Jump to content

The "Whatever Theory" Identifying The World...


whatever theory
 Share

Recommended Posts

Hello Tar, Thank you for drawing an example of what your were saying previously.
I hope you do not mind I cleaned it up a little and I have a few
questions about it.
How would you write this into a mathematical formula?
Are you supposed to take your reading were the RGB meets the Frequency.
Also I was hoping some one out there may know of a computer software
program that would help us create this chart on an accurate scale.
I was not sure about labeling the bottom "Frequency" Is this the
correct term for this?
What would you Label the new line that you created? The "Tar" line?
Just a suggestion.... :P
What would you like to name your new Chart? The "Tar" chart? hehehe...
Just another suggestion, but if you like these names you should use
them, but it is your choice.

newtar.jpg

Hi Mike, I could not find the picture you were suggesting: Isbn
9781847922274 2014. On page 65
​That is interesting that man has engineered the color of a carrot. It
reminds me of how many food companies use color to subconsciously make
people hungry or influence there decision of what products to buy.
Maybe since carrots are a common staple and grow everywhere more
people chose to buy orange carrots, over a period of time, to make
there food more colorful and appetizing. Over time maybe farmers
decided to grow only the most popular color. Just a guess...

I hope this helps clear up many of the most recent comments. I have stated many times already, that while I am trying to show that species share a common color(s) sometimes with only one pixel, Doing these tests are very time consuming and not only this one pixel will match. When I have more time I test more colors, but I am simply trying to show a pattern that is constant. Technology will not allow me to test every pixel and these type of problems are what we are trying to figure out. Also I am not saying that identification can be made simply by color, but you must have a good idea of what kind of species you are looking at, whether it be carrots or pearls. You have to know it is a carrot before you can find it's specific species and you have to no that it is a real pearl before you can find out what species it is. Also I am not saying that only one color should be tested, because different species may share a common color or range but the chances of them sharing say 5 color ranges with a different species is even more unlikely. Also I have said that I may be wrong. I am going into this some what blind and I am letting science dictate the direction of this research.

It has been raining here so I still can not do the previous test I was

talking about, so I decided to work a little more on the leaf test I
posted previously.

These 2 leafs had one similar color to each other, although the
lighter shade of green was not similar at all I decided to show how
there would be at least 3 other areas to test on each species.
2leaves.jpg

Again you can see that these 3 new colors match each other but do not match
the other species.

The top row (below) is the same species as the first picture (above) and the bottom 3 pictures are of the bottom picture (above)

 

newleaves.jpg

 

So even though one pixel came close to matching each other on these species, that is only one pixel out of 16+ million, and once you started moving in the direction of the light green the numbers started moving away from each other.

So the light to dark green range only, almost, collided for one small instant on the scale.

With this new test you have 3 different colors here from each of the 2 different species that do not come anywhere close to matching the colors of the other species.

 

Dave if you want to argue about what makes a pearls color I am sure you can find a place in another forum that will be happy to argue with you all day. Although these types of questions may be answered along the way or down the road, trying to examine every aspect of what make color in nature could take quite some time.

What I am trying to show is that whatever makes a species colors match each other, in a photograph, is consistent.

Like I said before there may be some problems down the road but we will get to them when we get there. Some things in nature may not follow these same rules, as others, and there will always be exceptions to every rule.

People know the truth when they see it and I think many who have read this can see that it is true and may now see the world in a whole new way.

Many of the top pearl buyers in the world have been comparing their pearls to the shells they come from to identify their species. This is nothing new Dave, what is new is this technique which helps to do this same test on your laptop and be precise and gives you the ability to share and compare this information with others.

As for your questions about the bird, if you do not understand the very basics then I suggest you go back and read the previous pages.

Laboratories are run by scientist, so you are saying that you disagree with modern science?

 

About Albinos and Chameleons. Although you may not be able to match the colors from say a Albino crocodile to a regular crocodile, I think you should be able to match the albinos colors to another albino crocodile from the same species and area. I am sure,but I think that there has to be some colors that would match each other on both of the albino and regular crocodile. Like tongue, gums, etc. I will try to do some future research on albinos.

Although Chameleons can change colors I doubt they can change to all 16+million colors. I think there range of colors that they can change will be the same as that of their same species.

I owned a chameleon in the past and it seemed is color changing ability was limited and certain areas on the chameleon always stayed the same color.

Here is a picture of both and you can see that there colors match each other.

 

albinochameleon.jpg

I have not internet for a couple of days so I will try to catch up on the remaining comments soon.

Thanks :)

Edited by whatever theory
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I fully agree that a species having a unique number is not likely, but having a particular combination of numbers might be possible, if a species has a particular unique collection of pigments, put together in a particular way, this could identify it, as that particular species. Don't you think?

 

Regards, TAR

 

Beyond the wildest stretch of the imagination, I cannot see that as practical.

 

Even then, how does one propose to address the numerous variables without a considerable margin of error? Unless that problem has been solved first, the question can only be in a hypothetical context. Likewise, it seeks a response based on confirmation bias, assuming only A is true, but not B. Do you agree?

 

Where pigmentation is concerned, I'd skeptically agree to the possibility, but only to the point it may not be unique or constant. Then what's the point?

 

What's to say another species within the same realm would not express the same patterns or an identical species differently in another?

 

For example, I'm not convinced the colors of a poplar tree (Populus tremuloides) growing in muskeg in Northern Ontario would be identical to the same species growing in iron rich soil in Michigan at any given time.

 

If it were true, it would have to be supported by chemical and spectroscopic analysis and any baseline is regionally specific only. Nonetheless, the overall complexity still casts a shadow of doubt as to doability.

 

Where environment ranges, chromatophores or extracrystalline structures (among other artifical or natural things) are concerned, I do not agree.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was not sure about labeling the bottom "Frequency" Is this the

correct term for this?

 

No. It's wavelength. Clearly wrote 430, 535, and 600. You missed unit: nanometers.

 

[math]\lambda = \frac{c}{f}[/math]

 

so

[math]\lambda * f = c[/math]

 

so

[math]f = \frac{c}{\lambda}[/math]

 

Visible light has wavelengths between 380 nm (sometimes 400 nm depending on literature) to 700 nm.

 

Now put them to equation to calculate frequencies, and solve (in f.e. OpenOffice/Excel):

[math]f = \frac{c}{\lambda} = \frac{299792458}{380*10^{-9}}= ...[/math]

 

[math]f = \frac{c}{\lambda} = \frac{299792458}{700*10^{-9}}= ...[/math]

 

Frequency has unit Hz (Hertz). MHz, GHz, THz etc.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Dave if you want to argue about what makes a pearls color I am sure you can find a place in another forum that will be happy to argue with you all day.

 

People know the truth when they see it and I think many who have read this can see that it is true and may now see the world in a whole new way.

 

Many of the top pearl buyers in the world have been comparing their pearls to the shells they come from to identify their species. This is nothing new Dave, what is new is this technique which helps to do this same test on your laptop and be precise and gives you the ability to share and compare this information with others.

As for your questions about the bird, if you do not understand the very basics then I suggest you go back and read the previous pages.

Laboratories are run by scientist, so you are saying that you disagree with modern science?

 

 

 

Being rude and dismissive does nothing to support your case. I am not attacking you personally, I am criticing your assertions. Clearly, you do not understand the difference.

 

Not one person has suggested this to be true. Saying so does not make it so.

 

As to the rest of the quoted comment, I call bullshit. It does not dignify a response.

