From 8ce3589d02e14322fc9aa7fe647a6f4f66a4eb59 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Paweł Redman Date: Sun, 14 Jun 2026 18:52:46 +0200 Subject: Fix typos in migrated GSoC posts Co-authored-by: Cursor --- site/content/gsoc/otsu2018_4.typ | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) (limited to 'site/content/gsoc/otsu2018_4.typ') diff --git a/site/content/gsoc/otsu2018_4.typ b/site/content/gsoc/otsu2018_4.typ index a5d01db..d0584f6 100644 --- a/site/content/gsoc/otsu2018_4.typ +++ b/site/content/gsoc/otsu2018_4.typ @@ -7,7 +7,7 @@ In the #link-self("gsoc/otsu2018_3")[previous part] I mentioned that reflectances reconstructed using this method can exceed the [0, 1] range and violate conservation of energy. Indeed, I could simply ask it for an imaginary color and get a weird, unphysical spectrum. -What's interesting is that this doesn't happen in practice, when upsampling real data. Out of almost 1300 reflectances I tested, I found only one bad reconstruction. Using the original clustering, the result for `magenta` from `BabelColor Average` colorchecker reflects 100,6% of light at 730 nm. Clipping this value to 100% creates a tiny color difference, orders of magnitude smaller than the #link("https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just-noticeable_difference")[just-noticeable difference]. +What's interesting is that this doesn't happen in practice, when upsampling real data. Out of almost 1300 reflectances I tested, I found only one bad reconstruction. Using the original clustering, the result for `magenta` from `BabelColor Average` colorchecker reflects 100.6% of light at 730 nm. Clipping this value to 100% creates a tiny color difference, orders of magnitude smaller than the #link("https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just-noticeable_difference")[just-noticeable difference]. #figure( img(static("gsoc/otsu2018_error.png")), -- cgit