3 ms·
Yeah both are common in astrophotography. Color correction using a reference palette is also pretty common when doing any kind of scientific imaging, though in
by TrueDuality 7y ago
Yeah both are common in astrophotography. Color correction using a reference palette is also pretty common when doing any kind of scientific imaging, though in lab setting the distance is usually well established and not relevant.
- Semaphor 7y agoTFA: > Once trained, the color chart is no longer necessary. As Akkaynak helpfully explained on Reddit, “All you need is multiple images of the scene under natural light, no color chart necessary.” On Reddit: > Just a clarification: the method does NOT require the use of a color chart. That part was not clear in the video. All you need is multiple images of the scene under natural light, no color chart necessary.
- TrueDuality 7y agoThat makes it way more relevant.
- jsjw7sbw 7y agoWhat annoyed me with that answer is they didn't explain why they needed the color chart at all. I would assume it's for training some model, which would lead to this method not working without the chart out of the box for example in muddy waters.
- bayesian_horse 7y agoIt might indeed require new training data for substantially different kinds of haze. They are only talking about reefs though, which means tropical ocean water. Coral don't thrive in muddy water.
- juliendorra 7y agoThe chart is needed to validate that the algorithm works: you need to have known colors in the image, you need a reference. (The chart is the ground truth) Once the chart is back to its exact color, the image can be considered corrected (at least for this distance, illumination…). If the algorithm brings the chart back to its true colors at several distances and in various conditions, then it can be applied confidently on images without a chart.
- bayesian_horse 7y agoHow did they get the reference palette to those stars?