 

I thought the single number was dropped as a possibility.

 

I fully agree that a species having a unique number is not likely, but having a particular combination of numbers might be possible,

 

You and I agree to possibilities, but the OP does not, by continuing to maintain their assertions to be true.

 

They only thing the OP has demonstrated to me with any certainty is unconscious incompetence. By virtue of that deficit, incapable of rational discourse at any level, no less in a scientific context.

 

I am enjoying and respect your contribution to the discussion, but greatly fear that falsehoods, hyperbole and ad hominum on the OP's behalf, needlessly derails their own topic.

 

We've reach a point where we agree for the most part and agree to disagree (only slightly) on a single matter, There's not much more to add to what's already been contributed.

 

It's my understanding pontificating and preaching are not allowed on this forum.

 

For those reasons, I'll ask the administrators that this thread be locked.

Edited by Lagoon Island Pearls
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hello Tar, Thank you for drawing an example of what your were saying previously.

I hope you do not mind I cleaned it up a little and I have a few

questions about it.

How would you write this into a mathematical formula?

Are you supposed to take your reading were the RGB meets the Frequency.

Also I was hoping some one out there may know of a computer software

program that would help us create this chart on an accurate scale.

You can't. Your source data does not contain the information you require.

 

If I tell you I own a dog toy cannot tell me what breed it is from only that information. It is the same here your data will not allow you to do normalised spectroscopy which is what is required. Even to a low rgb (or any other color space) resolution.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

I am not attacking you personally

 

Do not play the role of the victim now, Dave. If you can't take it then you should not dish it out.

Using words like "erroneously" and making up statements that I never made:

 

 

The OP claims his method positively identifies pearls by species I maintain pearls can be any color at any time for any reason

I consider a personal attack on my honor.

 

And as you said so yourself:

 

 

At best, pearl identification is based around educated guesses. Unless one harvests a pearl from the wild themselves and marked the location by GPS, there's absolutely no way science can definitively put that pearl back into it's original location by any means.

So if there are many ongoing discussions else where, which have been going on for years, about what makes the color of a pearl, why are you acting like you have all of the answers to these same questions. If you want to work on those kinds of discussions you should go there to do this. By trying to take on all of these unanswered questions here is not the point of this thread.

 

By saying that this theory has been debunked, by the few pages of material you have provided, tells me that you think that you are smarter then everybody here and these members do not have the right to decide what is debunked for themselves.

You keep saying it does not work and I keep posting experiments that says it does. So why don't you give this thread the same respect and try to "prove" that it does not work, and not with just your opinions on certain matters, but with either known facts( please cite where you got each fact) or by using my technique, or any other that you can, to actually show us proof.

 

By making the statement that any pearl can be any color for any reason, in my opinion is what is ridiculous.

That is like saying a African Lion or Zebra can be any color at any time for any reason. Have you ever seen a bright pink Lion with a purple mane or a green Zebra with blue stripes???? :confused:

 

You are asking for the thread to be closed because you do not believe we are doing enough, fast enough, to satisfy you, but I say that if you do not respond to my comments that I answered in regards to your comments, and if you keep insisting on making claims which there is no scientific proof and keep trying to influence the members here that the thread has been debunked, by you, then I ask the moderators to remove you from this thread.

 

If you want to play nice and help us work things out, in a civilized manner, then we would be happy to hear what you have to say.

Edited by whatever theory
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Do not play the role of the victim now, Dave. If you can't take it then you should not dish it out.

Using words like "erroneously" and making up statements that I never made:

I consider a personal attack on my honor.

 

 

!

Moderator Note

 

Knock it off.

 

Discussions about the methodology are not personal attacks; they are fair game. Don't make this about your "honor", make it about whether your idea is valid.

 

Do not respond to this modnote in the thread.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Whatever Theory,

 

There is another problem here, that I have not fully wrapped my own head around, and it probably additionally relates to Klaynos' warning that you can not do what you are trying to do here, without normalized spectroscopy.

 

When we see color, we take the firing of the three sets of cones, but this info is passed to the brain along only two channels. Thus the "way we see" colors is not necessarily in a straightforward "measure the wavelength" way. It has to do with comparisons and oppositions and such and we hence don't "see" colors like red-green or blue-yellow.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Color_vision

 

So, the RGB scale is made to specifically mirror human color sensing abilities. Cameras are designed so, and monitors are designed so, and computers are designed so as to have us register the same color we would register, had we looked at the thing directly. This does not mean the camera is sensing and recording the actual wavelengths of light in a "normalized" fashion and reporting them without bias, or without engineered adjustments that "act like" a human's vision system. The RGB system does not register wavelengths in the ultraviolet spectrum as a bee's would, so color markings that a certain species of flower would have, that a bee could see clearly, and that would help in the identification of the species, are not even available to the RGB system, as such markers are not available to the human color seeing ability that the equipment that renders the RGB values are designed to mimic.

 

So, maybe our color sensing ability is pretty much built around the world and the indications of purpose and kind that a species visually projects, since our vision evolved to allow us to internalize the outside world and plan actions and non-actions according to such internalizations, but shape and size and and number and motion and context are also internalized and considered, before an ID is made. Human color sense might not be enough. Normalized spectroscopy might be enough, to ID a particular set of molecules that is unique to a species, but I fear the RGB scale does not provide enough detail of the specific wavelengths absorbed by a particular molecule, to make a positive ID.

 

Maybe 256 step RGB can tell us a lot.

But maybe trying to ID a species from its RGB color is like trying to read a license plate from a hundred yards away. Can make some guesses, but just can not make out the letters and the numbers.

 

Regards, TAR

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have stated many times already, that while I am trying to show that species share a common color(s) sometimes with only one pixel, Doing these tests are very time consuming and not only this one pixel will match. When I have more time I test more colors, but I am simply trying to show a pattern that is constant.

 

Yet more examples of cherry-picked data and confirmation bias. Until you start looking for data that disproves your beliefs (and stop ignoring the many counter-examples provided by others) you will not get anywhere. Not on a science forum, anyway.

 

 

Technology will not allow me to test every pixel and these type of problems are what we are trying to figure out.

 

It would be trivial to write a program to do a correlation of the colours between two images. So don't blame technology.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Whatever Theory,

 

Another aspect we have to consider again is the shade aspect.

 

A former boyfriend of my daughter was color blind, I forget the particular kind of color-blindness, but he could tell the difference between two types of green trees, before my daughter, who was not color blind, could. I read that the army specifically selects snipers that ARE colorblind, because they can "see" the difference between a tree and a camouflaged enemy.

 

I say this, because, like I mentioned before, there is more than one way, using cyan, magenta, yellow and black to get the same "color" (remember the under color reduction, UCR I talked about in color copier technology). Also when doing color balance, adding yellow, or taking away magenta and cyan, resulted in approximately the same color. Also there were creamy colors you can make with inks by adding white ink, that you can not achieve using CMYK because the only way to add white was to reduce the amount of toner.

 

So there are likely triplets of RGB values that are numerically different, but visually similar. And likely triplets that are numerically similar, but are visually different.

 

Consider for a moment the fact that color circles are often envisioned. Subtractive color and additive color circles, that complement each other in that the complementary colors oppose each other in the same circular fashion...but in terms of wavelengths, red does not "attach to" violet. Red is longest wavelength we see and Violet is the shortest. So what does green being the opposite of magenta mean? That magenta is a shorter wavelength than violet and a longer wavelength than Red?????...it is obviously NOT a circle we are talking about, when it comes to wavelengths. We are obviously talking about human perception of color.

