"Kenneth" <kdw### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> I originally thought that your upper-right color histogram was
> supposed to be showing not only the color components of the example, but the
> *amount* of each color as well.

The upper right plot is just a straight 1:1 plotting of the color values from
the evalpigment function.  The variable Step determines how densely the image is
sampled (to reduce time for large images)

> (I.e., I was wondering why the amount of pure
> black occupied such a tiny area at the center apex of the histogram.) But I
> think I see now that the histogram only represents the colors themselves, not
> the color amounts.

> I was thinking: To show the amount of each color, perhaps your lower-right
> discretised view of the colors could be composed of actual 3-D cylinders-- the
> longer the cylinder, the more of that color in the example being worked with.
> (The 'black cylinder' there looks kind of 3-D anyway-- jutting out in -z -- so
> perhaps you've already thought of this. The other colors don't show that(?), at
> least as far as I can tell. Perhaps exaggerating the 'length' of all the color
> cylinders there might help, in that regard.) Anyway, just an idea.

The _lower_ right "plot"  IS exactly that - and that's one of the interesting
things that this sort of analysis shows - just how much white/gray/black
contributes to "color" images.
Look at the debug stream output from the message pane:

[Top Left]     - Plotting Finely discretized RGB gamut with  125000 spheres

[Bottom Left]  - Plotting Roughly Discretized RGB gamut with      75 spheres

Image file dimensions:   600 x   314
Reading 1 out of every  5 color values from     188400 pixels in image file...

[Top Right]    - Plotting Full RGB gamut of image file in hexagonal grid...

[Bottom Right] - Displaying roughly discretized (averaged) colors of image
file...


Calculated Color Map:

Average RGB = <0.00, 0.00, 0.00> | Level:     241
Average RGB = <0.20, 0.00, 0.00> | Level:     155
Average RGB = <0.40, 0.00, 0.00> | Level:      20
Average RGB = <0.20, 0.20, 0.00> | Level:      11
Average RGB = <0.40, 0.20, 0.00> | Level:      44
Average RGB = <0.60, 0.20, 0.00> | Level:      15
Average RGB = <0.40, 0.40, 0.00> | Level:       5
Average RGB = <0.60, 0.40, 0.00> | Level:      12
Average RGB = <0.60, 0.60, 0.00> | Level:       1
Average RGB = <0.00, 0.00, 0.00> | Level:    4541
Average RGB = <0.00, 0.00, 0.20> | Level:      21
Average RGB = <0.00, 0.20, 0.20> | Level:      25
Average RGB = <0.00, 0.20, 0.40> | Level:      20
Average RGB = <0.00, 0.40, 0.40> | Level:      17
Average RGB = <0.00, 0.40, 0.60> | Level:      93
Average RGB = <0.00, 0.40, 0.80> | Level:       2
Average RGB = <0.00, 0.60, 0.60> | Level:       4
Average RGB = <0.00, 0.60, 0.80> | Level:       1
Average RGB = <0.00, 0.00, 0.00> | Level:     108
Average RGB = <0.20, 0.00, 0.00> | Level:       2

That's like 200 times as many black pixels as anything else.

I'll probably add another ceiling threshold to remove the very large values, or
just scale them down to that value so that everything else won't get squashed
down so much.

The whole histogram is unioned in the code and then rotated -x*90 to make it
"face out" - it could be rotated -45 or 0 degrees to give something more
obviously 3D, but for testing I didn't want to obscure too many color values
from the camera.

The most frequently occurring color value determines the size of the "Maximum"
variables, and then the whole 3D cylinder histogram gets scaled down based on
that.  So, the proportions of colors ought to be "to scale"

Unless of course I screwed something up in the calculations and things are
getting out of whack between top right and bottom right.

Post a reply to this message