HFmRvq009040
        for <joris.at.lebbeke@skynet.be>; Sun, 17 Sep 2006 18:11:28 +0200
        (envelope-from <tiff-bounces@lists.maptools.org>)
Received: from duke.maptools.org (r153.dmsolutions.ca [209.217.116.153] (may be forged))
        by inmx008.isp.belgacom.be (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11/Skynet-IN-2.32) with ESMTP id k8H9ABNk019681
        for <joris.at.lebbeke@skynet.be>; Sun, 17 Sep 2006 11:10:12 +0200
        (envelope-from <tiff-bounces@lists.maptools.org>)
Received: from duke.maptools.org (duke.maptools.org [127.0.0.1])
	by duke.maptools.org (8.12.11/8.12.10) with ESMTP id k8H929WZ002427;
	Sun, 17 Sep 2006 05:02:18 -0400
Received: from outmx009.isp.belgacom.be (outmx009.isp.belgacom.be
	[195.238.5.4])
	by duke.maptools.org (8.12.11/8.12.10) with ESMTP id k8H927J5002424
	for <tiff@lists.maptools.org>; Sun, 17 Sep 2006 05:02:07 -0400
Received: from outmx009.isp.belgacom.be (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by outmx009.isp.belgacom.be (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11/Skynet-OUT-2.22)
	with ESMTP id k8H91tIL029759
	for <tiff@lists.maptools.org>; Sun, 17 Sep 2006 11:01:56 +0200
	(envelope-from <joris.at.lebbeke@skynet.be>)
Received: from dfgrrxsknr4e (100.201-244-81.adsl-dyn.isp.belgacom.be
	[81.244.201.100])
	by outmx009.isp.belgacom.be (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11/Skynet-OUT-2.22)
	with SMTP id k8H91qm4029727; Sun, 17 Sep 2006 11:01:52 +0200
	(envelope-from <joris.at.lebbeke@skynet.be>)
Message-ID: <002301c6da38$2bb53f00$64c9f451@dfgrrxsknr4e>
From: "Joris" <joris.at.lebbeke@skynet.be>
To: <graeme@argyllcms.com>, <tiff@lists.maptools.org>
Subject: Re: [Tiff] is there alpha component
	presentin	GrayscaleorPalettecolorimage
Date: Sun, 17 Sep 2006 11:03:40 +0200
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1807
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1807
Cc: 
X-BeenThere: tiff@lists.maptools.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.4
Precedence: list
List-Id: TIFF and libtiff discussion <tiff.lists.maptools.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.maptools.org/mailman/listinfo/tiff>,
	<mailto:tiff-request@lists.maptools.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.maptools.org/mailman/private/tiff>
List-Post: <mailto:tiff@lists.maptools.org>
List-Help: <mailto:tiff-request@lists.maptools.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.maptools.org/mailman/listinfo/tiff>,
	<mailto:tiff-request@lists.maptools.org?subject=subscribe>
Sender: tiff-bounces@lists.maptools.org
Errors-To: tiff-bounces@lists.maptools.org
X-UIDL: 000000000023ceae.00001a77
X-MSP-STORE: Sun, 17 Sep 2006 18:11:45 +0200
Status:   

Joris wrote:
> As to convertion to Lab, OK, I'm all for that. So now we do indeed
> have a 4D space. To make my point, let's encode L, a and b as their
> natural float value, and alpha as a float value ranging from 0 to 1.
> So, you're saying the difference between L*a*b*alpha (0,0,0,1) (which
> is non-transparent black) and (1,0,0,1) (which is non-transparent
> almost-black) is equal to the difference between (0,0,0,1) (again
> non-transparent black) and (0,0,0,0) (which is total transparency).
>
> See, we apply weights (full transparent range is equally important as
> a difference of 1 in the L range). This is obvious if we pick very bad
> weights as we did here. So what are good weights? Full transparent
> range is equally important as a difference of 100 in the L range? Or
> is it twice as important as a difference of 100 in the L range? Why?

I forgot to mention one other reason why I feel this is a challenge.
Your 4D model doesn't always apply.

Would you say Lab alpha (0,0,0,0) (full transparency) is closer to
(100,0,0,1) (non-transparent white) or (50,0,0,1) (non-transparent
mid-gray) or (0,0,0,1) (non-transparent black). I think you'll agree
full transparency is equally distant from all three. So this is not
normal eucledian 4D space.

Actually, (0,0,0,0) (full transparency) is equal to (100,0,0,0) (full
transparency), which gives rise to the convention to always encoding Lab
values (0,0,0) for full transparency in most implementations. So the
distance between these two encodings of full transparency is 0. So this
is not normal eucledian 4D space.

One could be almost tempted to use eucledian distance in a
pre-multiplied Lab alpha space, solving this last problem... But still,
the arbitrary weights problem stands.


Best regards,

Joris Van Damme
info@awaresystems.be
http://www.awaresystems.be/
Download your free TIFF tag viewer for windows here:
http://www.awaresystems.be/imaging/tiff/astifftagviewer.html

_______________________________________________
Tiff mailing list: Tiff@lists.maptools.org
http://lists.maptools.org/mailman/listinfo/tiff
http://www.remotesensing.org/libtiff/