 

Regards, TAR

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let me just start this contribution by saying that this is the first time I have looked at this thread. The choice of subject title is (was) not attractive to look at before.

However it has obviously been going a while and attracted some attention. I cannot claim to have studied every post in detail so will have missed much and I apologise if I repeat stuff unnecessarily.

 

First let me say that the idea of studying the surface colour of object has been attractive and used in many ways for a long time.

Such study has even been extended beyond the surface as in streak tests used by mineralogists and chemists.

Of course the idea of these is that they should be independent of source.

However natural minerals are never pure and the location of source can often be identified by the impurities, although by more sophisticated techniques than colour alone.

 

Although naturally occurring, these are of course inanimate and you seem to be concentrating on the animate.

 

It has been suggested that your study would benefit from looking into the reasons for the evolution of particular colour schemes.

To this I would add

 

looking into the nature of colour perception,

the effect of the transmission path between observer and object.

The nature of the information gained (ie the picture and its colour model)

The conditions pertaining at the time of the observation (photograph)

 

We developed and use the RGB colour model because almost all life uses the same chemical reaction to perceive colour.

There are RGB receptors in our eyes that are essentially the same as those in a clour TV camera or the eyes of an iguana.

This affects both instrumental measurements as well as eye observation.

 

It is well known that coulours are seen differently close up and at distance, particularly in haze.

This affects both instrumental measurements as well as eye observation.

 

You are taking digital photographs. These are fundamentally different from wet chemistry photographs.

Further most programs used to store and present the image change many of the pixels RGB values depending upon the values of neighbouring pixels.

This does not happen in our eyes, but optical instrumentation is subject to this, so what you think you are measuring may not be the original vlaues.

You should look up the idea of colour gamut.

 

Life forms change their presented colour according to circumstance, for instance arctic animals grow white coats in winter. Some of this is voluntary, some dpends on external influences.

The actual perceived colour of say a flower depends upon the time of day, the aspect of the view, the age and condition of the flower, the shading and or reflections from other objects.

 

It really is a huge subject and much work has already been achieved and is there to take the benefit of.

 

I am attaching a digital photograph to illustrate some of these points for discussion.

What do you think is the proper red for the red flowers?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

post-74263-0-25885200-1435669838_thumb.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

So if there are many ongoing discussions else where, which have been going on for years, about what makes the color of a pearl, why are you acting like you have all of the answers to these same questions. If you want to work on those kinds of discussions you should go there to do this. By trying to take on all of these unanswered questions here is not the point of this thread.

 

Again, you are dismissing valid criticisms that counter your assertions.

 

 

You keep saying it does not work and I keep posting experiments that says it does. So why don't you give this thread the same respect and try to "prove" that it does not work, and not with just your opinions on certain matters, but with either known facts( please cite where you got each fact) or by using my technique, or any other that you can, to actually show us proof.

 

There is no burden to prove something that does not exist. That burden lies upon you to prove it does. Confirmation bias is not proof, it's conjecture.

 

Seeing how you've insisted I cite my facts, I'll indulge you. Conversely, I expect you to do the same from herein.

 

Speculation does not exempt you from this burden, but demands your assertions have credible standing with known protocols.

 

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Center for Tropical and Subtropical Aquaculture

Publication No. 127

March 2002

 

"Look for areas on the inside of the shell where the nacre is lustrous and of the desired color.

The half-pearl will have the same color as the area on the shell where it is glued. If it is placed near the

colored area, which is close to the edge of the shell, it will have a dark, iridescent quality. If placed

further inside, it will be white or silvery."

 

 

 

This supports coloration in cultured pearls is artificial and may be dark, light or anywhere between.

 

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

On iridescence, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iridescence

 

Iridescence (also known as goniochromism) is the property of certain surfaces that appear to change colour as the angle of view or the angle of illumination changes. Examples of iridescence include soap bubbles, butterfly wings and sea shells, as well as certain minerals. It is often created by structural coloration (microstructures that interfere with light).

 

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

TISSUE & CELL 1972 4 (4) 591-600

Published Dy Longman Group Ltd. Printed fir Great Brilain

JERRY M. NEFF*

ULTRASTRUCTURE OF THE OUTER

EPITHELIUM OF THE MANTLE IN THE

CLAM MERCENARIA MERCENARIA IN

RELATION TO CALCIFICATION OF

THE SHELL

 

"Mineral distribution in the epithelium.

 

The intercellular spaces contain a variable number of electron-dense granules 100--200 ~ in diameter (Fig. 4). Their profiles are

usually round or somewhat angular and even when observed at high magnification they contain no clearly discernible substucture."

 

"Though net deposition of calcium carbonate,as evidenced by shell growth, occurs primaily at the ventral margins of the shells, large

scale alternate deposition and resorbtion of calcium carbonate takes place over the entire inner surfaces of the shells and especially

dorsal to the pallial line in Mercellaria (Dugal, 1939). The inner surfaces of the shells in Mercenaria serve as an alkali reserve

during periods of anaerobiosis~ and shell carbonate is dissolved to buffer the succinic acid produced anaerobically (Crenshaw and

Neff, 1969). During short periods of anaerobiosis, a 100 g clam. may dissolve the inner surface of its shells at a rate of 2 mg per

hour. Calcium and COe, dissolved from the shell, do not accumulate in the extrapallial fluid but rapidly pass through the outer epithelium of the mantle into the fluids and tissues of the animal (Dotterweicb and Elssuer, 1935 and Crenshaw and Neft\1969). During aerobic periods, this mineral must be replaced or the shell would eventually be dissolved away. Thus, bidirectional

fluxes of calcium and CO2 through the outer epithelium must be very large."

 

 

Again, proof molluskan shells change in structure seasonally. Therefore no single color nor range may be accurately described at any given time with the expectation of uniformity across the board.

 

 

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

CULTURING ABALONE HALF-PEARLS

 

Pam Hutchins FGAA

Wide Bay Valuation Services, Bundaberg

 

"If the water temperature fluctuates greatly between 6 and 21 °C, then this will affect the colour of the nacre that the abalone will secrete; it will determine the layering of both conchyolin and nacre; and will modify the intensity of colour in the secreted nacre."

 

"The paua is the species of abalone that displays the greatest range of colours, and the strongest iridescence from the nacre of any abalone."

 

"This fact is highlighted by the strong and vibrant iridescent colours that can be observed (Fig. 6) on the nacre that lines the shells of ‘wild’ abalone ."

 

"Detailed criteria for quantifying lustre (into categories of mirror, reflective and soft), surface (into categories of smooth, visible, and textured), and colour (into categories of green gold pink brights or subtles, green blue brights or subtles, blue green brights or subtles, blue violet brights or subtles) have been published in print and electronically (at bluepearls.com) as The Eyris Blue Pearl Grading System."

 

"Seaweed that produce the best display of colours in abalone nacre include an appropriate mix of :

• Macrocystis pyritera or giant kelp (Fig. 12A)⎯ a large brown seaweed that has big leaves and a bulky, slightly coarse texture,

• Gracillaria (Fig. 12B), a fine filamentous red seaweed that has a fine texture, and

• Ulva, or green seaweed"

 

Note: to that end to contributor Tar, I concede the role of trace elements in an artificial context and only as it's applied to iridescence, in the absence of which elements are implicated and how they relate to color.

