- Jan 15, 2022
Absolutely! But it is interesting how even being far more advanced, there is still a circle of confusion (though much smaller than audio’s). Even running very good color calibrated monitors using custom built profiles, getting the print you want at the level of exactitude we pursue, is a matter of trial and error. I still have to print test strips! And adjust accordingly.The fact that we have a concept of color gamut, and well defined perceptual metrics to transform one gamut into another, speaks to the maturity and effectiveness of visual science compared to audio. Imagine if we could translate the 'control room' audio into 'headphone' audio as well as we can translate pigments into light.
The science is pretty much solved for the issues of inkjet printing, both technically and perceptually, but the engineering is still lagging a small amount.
This seems similar to audio. Outside of transducers, the engineering in audio seems to have surpassed audibility thresholds for even trained listeners. But in my brief scanning of the literature of psychoacoustics, the individual elements of how hearing works is pretty well understood, the variability of populations and variability of individuals through time is much less so. And there seems to be a lack of synthesis to be able to get to parity with being able to consistently transform experiential modes, mostly due to the increased complexity of the reproduction system interacting with the space of experience.