Color and imagery

[hiflier]

27 minutes ago, BugMaster said:

but I would predict either drastic spreads or no spread.

 

Could you go into that a little more with some of your thoughts on that, please.

[BugMaster]

4 minutes ago, hiflier said:

 

Could you go into that a little more with some of your thoughts on that, please.

Sure, that was a little vague on my end- sorry!

 

When I say spread, I meant the range of RGB values. If memory serves, Chewy has dark brown and light brown fur, but no in between. Assuming that was his coloration, we would see a bimodal distribution of color (lots of light and dark, but no "middle"). The muppets are pretty monotypic, so any brown muppet would likely have pretty similar RGB values in its coloration (since they are made of felt pieces).

 

Primates don't really have drastic colorations in their hair across their body, even some of the crazy ones are a pretty graduated in color. Looking at Patty in the graph, there was a gradient, whereas the FOB subject had a tight packed RBG range. 

 

 

[Bill]

My Thoughts:

 

1. You need to distinguish between more current images and the PGF, so you can try to define the color variability in fake furs. in 1967 fake fur was pathetically unrealistic in general. I didn't see any really impressive natural-looking furs until around 1976, when Rick baker showed me a color swatch of premium fake furs (for fake fur coats) from Europe, but you had to buy the fur a bolt at a time, minimum, which was enough for 10 full suits, so out of the price range for your average creature maker or hoaxer. Fake fur rose to very realistic levels in the mid 1980's with National hair technology (now called National Fibre technology) custom weaving fake hair strands into a spandex base. I has them do so very complex color blends, and they succeeded splendidly. By the mid 70's, they also had course guard hairs and base fur combined for a more natural look. 

 

2. Where experimentation might be worthy is testing real and fake furs under daylight and open shade outdoors, to see how each photographs. One example of a test would be to take a taxidermy full body figure (using the animal's real pelt) and then take an identical manniken and dress it with fake fur to match the real animal as best one can, and photograph both side by side under same lighting. That might reveal differences that can be quantified. Something like the attached image, the two upper right photos of a real chimpanzee and a fake one, side by side.

 

Bill

[hiflier]

It may not be simple color gradient that is a factor in real vs. fake- or heir similarities. Unless it's a pelt, as Bill mentioned, then one would think that light absorption or reflection by a synthetic material, whether it possesses a color gradient or not would also be a factor? What BugMaster has is a pretty fine idea and some data to back it up even in this early stage. It's kind of a proof of concept scenario which is pretty easy to understand...until it isn't, LOL. As the scope of testing different parameters goes through its hoops there's going to be a pretty good outcome that should serve investigators and researchers well. Even at this early stage the outcomes may surprise us.

 

Hang with it BugMaster because your definitely onto something here. I fact the whole idea brings up an interesting point when considering Catmandoo's UV input. If costumes and suits have a reflective UV index then researches might rethink their cameras to record UV in the field. It would be like a camera's version of a thermal image where UV reflectance off of synthetic materials or man made/worn fabrics would show BF suit fakery on images captured in a live situation? Yep, need to cut down on the caffeine It promotes racing-brain syndrome.

 

[Catmandoo]

7 hours ago, hiflier said:

Yep, need to cut down on the caffeine It promotes racing-brain syndrome.

 

No, more coffee.

The cube with the RGB data looks like the alien drawing in Contact. The normal presentation format is a Chromaticity Diagram which handles all colors in the visible spectrum.

I have to stir things up. The testing on the PGF was looking at dyes in Ektachrome copy film that attempted to copy the dyes in Kodachrome film. The dyes are very different.

Here goes: the RGB values of 'black' are R:0, G:0, B:0.

The examination of hair/fur has been done before. Many years ago, a suit was debunked by someone who inspected the images and found a 'green' color. I can't remember the year, location or who did the work. The dyeing process may require several steps/dyes to achieve the final color that humans see. The scrutinizer detected the green intermediate color. I think the final color was brown.

Checking fur/hair means looking for an intermediate color(s). This looks promising. If I were to do this, I would gather fabric/fur sample. Take 3 UV images. Back side, fur side and fur side with fur spread apart. The parent material may have unique reflection/absorption on the fur side.

 

Working with UV in the field is not easy. Some cameras do not convert well to full spectrum. Similarly, many lenses have terrible hot spots in UV and or IR. You end up with a box of filters that is over $1,000. Tripod is mandatory. It is a daytime only activity and the UV from the sun goes away very quickly in the afternoon.

Bench top work shows how common items 'light up' with a hand held UV source. Many threads used for sewing will light up. Bench top UV images are not the same as UV images in the sun.

[hiflier]

6 hours ago, Catmandoo said:

No, more coffee.