 

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Physiology of Mollusca, Volume 1

edited by Karl M. Wilbur, C. M. Yonge

 

"Chromataphores contain yellow, orange, red, red-brown, blue-violet or black pigments. A squid, cuttlefish or octopus may have an assemblage of differently colored chromataphores."

 

"Pelagic species also exhibit color changes, especially those which make vertical migrations and occur in surface waters.

 

 

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

 

2010-1

2010-04-21

CIBJO/GEM MATERIALS

CIBJO/SECTOR 3/PEARL COMMISSION

 

"6.3. Fading and other colour changes

The colour of some natural and cultured pearls (5.51 and 5.134) may fade when exposed to natural sunlight,

artificial light or strong display lights. Some natural and cultured pearls (5.51 and 5.134) that have been colour

treated may fade or revert to their original colour when exposed to natural sunlight, artificial light or strong

display lights. In these cases, special care advice shall include instructions that these natural or cultured pearls

should not be exposed to strong natural or artificial light or to strong display lighting for an extended period of

time."

 

 

This presents a huge problem with analysis, because fixation is not described. Hence any colors observed may be skewed from their original state.

 

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Chinese Science Bulletin

 

March 2011 Vol.56 No.9: 869–876

doi: 10.1007/s11434-011-4348-8

Erosion of the prismatic layer by the organic matrix during the

formation of the nacre-prism transition layer in the shell of Pinctada

fucata (Bivalvia, Mollusca)

 

"Three variants of the sequence of formation of the nacre-prism transition layer were observed in Pinctada fucata (Bivalvia, Mollusca)shells."

 

"Changes in the interprismatic organic envelopes on either side of the nacre-prism transition zone indicated that the organic matrix of the nacre-prism transition layer becomes embedded into the organic phase of the prismatic layer."

 

"The variation in the appearance of the transition layer during its formation may reflect different growth rates of the shells. When shells grow slowly, the transition in the manner of growth is moderate, whereas when shells grow fast the transition becomes acute. In this study, we identified three types of nacre-prism transition formation, but more types might exist."

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Molecular Evolution of Mollusc Shell Proteins: Insights

from Proteomic Analysis of the Edible Mussel Mytilus

Benjamin Marie • Nathalie Le Roy •

Isabelle Zanella-Cle´on • Michel Becchi •

Fre´de´ric Marin

 

"In a puzzling manner, despite microstructural resemblance between the nacro-prismaticshell layers of these two genera, no sequence homology has been reported so far for mollusc SMPs."

 

"We noticed that, although homologous proteins were detected in different Mytilus shells (e.g. MUSP-1, MUSP-3 and Chitin-binding),

the corresponding mRNAs only appeared in the EST of one of these species (Table 1), testifying of important qualitative differences in their respective EST dataset. Indeed, important variations in biomineralising gene expression are likely to occur between individuals according to their developmental stage (Jackson et al. 2007a), to their respective physiological condition or even depending on the moment of the day (Miyazaki et al. 2008)."

 

"Moreover, we are aware that the EST data sets used in this study are not exhaustive, and future efforts will likely reveal additional SMPs For example, a recent proteomic analysis of the calcified skeleton of the sea urchin Paracentrotus purpuratus evidenced an unexpected diversity of matrix proteins, due to the availability of a important dataset from Spur_v2.1 draft genome (Mann et al. 2008a, b)."

 

"Nacrein-related protein sequence has been described from the analysis of the mRNA of the mantle of the gastropod Turbo marmoratus (Miyamoto et al. 2003), but to date no CA has been directly detected from the shell nacre of this gastropod nor from a cephalopod nacre (Marie et al. 2009a)."

 

"By establishing that several of the predicted proteins from the EST dataset are actually components of the shell, we are able to make hypotheses about their direct contribution to shell construction and the implications of their evolution among calcifying shell matrices. Without this, the EST dataset is simply a list of sequences that can be associated to putatively secreted protein sequences, for which functional assumption can be only attempted according to sequence similarity with already described proteins, and is not valuable for the description of novel proteins."

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

I have more than fifteen hundred published papers in my library and have read everyone of them. It's not necessary to quote each because it will needlessly mire the thread with what is already known.

 

The OP has not cited one which even remotely supports RGB interfaces have any bearing on identification of any species, no less with exclusivity.

 

These quotes factually support my assertion, that mineralization within a protien maxtrix is not constant among individuals of the same species. In shells and pearls, pigmentation occurs in protein. Combined with the fact prisms reflect light in different colors according to orientation thoroughly debunks the OP's assertion they can be identified in the manner suggested.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited by Lagoon Island Pearls
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lagoon Island Pearls,

 

"These quotes factually support my assertion, that mineralization within a protien maxtrix is not constant among individuals of the same species. In shells and pearls, pigmentation occurs in protein. Combined with the fact prisms reflect light in different colors according to orientation thoroughly debunks the OP's assertion they can be identified in the manner suggested."

 

Well wait. The fact that mineralization is not constant among individuals of the same species decreases the likelihood of telling a species by the color of the mineralization, but increases the likelihood of environmental factors, as in being located in a bay where a certain mineral is found in high concentrations, being the reason for the color difference.

And if the pigmentation occurs in protein, there is a reasonable chance that a particular species will manufacture the same proteins as another member of its species, and any grafting from another species might introduce proteins, not extant in the original species, thus discounting the variable nature of the colors in a grafted pearl, as a Whatever Theory debunking argument.

And it does not matter if you put a prism in a ray of light that contains no green wavelengths, the rainbow you produce will not have green in it. Your RGB value would be R256 G000 B256. If a pigment absorbed the green wavelengths of white light, it would not matter, afterward how you prismed the light, the green would still be identifyingly, missing.

 

Regards, TAR

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Yet more examples of cherry-picked data and confirmation bias. Until you start looking for data that disproves your beliefs (and stop ignoring the many counter-examples provided by others) you will not get anywhere. Not on a science forum, anyway.

I am not trying to disagree with you but, I can not figure out what you mean by, cherry picking.

If I took a pixel from a very small area with very few colors, lets say an alligators eyeball and I tried to compare it to the entire RGB scale to match the number, or if I tried to compare it with a much larger area that contained all 2+ million shades of that color, then that would be cherry picking, but taking a pixel from one small area and finding that same exact color in another small area, to me I do not consider that cherry picking.

Please explain what you mean so I can better understand your reasons.

I do not feel I have ignored much counter-examples, some comments may take a little longer for me to answer then others, because I do not want to answer them off the top of my head and I want to think about it or try to do some research before I answere. Many of the concerns that have been made I have gone threw extra effort to try to even demonstrate my remarks with picture examples.

If there are particular issues that I have not addressed, that you want me to, then please state them.

I think that my theory that color is consistent is correct, I can see it with my own eyes and as you pointed out there are many different branches of science that are already convinced that color is consistent in their field, but as Studiot pointed out none of these fields have acknowledged that this maybe consistent with all things natural and most of these fields stay on the surface and usually do not go beyond the surface such as meat, organs, etc.

Also When I am taking pictures, such as the leaf test, in a controlled environment "Black Box" I feel pretty confident that these pictures can be compared to each other and any one with the exact same equipment and procedures should get the same results.

Also I do not find any problems with comparing objects taken in a single picture, that others have taken that I got from the net, as long as it appears that all of the subjects in the photo are in the same conditions inside the picture.

