 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
I don't really follow off topic too much so don't know if htis had been
posted, but I found it amusing. Scored 8.
http://tinyurl.com/5tkxcc
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Charter <jrc### [at] msn com> wrote:
> http://tinyurl.com/5tkxcc
Expands to:
http://www.xrite.com/custom_page.aspx?PageID=77
Didn't shorten the url to even a half. Was it really necessary to use
tinyurl?
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 20-Sep-08 7:49, Jim Charter wrote:
>
> I don't really follow off topic too much so don't know if htis had been
> posted, but I found it amusing. Scored 8.
>
> http://tinyurl.com/5tkxcc
- Isn't this not also a monitor test?
- I scored 4. is that usual for my age? i.e. can I get a histogram of my
age group?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 20-Sep-08 11:33, Warp wrote:
> Jim Charter <jrc### [at] msncom> wrote:
>> http://tinyurl.com/5tkxcc
>
> Expands to:
> http://www.xrite.com/custom_page.aspx?PageID=77
>
> Didn't shorten the url to even a half. Was it really necessary to use
> tinyurl?
>
pro: even a small reduction reduces the chance of getting line wrapped.
(though that does not really apply in this case, as jim put it on a new
line)
contra: we don't know what to expect. We have to trust Jim that the info
he (or any imposter) gives is correct and we don't get redirected to
pr0n or trojans. (though that does not really apply in this case, as
jim did not give any information on what it was about)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> Jim Charter <jrc### [at] msncom> wrote:
>
>>http://tinyurl.com/5tkxcc
>
>
> Expands to:
> http://www.xrite.com/custom_page.aspx?PageID=77
>
> Didn't shorten the url to even a half. Was it really necessary to use
> tinyurl?
>
s'pose not
So how'd'ya score?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
andrel wrote:
as
> jim did not give any information on what it was about)
Sorry, I liked the simple idea of it mostly, so I stuck with a minimal
approach
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> - Isn't this not also a monitor test?
Probably, at least if you aren't color blind.
> - I scored 4. is that usual for my age? i.e. can I get a histogram of my
> age group?
I scored 20.
It would have been nice to see a histogram, or at least an average,
the highest score was 1300+, so it doesn't really give you an idea
of how others have done.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
andrel wrote:
> On 20-Sep-08 7:49, Jim Charter wrote:
>
>>
>> I don't really follow off topic too much so don't know if htis had
>> been posted, but I found it amusing. Scored 8.
>>
>> http://tinyurl.com/5tkxcc
>
>
> - Isn't this not also a monitor test?
I don't quite follow your logic there but maybe. Apparently the test is
seeking some threshold level of gradation for perception. Or maybe just
color blindness. I'm guessing that mental inconsistencies become a
factor before monitor inconsistencies but what do I know? Notice that
you are asked to make 21 discriminations, the same as we do in the irtc
and tc-rtc.
> - I scored 4. is that usual for my age? i.e. can I get a histogram of my
> age group?
Easy to guess this is collecting data for some purpose and the age
groups/gender are part of it. Over several tries my score actually
ranged from 0 to 20. Doing nothing I got scores ranging from 900's to
1100's
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 20-Sep-08 23:54, Jim Charter wrote:
> andrel wrote:
>> On 20-Sep-08 7:49, Jim Charter wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> I don't really follow off topic too much so don't know if htis had
>>> been posted, but I found it amusing. Scored 8.
>>>
>>> http://tinyurl.com/5tkxcc
>>
>>
>> - Isn't this not also a monitor test?
>
> I don't quite follow your logic there but maybe.
simple, if you monitor translation from RGB value to color is non linear
there are certain colors that are harder to distinguish. As we all know
here, there is such a thing as gamma correction, which is different for
different monitors, and IIRC different for Mac vs PC.
> Apparently the test is
> seeking some threshold level of gradation for perception. Or maybe just
> color blindness. I'm guessing that mental inconsistencies become a
> factor before monitor inconsistencies but what do I know?
Evolutionary the retina was brain tissue, somehow I don't think this is
what you meant.
> Notice that you are asked to make 21 discriminations, the same as we do
> in the irtc and tc-rtc.
I wish trtc and tc-rtc would be a one dimensional as this one.
>> - I scored 4. is that usual for my age? i.e. can I get a histogram of
>> my age group?
>
> Easy to guess this is collecting data for some purpose and the age
> groups/gender are part of it. Over several tries my score actually
> ranged from 0 to 20. Doing nothing I got scores ranging from 900's to
> 1100's
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Charter nous illumina en ce 2008-09-20 17:54 -->
> andrel wrote:
>> On 20-Sep-08 7:49, Jim Charter wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> I don't really follow off topic too much so don't know if htis had
>>> been posted, but I found it amusing. Scored 8.
>>>
>>> http://tinyurl.com/5tkxcc
>>
>>
>> - Isn't this not also a monitor test?
>
> I don't quite follow your logic there but maybe. Apparently the test is
> seeking some threshold level of gradation for perception. Or maybe just
> color blindness. I'm guessing that mental inconsistencies become a
> factor before monitor inconsistencies but what do I know? Notice that
> you are asked to make 21 discriminations, the same as we do in the irtc
> and tc-rtc.
>
>
>> - I scored 4. is that usual for my age? i.e. can I get a histogram of
>> my age group?
>
> Easy to guess this is collecting data for some purpose and the age
> groups/gender are part of it. Over several tries my score actually
> ranged from 0 to 20. Doing nothing I got scores ranging from 900's to
> 1100's
4 is a very good score, 0 is perfect, 1100 is a bad one and 1600+ is horrible.
In that test, LOW is good.
--
Alain
-------------------------------------------------
Chauvinism: We may be shit, but you can't live without us...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