 

Okay (sip)-(sip)-(sip)

[Catmandoo]

On 12/16/2022 at 4:42 PM, hiflier said:

If costumes and suits have a reflective UV index then researches might rethink their cameras to record UV in the field.

That is a definite maybe. Plastic materials versus hair/fur.  Working with UV in a forested environment has many challenges. Number 1, you can't control the lighting.

Sunlight can be described in three basic divisions at solar noon, clear sky:

• about 5% UV consisting of UVA, UVB  ( UVA not listed because it is absorbed by ozone )
• about 50% visible light
• About 40% IR

The 'missing 5% UV' is the UVA that is absorbed by the ozone layer and does not reach the surface.

 

Number 2: go under the forest canopy and light goes away quickly. Number 3: filters have to be used to cut off/block daylight and IR.  You could end up using 5% or less of 'daylight' to get an image on the reduced capability of the imaging chip.  This would be on a tripod with long exposures and large apertures.  Animals, large or small, would be juxtaposed with vegetation.

It is an expensive exercise.

[BugMaster]

Thank you everyone for the feedback/info! It sounds like there is a lot to encompass when assessing color, so my approach may be a bit too simplistic to account for all of that. This was more of an exploratory analysis to see if this would work, inspired by ThinkerThunker.

 

I will try to make a chromaticity plot with the colors to show the more traditional display of colors.

[bipedalist]

On 12/17/2022 at 12:34 AM, Catmandoo said:

 

No, more coffee.

The cube with the RGB data looks like the alien drawing in Contact. The normal presentation format is a Chromaticity Diagram which handles all colors in the visible spectrum.

I have to stir things up. The testing on the PGF was looking at dyes in Ektachrome copy film that attempted to copy the dyes in Kodachrome film. The dyes are very different.

Here goes: the RGB values of 'black' are R:0, G:0, B:0.

The examination of hair/fur has been done before. Many years ago, a suit was debunked by someone who inspected the images and found a 'green' color. I can't remember the year, location or who did the work. The dyeing process may require several steps/dyes to achieve the final color that humans see. The scrutinizer detected the green intermediate color. I think the final color was brown.

Checking fur/hair means looking for an intermediate color(s). This looks promising. If I were to do this, I would gather fabric/fur sample. Take 3 UV images. Back side, fur side and fur side with fur spread apart. The parent material may have unique reflection/absorption on the fur side.

 

Working with UV in the field is not easy. Some cameras do not convert well to full spectrum. Similarly, many lenses have terrible hot spots in UV and or IR. You end up with a box of filters that is over $1,000. Tripod is mandatory. It is a daytime only activity and the UV from the sun goes away very quickly in the afternoon.

Bench top work shows how common items 'light up' with a hand held UV source. Many threads used for sewing will light up. Bench top UV images are not the same as UV images in the sun.

 

 

Two observations and then questions.  In the thread spool roll oriented hortizontally above the three vertical spools, looks colored reddish.... why is it that it is uv nonreflective in pic 2?  Second, the upturned rootball in pic 3 with dark soil is high contrast relative to green uv reflected vegetation.  Is it that the uv is absorbed by dark colors or does soil/earth have special properties WRT uv?  

Edited December 21, 2022 by bipedalist

[Catmandoo]

On 12/18/2022 at 5:42 PM, Catmandoo said:

about 5% UV consisting of UVA, UVB  ( UVA not listed because it is absorbed by ozone )

 

Correction. should read ( UVC not listed because it is absorbed by ozone )

 

2 hours ago, bipedalist said:

Two observations and then questions.  In the thread spool roll oriented hortizontally above the three vertical spools, looks colored reddish.... why is it that it is uv nonreflective in pic 2?  Second, the upturned rootball in pic 3 with dark soil is high contrast relative to green uv reflected vegetation.  Is it that the uv is absorbed by dark colors or does soil/earth have special properties WRT uv?  

The images are old and I don't have any notes on the set up. Full spectrum camera without filters on the fabric items. Filter pack on the forest images.

Threads used in outdoor garments will have dyes that reflect UV to protect the thread against UV damage. UV reflectance of thread differs between manufacturers and intended use. The fabric / thread images are not intended to simulate a deer's vision.

 

Plants and trees need  infrared, visible spectrum and UV.  Vegetation can be 'sunburned' by UVB. My rule of thumb for UV is for every thousand feet above sea level, the UV increases by 4%.  Plants and trees reflect and absorb UV light. They have evolved to have the original sun blocker for UVB. Flowers will reflect, absorb and have some phosphorescence when exposed to UV and that gives them some of their coloration. Perception of 'dark' or 'light' objects is related to absorption and reflectance, not necessarily our color vision.