Most of the problems that are arising are about how to compare pictures taken, outside a black box, in average conditions, and with all of these problems this may not be possible for a long time in the future.

So maybe this new software will only be doable for everyone, only by taking pictures in a black box.

The software would have to be built to allow for the differences of each camera type and all of the controls would have to be the same, but I think this is already easily doable.

Albinos and chameleons are what I am referring to as a freak of nature and these types of things may need to be compared to each other rather then the rest of there species/family.

For instance albino crocodiles would be compared to each other and other species of albino crocodiles and not normal alligators.

A chameleon would be compared to other chameleons and not compared to other reptiles.

 

Studiot

Thank you for your contribution.

I am having a hard time understand your question, can you please rephrase it or explain the meaning. Thanks

 

 

What do you think is the proper red for the red flowers?

 

Dave, Thank you for your comments and for providing the cited material.

 

 

"Look for areas on the inside of the shell where the nacre is lustrous and of the desired color.

The half-pearl will have the same color as the area on the shell where it is glued. If it is placed near the

colored area, which is close to the edge of the shell, it will have a dark, iridescent quality. If placed

further inside, it will be white or silvery."

This supports coloration in cultured pearls is artificial and may be dark, light or anywhere between.

I have never disagreed with this, I think I have clearly shown that pearls can change there color based on where they are formed in the shell, but they will still belong to that creatures color range. In the cited material it does not say that they could be any color for any reason, only that based on where they land in the shell will help determine their color.

 

 

 

Again, proof molluskan shells change in structure seasonally. Therefore no single color nor range may be accurately described at any given time with the expectation of uniformity across the board.

This statement helps to support what I have been saying. Geographic location has a big deal to do with species colors. It is true that say a wolf or a pearls that lives in an area that snows will have different colors then that same species that lives in an area with no snow.

Even though these same species have different colors from one another their color will still match those of the same species that live in the same geographic locations as them. Even though climate/seasons play a big part to what color the species is, if the species are all in the same area they will all go threw the same changes.

 

 

 

"If the water temperature fluctuates greatly between 6 and 21 °C, then this will affect the colour of the nacre that the abalone will secrete; it will determine the layering of both conchyolin and nacre; and will modify the intensity of colour in the secreted nacre."

 

Again this water temperature should have the same effect on all of the same species from that area. Don't you think?

 

 

The colour of some natural and cultured pearls (5.51 and 5.134) may fade when exposed to natural sunlight,

artificial light or strong display lights. Some natural and cultured pearls (5.51 and 5.134) that have been colour

treated may fade or revert to their original colour when exposed to natural sunlight, artificial light or strong

display lights. In these cases, special care advice shall include instructions that these natural or cultured pearls

should not be exposed to strong natural or artificial light or to strong display lighting for an extended period of

time."

 

This is why I keep stating that it is good to have a wide variety of each species of shells, not only to find the complete color range this creature can produce, but also you need some new shells and some old shells, with as many in between as you can find, which will also help determine the age of the pearl since it was harvested.

 

I cannot find a quote that you said in one of your recent post, but you had said that a friend of yours is a pearl farmer and from his farm he is producing a unique shade of color for that species and he does not contribute this to geographic area but rather to his large stock of shells.

This also helps support my comments. If you find a pearl that has a unique color that you can not match to any of the shells of that species then you need to find more shells and eventually you may come across one that has this unique color. I have said many times that this is the case and in the case that you find a new pearl or shell with a new color, at that point you need to widen the range of that species.

 

Some of your comments are unanswered for now and if I can not figure out, threw research, their meaning I may ask you to summarize them into turns I can understand.

Thank you

 

For some time I have been trying to figure out the basics of a technique that Dave is using in his fun with color thread.

With the recent accusations of cherry picking I have spent the whole night trying to figure out a way to adapt Dave's technique to fit what I am doing.

I have made some changes in the original technique which I think should eliminate shadow and reflections, by choosing a small area I can capture all of the pixels in a certain area. Taking too big of an area will may give you too many colors and they may not all fit onto the new chart. I am not sure on this and I am still experimenting.

I am still having a lot of problems figuring out the best ways to do all of this technique, but I will show you what I have now and maybe the members can help guide me in fixing any errors.

 

In this picture I have chosen a rectangle area from both of the leafs, I pasted these areas below each leaf that they came from and circled the area I took them from.

1pal.jpg

 

Now I have taken each of these new samples and pasted them onto a new canvas.

Using Dave's technique I have opened a color pallet.

leaf1.jpg

 

I have done this for both.

leaf2.jpg

 

Now I have pasted both of these new charts side by side.

1_2.jpg

Now I will wait to hear from the members here about what should be done now.

I have a few ideas, but would like to hear what you all have to say.

Thanks :)

Edited by whatever theory
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Whatever theory ,

 

I think what is happening here, is you have got hold of a massive subject area here , which is so huge that it's like say " I will analyse LIFE. The number of types , categories, etc are so many , vast, diverse, interesting that it's difficult to know where to begin. Living things are being analysed by myriads of people all over the world.

 

Similarly , COLOUR , is such a vast subject, it's difficult to know where to start , and how to categorise. I am not an expert on colour analysis , so I would not know where to start.

 

You have appeared to start in your specific area of investigation . I would say ,it's such a big field , you are free to choose what aspect you are going to look at. Or you are going to look at it ALL .and look for a pattern that excites you . And choose to look in detail at that hint of a pattern. Which is what I sort of think you are doing. ( and what I would probably do. Look for the hint of a pattern somewhere? )

 

Keep going . It's a nice field to be in . With all these lovely colours. All the current technology . Great ! Yippee !

 

post-33514-0-21250100-1435730698_thumb.jpg

 

You have to analyse if the Jack Russel Dog , is alive or made of concrete ? The Jack Russel is on the case !

Mike

Edited by Mike Smith Cosmos
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Studiot

Thank you for your contribution.

I am having a hard time understand your question, can you please rephrase it or explain the meaning. Thanks

Quote

 

 

What do you think is the proper red for the red flowers?

 

 

It would appear that you are already doing what I asked, but with the green leaves

 

 

Now I will wait to hear from the members here about what should be done now.

I have a few ideas, but would like to hear what you all have to say.

 

 

I listed as many of the variables (due to measurement technique) that could affect the apparent colour you were measuring as I could quickly think of, and offered a sample of red flowers that provided examples of some of these for discussion.

There are many reds and also other colours in those red flowers. So surely the question is a simple one. Which red are you chosing and why?

And how do you distinguish from another red flower that has that particular colour simply because it presents at a different angle or age or time of day?

 

 

I note your expansion zooms on the green leaves above show the anti-aliasing colour changes I referred to. My picture will also show these if zoomed, although I did not post a high definition one to save space.

 

 

I suggest the following experiments.

 

Prepare a series of images of the same photograph at different resolutions and examine the same area in each with you image program.

Good programs will provide infomation about the list /graph of colours present.

 

Does this information change as you change the resolution of the whole photograph?

 

 

 

Mike +1 I like your dirty dog picture

Edited by studiot
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Whatever

 

It is estimated there are nearly nine million species on earth. Of that less than two million have been authored into taxonomy.

 

Here is a single example: The Pacific Oyster

 

Kingdom: Animalia Phylum: Mollusca Class: Bivalvia Order: Ostreoida Family: Ostreidae Genus: Crassostrea Species: C. gigas

 

As you see, it contains very basic information, but sufficient enough to reasonably represent a species' place in the world.

 

To get this far required the cumulative efforts of thousands, possibly millions of scientists over many centuries. Scarcely any of them were know-it-alls or wannabees, but to excel in one branch of knowledge.

 

By you own admission, you do not have the credentials of Linnaeus. Given that, I'd doubt you'll progress at his rate. His work isn't done yet. In fact, less than a quarter of it's done and tens of thousands of modern scientists can barely scratch the surface of the deficit. Until that work is finished, your work "identifying the world" will never be finished. By the way, he died in 1778.

 

Again, by you own admission, selecting one or two colors out of 16 million is a lengthy, burdensome process. That is confirmation bias, otherwise known as "cherry picking". To have any credibility in science, you cannot do that. You must address all 16 million available colors in the RGB scale, collectively, individually and exclusively as to prove beyond a reasonable doubt whether they can or cannot fit the theory.

 

Even in the absence of variables, which are proven to be numerous, it would take millennia.

 

Are you beginning to grasp the magnitude of this yet, no less the futility?

 

If not, how do you propose to resolve the problem?

 

Reality check. It certainly will not be by cajoling a small, anonymous group of scientists to work for nothing.

 

I seriously doubt very many are going to do your field work in all corners of the planet for nothing. I doubt anybody is going to create and administrate a database for nothing. I doubt anybody is going to write code for nothing. I doubt anybody is going create algorithms to interpret the data for nothing.

 

Moreover, I doubt any scientist worth their salt would enable this for a contingent fee agreement either. Even if they did, how much? and when? I hope your line of credit is sufficient to guarantee it.

 

I acknowledge you for having backed down on some of your entrenchment, but you still have a long way to go. I'd highly recommend you take a heartfelt retrospect and grasp the meaning of contributor Strange's comment: "Or maybe just yet another example of apophenia." Given the responses to this thread, I'm quite sure we're not the only two contributors who've considered it to be the case.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Again, by you own admission, selecting one or two colors out of 16 million is a lengthy, burdensome process. That is confirmation bias, otherwise known as "cherry picking". To have any credibility in science, you cannot do that. You must address all 16 million available colors in the RGB scale, collectively, individually and exclusively as to prove beyond a reasonable doubt whether they can or cannot fit the theory.

 

That is known as over egging the pudding.

 

When I buy bananas there are usually some areas that are not yellow.

I still have no trouble differentiating between bananas and smoked haddock by comparing a small sample of the colours.

 

BTW this brings up another point for whatever to ponder.

 

What is the condition of the object to be identified?

What if a human were jaundiced?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Whatever Theory,

 

I am not a math guru by any stretch of the imaginations, but I have taken statistic courses here and there and thought about numbers and distributions and the like and considered things like the likelihood of the price of a stock to retrace a move once it has varied over a standard deviation, from its average price in any given time period. To this, I offer a potential method to select a number, an RGB triplet, out of a population of RGB triplets, as you might have in a given sample of values on a screen, that might be considered "representative" of the whole group and that could be tested for its representative nature, by performing the same procedure on another area of similar looking color on the same animal in the same picture and seeing if the number came out the same, or within a certain very small range, away from the first number.

 

My thought was to consider each color (R value, G value, Blue value) separately in terms of finding a mean value, and a median value. With the mean value of green, within a sample of say 36 randomly selected pixels (retaining the blue and red values from the same pixels, for calculating their variance in turn) you determine the the mean, and the variance from the mean and hence the standard deviation. Take only the values that are within 2 standard deviations of the mean which will be 95 percent of the values or around 34 numbers. This will amount to throwing out 2 numbers, maybe one low and one high, maybe two high, or two low, but you will be left with 34 numbers. You can not have a median value since you have an even number, but you have two numbers that are near the middle of the range. So you have two median type values. Take the average of these 34 remaining numbers and with this average, decide which of your median type numbers is closer to the mean and chose this number as your green value. Do the same with Red and Blue, and you have then, at least a number that has taken all the numbers in the 36 point sample, into consideration.

 

My thought is to make a 6 x 6 matrix of the size of your sample and lay it over the sample and take the 36 pixels that lie under the dots. After performing the calculations and coming up with an RGB triplet, take the grid and move it or rotate it over the same area of the picture and repeat the calculation. See if you can come up with a process that will yield the same triplet in a repeatable manner. A process that you could then use on any sample square you choose to come up with a triplet or a small group of triplets that would be the same triplet, or small group of triplets that anybody performing the same method on the same sample would come up with.

 

Maybe something like this would yield a number that would be representative enough to use to compare samples.

 

Regards, TAR


My guess is that the triplet you come up with, using this random sampling and figuring method will be a lighter shade of the same tint that you have chosen by eye. This because I think we are bias toward the bold deep rich colors, and away from the washed out colors. I notice on your leaf sample that there are many pixels on the pallet of lighter or weaker shades than the "color" you have selected. The enlargement of the leaf shows many "reflecting" points where there are lighter pixels. This is probably analogous to when you look at the leaf on a larger scale and stay away from sampling the glare areas or the shadow areas, but should not, on the close scale, make the same omissions, because the light and dark areas speak to the contours and reflective nature of the subject, and another subject of the same species would have exactly the same contours and reflective surface characteristics, which you absolutely want to capture in your number.

Edited by tar
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lagoon Island Pearls,

 

Yes there are a large amount of species, but probably a smaller amount of pigments or particular molecules or proteins that absorb certain wavelengths of light, and a particular finite number of mineral combines, that produce certain characteristic colors, when put under white light.

 

Since Whatever Theory has softened his original claim to allow that several colors evident on a normal male, or female of a species, taken under controlled lighting and equipment conditions might be required to positively ID a subject, the numbers swing back in Whatever Theories favor. While it is likely that the blue of a Stellar's Jay might be found elsewhere in nature, in another species for the same or similar reasons, it is probably less likely that a different species will have the same blue on its breast, the same black on the stripes on its wing, the same charcoal on its crest, the same tan on its claw and the same color on its beak. That is 16 million times 16 million times 16 milliion times 16 million times 16 milliion, if you take 5 agreed upon standard positions on an animal or on a plant or on a fungus, to come up with its 5 unique RGB values. Which is 1000000000000000000000000000000000000 possible combinations which could very well allow for 9,000,000 species to each have their own number.

 

Regards, TAR


But still we have not dealt with the albino and the grafted, and the different colored (white, red purple..)flowers of the Impatients, nor the carrots, nor the sick, nor the parasite infested nor the seasonal variations, nor the ...


Unless of course if the everything theory is valid, one might be able to also color code the illness and the parasite, and the variety and the condition of the subject.


for instance plants might have five different colors, one for the leaf, one for the stem one for the flower, one for the fruit, one for the root, one for the wood or core of the stem...for instance


oh that is 6...oh well..multiply that previous number by another 16 million

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Since Whatever Theory has softened his original claim to allow that several colors evident on a normal male, or female of a species, taken under controlled lighting and equipment conditions might be required to positively ID a subject, the numbers swing back in Whatever Theories favor. (snip) That is 16 million times 16 million times 16 milliion times 16 million times 16 milliion, if you take 5 agreed upon standard positions on an animal or on a plant or on a fungus, to come up with its 5 unique RGB values. Which is 1000000000000000000000000000000000000 possible combinations which could very well allow for 9,000,000 species to each have their own number.

But still we have not dealt with the albino and the grafted, and the different colored (white, red purple..)flowers of the Impatients, nor the carrots, nor the sick, nor the parasite infested nor the seasonal variations, nor the ...

Unless of course if the everything theory is valid, one might be able to also color code the illness and the parasite, and the variety and the condition of the subject.

for instance plants might have five different colors, one for the leaf, one for the stem one for the flower, one for the fruit, one for the root, one for the wood or core of the stem...for instance

oh that is 6...oh well..multiply that previous number by another 16 million

 

I can only support or contradict your thought process and math to the extent they to be proven.

 

Thus I'll propose a trial.

 

To satisfy the OP's assertion this can be done by anyone, at any given time. More than one person must perform the trial and the results must be unanimous.

 

The OP's terms of reference require a digital representation of a pearl and a shell of the same species.

 

I've attached images of natural pearls from a confirmed species, Mytlus californianus. aka California mussel in a previous post. Likewise, a shell lining of the same species, which I'll affirm yielded natural pearl(s) in one of those images. We'll consider it as a single blind (I'll submit the information to an impartial third party beforehand, as to not give any false impressions after the fact). Although it's impossible to take two images at precisely the same moment, in the hypothetical case let us presume focal length/distance, ISO, aperture, speed, resolution, rendering and lighting to be identical.

 

Compliant to your proposed standard, select five RGB values that match. (though, I cringe at the thought of suggesting confirmation bias)

 

Problem: The OP claims that once a baseline is established, a shell is not necessary for positive identification of a pearl's species. This is person confounding, because two objectives are targeted, yet not reconciled. When may a disambiguation be determined?

 

Problem: We'll have to prove exhaustion. How does one do that? When the last mussel is sacrificed? I submit it cannot be done for several reasons, but again, let's presume it to be true for the sake of moving on.

 

Problem: We have the burden to prove these are unique to Mytilus californianus. I submit it's not practical nor even possible unless every other known untreated pearl from every other species on the planet has been recorded, but then again, in the hypothetical, let's presume it's true that we may move on.

 

Problem: We'll need every personal computer, software program, CCD, video chip, video monitor, digital camera, lighting situation etc. calibrated to one standard and the operators collecting the data certified accordingly. So again, being the devil's advocate, let's presume this to be done and true.

 

Problem: Which pearl(s) came from that shell?

 

Problem: What's the point? It's already known. On the other hand, namely identification in the absence of a shell, the OP claims this to be an affirmative method in the absence of utilizing sophisticated instrumentation. It reality, it's taking the long way around a lesser problem. For the reasons of exaggeration alone, the theory is debunked.

 

The differential diagnosis (heuristic, if you will, aka Occam's Razor) with an applied margin of error remains the order of the day in pathology (after all, pearls are biotic lesions) for simplicity's sake.

 

Obviously, one cannot reach these hypothetical scenarios as irrefutable in a theoretical model, no less as an arbiter between published models. Hence the theory is debunked.

Edited by Lagoon Island Pearls
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thank you all for your comments. :)

Tar

 

 

So there are likely triplets of RGB values that are numerically different, but visually similar. And likely triplets that are numerically similar, but are visually different.

So there will be triplet colors along the scale? Will they ever be the exact same color or just slightly different?

Is there a pattern to what these numbers will look like, such as how grey has a constant numeric values?

 

 

Well wait. The fact that mineralization is not constant among individuals of the same species decreases the likelihood of telling a species by the color of the mineralization, but increases the likelihood of environmental factors, as in being located in a bay where a certain mineral is found in high concentrations, being the reason for the color difference.

And if the pigmentation occurs in protein, there is a reasonable chance that a particular species will manufacture the same proteins as another member of its species, and any grafting from another species might introduce proteins, not extant in the original species, thus discounting the variable nature of the colors in a grafted pearl, as a Whatever Theory debunking argument.

And it does not matter if you put a prism in a ray of light that contains no green wavelengths, the rainbow you produce will not have green in it. Your RGB value would be R256 G000 B256. If a pigment absorbed the green wavelengths of white light, it would not matter, afterward how you prismed the light, the green would still be identifyingly, missing.

 

This statement is very interesting and well written. Thank you

I guess I missed the part about a grafted pearl. I will try to go back and find it.

 

 

 

That is 16 million times 16 million times 16 milliion times 16 million times 16 milliion, if you take 5 agreed upon standard positions on an animal or on a plant or on a fungus, to come up with its 5 unique RGB values. Which is 1000000000000000000000000000000000000 possible combinations which could very well allow for 9,000,000 species to each have their own number.

 

Thank you for showing the formula to figure this out. I knew that the number would be huge but I did not realize just how huge it would be.

Some creatures have more then 6 different colored areas also, some may have 20-30 or more, such as certain fish and birds.

I think these numbers also show how cherry picking is not so easy, especially when testing more then one color.

If each color as over 2 million shades and you were to test each pixel every second it would take you 23 DAYS, nonstop, to test each pixel.

2,000,000pixels / 60seconds = 33333.33minutes / 60minutes = 555.55hours / 24hours = 23.148 days... Is this formula correct?

When the species are the same and in same condition it usually takes only a few seconds to match there colors it is quite easy, although the rest of the process to design everything takes a long time.

 

 

 

But still we have not dealt with the albino and the grafted, and the different colored (white, red purple..)flowers of the Impatients, nor the carrots, nor the sick, nor the parasite infested nor the seasonal variations, nor the ...

 

I did not realize there was a question about grafting, but I will try to find it.

Albinos being freaks of nature should I think be treated as individuals and not compared to the rest of their species. I have been looking at pictures and I will try to do a future presentation dealing with different types of albinos and try to show that their color do match other albinos of the same species.

Everyone can identify a carrot or a lizard or a clam so knowing this much can put you into the right category, then from that category you can find what species that is. Maybe down the road when all data has been collected on all of the different color codes in nature, we may see that there is no species on earth that share all of the exact same color ranges and if that happens then we will no longer even need to categorize everything, just take a picture and it will tell you what you are looking at. Just a guess.

I think parasites should be like the rest of nature and there color should be determined by there species and their location.

People that maybe have scales or some other skin disease that affects there skin's color should be treated like the albinos, comparing them to each other rather then to the rest of there race.

Seasonal changes should effect everything in the same way that lives in those conditions. So even though a wolf's coat gets blacker in the winter all of the other wolfs from its same area will go threw the same changes.

 

 

My thought was to consider each color (R value, G value, Blue value) separately in terms of finding a mean value, and a median value. With the mean value of green, within a sample of say 36 randomly selected pixels (retaining the blue and red values from the same pixels, for calculating their variance in turn) you determine the the mean, and the variance from the mean and hence the standard deviation. Take only the values that are within 2 standard deviations of the mean which will be 95 percent of the values or around 34 numbers. This will amount to throwing out 2 numbers, maybe one low and one high, maybe two high, or two low, but you will be left with 34 numbers. You can not have a median value since you have an even number, but you have two numbers that are near the middle of the range. So you have two median type values. Take the average of these 34 remaining numbers and with this average, decide which of your median type numbers is closer to the mean and chose this number as your green value. Do the same with Red and Blue, and you have then, at least a number that has taken all the numbers in the 36 point sample, into consideration.

My thought is to make a 6 x 6 matrix of the size of your sample and lay it over the sample and take the 36 pixels that lie under the dots. After performing the calculations and coming up with an RGB triplet, take the grid and move it or rotate it over the same area of the picture and repeat the calculation. See if you can come up with a process that will yield the same triplet in a repeatable manner. A process that you could then use on any sample square you choose to come up with a triplet or a small group of triplets that would be the same triplet, or small group of triplets that anybody performing the same method on the same sample would come up with.

I will do as you say and collect the data and post a picture presentation which shows all of the data tomorrow, at that point I hope can explain what I should do with it. OK

When you say 6x6, You mean 6 pixels by 6 pixels? Correct?

 

 

 

 

I think what is happening here, is you have got hold of a massive subject area here , which is so huge that it's like say " I will analyse LIFE. The number of types , categories, etc are so many , vast, diverse, interesting that it's difficult to know where to begin. Living things are being analysed by myriads of people all over the world.

 

You know what they say Mike, Go big or go home.

So we are going big (from our homes) hehehe :P

 

 

 

Keep going . It's a nice field to be in . With all these lovely colours. All the current technology . Great ! Yippee ! You have to analyse if the Jack Russel Dog , is alive or made of concrete ? The Jack Russel is on the case !

Love all of your comments and you always tend to brighten up the mood of this thread.

I Hereby appoint you Mike Cosmos the Official "Whatever Theory" Team Mascot.. Mike "The Mascot" Cosmos

Please say hi, to you Jack Russel, from me.

 

Studiot, Thank you for explaining.

 

There are many reds and also other colours in those red flowers. So surely the question is a simple one. Which red are you chosing and why?

And how do you distinguish from another red flower that has that particular colour simply because it presents at a different angle or age or time of day?

At the end of this post I am going to explain my techniques if you still have any question feel free to ask. OK

 

 

Prepare a series of images of the same photograph at different resolutions and examine the same area in each with you image program.

Good programs will provide infomation about the list /graph of colours present.

Does this information change as you change the resolution of the whole photograph?

When you mean resolution, do you mean change the resolution settings on the camera for each picture? Should I take a different picture for each different resolution setting?

Can you please explain how a program will provide list/graph of colors present. My computer learning curve is very slow and you may be able to help this research out a lot. Thanks again

 

Dave thanks for your comments and concern. ;)

 

I seriously doubt very many are going to do your field work in all corners of the planet for nothing. I doubt anybody is going to create and administrate a database for nothing. I doubt anybody is going to write code for nothing. I doubt anybody is going create algorithms to interpret the data for nothing.

Moreover, I doubt any scientist worth their salt would enable this for a contingent fee agreement either. Even if they did, how much? and when? I hope your line of credit is sufficient to guarantee it.

This is my free gift to the world. I am already using it to identify pearls and others studying nature can also build a black box and start collecting the (GCC) of whatever they are studying. So here you go.... Its free

If we can build on this then anyone using it can benefit by what we do here.

If one day we develop it into software everyone who contributed will still be a part. This is a group project now and if there is ever any money to be made down the road we can give it all to charity or maybe we can use it to throw a massive, huge, amazing party like the world has never seen, to celebrate what we have accomplished. I don't know rite now I am not thinking that far into the future and it is not what motivates me.

 

I am going to try to go threw all of the basic of this technique. Hopefully this will help explain a lot of the same questions that keep getting asked and hopefully you all can help me improve on what I am doing. This should help any of you that want to start doing this at home or if you want to check what I am doing you will know how.

 

First I will start with photography.

To build a "black box" cut one side along the seam on three edges leaving one remaining edge connected so you can open and close the top. I put a piece of velcrow on mine to keep it sealed when shut.

Next, line the box with white paper. If you are working with others and you want to compare your pictures with theirs, make sure you all use the same exact white paper and the same exact size box.

Next build a small cardboard table to set you camera on inside the box. You may want to experiment with different distances from the subject to see what distance your camera works best at. My smart phone camera works best at around 4 inches away from subject.

Here is a picture of my box and the table sitting inside it.

blackbox.jpg

When taking your pictures there are many things to consider.

1. Try to keep the area of the subject as small as you can and try to place them very near each other in a tight group.

2. Make sure that your subjects are facing the same direction to the camera. For instance if it is a leaf place them both flat facing the same direction right next to each other.

3. Look at your camera and see where the flash and lens are located and try to place the center of the flash directly over the center of your subjects. My flash and lens on my smart phone are located in the up left hand corner of my phone.

Here is an example of what your photo may look like if your flash and lens were located in the same place as mine.

20150626_152254.jpg

 

When you transfer it to your computer you can crop away the extra background.

4.Try to place all of you future subject and your phone in the same area. even mark, with a pen, on your phone table the borders of your phone and mark inside the box the borders of your camera stand.

5. These are the settings I use inside the box:

-Flash-On 5 seconds (Press the button and close the lid before 5 seconds and the camera shoots)

-Marco Focus works best for close up shots like this

-ISO 200

 

Now that you have your pictures and the are transferred to your computer screen, take a minute and look at the photo and try to find an area that the color seems to be most dominant in both species. Then take your dropper tool and go to that area, as you move your dropper around that area you will notice a pattern of the colors and the ratios, between the colors, is consistent. So choose one that keeps repeating it selfs in this small area. Now right down the RGB colors on a piece of paper and label that set of numbers by what ever color dot you have chosen to use to represent this area. Then take a small piece of tape and put it on the screen to mark this point. Now find that same color on the other same species in the photo and mark it also with tape. Now you can change your tool to a paintbrush, pick what color you want and mark the spots with tape on them. I always try to mark in the same place, which is directly above the chosen area, but not overlapping it at all.

Now just repeat process for any other areas that you want to test. When you are finished you can design the rest of your presentation.

 

When choosing pictures off the internet try to find pictures that are in good lighting and where both subject are facing is the same direction to the camera. In a good picture it is very easy to do this process on the same species. By using your eyes to try to identify similar colored areas first will save you a lot of time. So examine your photo well and stay away from muddy, reflections, shadows, transition colors, different lighting, etc.

 

Ok I will try to pick up where I left of tomorrow. Gotta go... :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pigments are not the only natural colour, there's also photonic crystals.

 

In all of this you are yet to demonstrate how you could possibly normalise two different photos. The concept is fundamentally flawed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is my free gift to the world. I am already using it to identify pearls and others studying nature can also build a black box and start collecting the (GCC) of whatever they are studying. So here you go.... Its free

 

If one day we develop it into software everyone who contributed will still be a part. This is a group project now and if there is ever any money to be made down the road we can give it all to charity or maybe we can use it to throw a massive, huge, amazing party like the world has never seen, to celebrate what we have accomplished. I don't know rite now I am not thinking that far into the future and it is not what motivates me.

 

I call BS. You have not proven to you can positively identify the species pearls from a picture and an RGB interface.

 

You demanded I cite my work, yet you have not provided any credible evidence to support yours.

 

You invited me, through another web site, to contribute to this thread, but told me to leave when your methods were criticized. That's not even bad science, it's tyrannical, intransigent and absurd.

 

 

The only reason I stayed this long, because there's been some interesting discussion with others, but you....well that's just a whole other thing.

 

 

Your gift to the world? :wacko: :wacko: :wacko: :wacko: :wacko: :wacko: :wacko: :wacko: :wacko:

 

 

My upbringing as a gentleman prohibits me from saying what I really think you and this quackery, in a public setting.

 

In lieu of that action, I will self regulate and remove myself from the discussion.

 

 

As it stands, I do not endorse this folly.

 

 

It's been debunked. Period.

 

 

 

 

PS. Others, questions or comments, PM me.

 

Be well my friends.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.