Talk:Natural Color System

message: I do not want to add to the discussion but just to finalize it.
The claim of NCS: the hue of colors ar best described in RGBY.
To prove that claim only (verifiable hopefully) experimentation with test persons are conlusive. Such a test could be showing colors to persons and asking them to describe it in RGBY. Other test persons would be asked to describe it in RGB, CMY, the 6 colors according to Itten (bauhuas) color theory, the 5 colors of Munsell or any other number of colors. 
To me (but this is my personel opinion) the best results will be with colors that most test persons are familiar (have in memory) with (probably the colors in their native language as not everyone gives names to the same colors) an secondly it seems logical that the more colors test persons are familiar with the better they would score. In that case I would bet on red, green, orange,  yellow, blue, purple as these are the colors I experience most people know.
So is there any reference to such a test?
One could now try to explain the results on a biological basis. From the article as it is now written conclusions are drawn from biological insights. Without the above experiment such explanation could be right or wrong, you just don't know (you didn't test). Such a conclusion would be evenly right are wrong as the conclusion that the primaries are GYB are favored because of how the eye responds to light.
My guess is that both are wrong because there is even a higher level: our memory. The more colors we can memories the better we will score on the test. 
So I repeat: I don't want a discussion before the question is answered. Does anyone know of such a test?
--BartYgor 13:12, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: FACTS!

message: LS.
I think that the links in the article to NCS/RGB conversion tools should be removed and here is why: RGB (depending on the algorythm used to get from tristimulus to RGB) do not cover the entire 'space' of visible colors. 
Therefore the calculation of NCS to/from RGB cannot be good as for instance the uttermost red is more red than the R in the RGB. The 100% red in NCS however is probably somewhere in between. 
Without knowning the XYZ (or any other scientific color space) values of the red, yellow, blue, green and (yes) even the white and black youo cannot calculate the RGB of vice versa. There are even probably NCS colors that do not have a valid RGB value.
Besides this what I would like to know is: what are the references of the NCS system ?
TheBlob 13:46, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that unless NCS is defined in terms of uncalibrated primaries, it makes no sense to offer "conversions" to "RGB".  Perhaps sRGB would make sense, but the problem seems to be that very few Wikipedia authors understand which color spaces are absolute and which are not, and that you cannot convert without a framework. Notinasnaid 14:00, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Furthermore, no two of the tools cited show the same result (tested with NCS S 3030 Y60R); you are forced to 'believe' in one of four different results. Also no information/distinction found on differences between NCS and NCS S (second edition).  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.57.141.121 (talk) 19:41, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

text: A little more research throws up this very interesting comment, from a developer attempting this "It has been difficult to find two descriptions of NCS that agree. It has been impossible to find a description of the mathematical details of NCS."   Given that I have to conclude that NCS is a reference-based system - more akin to Pantone. This isn't a negative thing in itself, but for color scientists it makes it very hard to work with, and almost meaningless to convert. I couldn't find any technical information about its points of reference (e.g. "What is Red") on the NCS web site. The web site does talk of "deep frozen reference samples". Given that, the article should probably not talk about conversions, except to warn of these points. Notinasnaid 14:59, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I fear that you are taking the entire NCS far too serious. Asking questions like these is akin to asking your astrologer where Sedna is in the horoscope. :o)--MWAK 18:17, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  RGB NCS Conversion tools 

message: I reinstated the text "While the science may be quite difficult to understand most users of the system will simply be choosing or matching colors with printed reference cards." because there was not a clear explanation of why it was deleted. This text had nothing to do with discrediting anything, but was an attempt to make it clearer to the casual reader how NCS can be used by them. I did this because I read the article and could not understand how NCS fitted into other color spaces, so I did a little research to improve the article. Is this statement inaccurate? I don't know much about NCS, but it seemed to be accurate. Notinasnaid 19:00, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, I didn't notice that part. I was trying to revert the edits by the other user, not yours. Uaxuctum 22:53, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deleted text 

message: Is there a mathematical formula for calculating RGB values from NCS? (Obviously not an exact one, as this would be dependent on things like monitor gamma) HymylyT@C 19:16, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: See "RGB NCS Conversion tools" above... Notinasnaid 20:07, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Silly me ;) HymylyT@C
The mathematical structure is discussed in Hård, Sivik & Tonnquist 1996. In theory one could take the information from that article and write a computer program that takes the NCS code of a patch and converts it to the XYZ colour coordinates that the patch should have. The article even mentions BASIC programs that did just that, but unfortunately it was published before such things were commonly published on the internet and they seem to be lost to time. One thing the article doesn't describe is how the smoothing between hues is supposed to be performed.
The 1996 article shows that differences between the aimed values and the actual values exist. For example, it gives a neat hyperbolic relationship between whiteness, blackness and luminance, but the actual patches may deviate somewhat. Some due to tolerances, but more worryingly some patches near the end of the scales weren't physically realisable given printing limitations and their actual colours are clipped because of that, rather than omitted entirely. The differences have been tabulated and published as SS 019102. According to Smith, Whitfield & Wiltshire 1991 the actual colours used tend to be much further away from their aim points than is usual for colour atlases.
In 1990 the same Smith, Whitfield & Wiltshire had developed a colour conversion utility. They were apparently quite thorough, even discovering errors in existing tabulated data and software. Smith has apparently updated the software and turned it into a web app: https://virtualatlasblazor.azurewebsites.net One thing I don't like about it is that it offers perhaps too many settings, which can then be set wrong. And this one can be set up so it will definitely show the wrong colours. Both RGB Model and gamma must be set to sRGB, but when I first visited that page, they weren't. Since the program does no further colour management after calculating the RGB values and the web standard specifies sRGB for colours, setting these settings to any other value will result in wrong colours. (And I have verified this by comparing with other software.) Similarly, the chromatic adaptation should probably always be set to Bradford. If you turn it off and the data file you select is referenced to illuminant C for example, the colours will get a tinge. But if you'd look at the colours under that other reference light, the entire room would be lit like that and you wouldn't notice. (And the background would be affected as well, but it isn't in the program.)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.67.227.181 (talk) 07:00, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  NCS to RGB conversion 

message: I've removed the Olympic Flag logo, as it's copyrighted, and can only be used in certain articles per Wikipedia's Fair Use guidelines.  Perhaps someone can just mention the Olympic Flag in the article?  ...Sorry :o\  tiZom(2¢) 02:05, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Olympic Flag 

message: I never heard before about a color system so fixed on cultural prejudices and thence, completely unnatural. They postulate that the spectral red is a crimson-like hue with a small admixture of yellow… which crank may invent something better? Incnis Mrsi (talk) 11:50, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Problem is some authors dragging in the psychological aspects of the scientific theory into an article about engineering standards. I'll rewrite this, properly sourced this time. BP OMowe (talk) 18:59, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Incnis Mrsi, are you saying that sRGB(255, 0, 0) looks pure to you or did you not calibrate your monitors, because NCS elementary red sure does not look like there is any yellow it in at all. 83.255.31.115 (talk) 15:56, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, but spectral red is not the modern NCS "pure red". And to anyone it should be obvious that both are subtractive mixtures of yellow and magenta :o).--MWAK (talk) 19:34, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  It's ironical 

message: While I realise that there are folks out there who get most frightfully upset over the use of US vs UK spellings in Wikipedia articles, I must confess it's something that bores the hell out of me. In other words, I couldn't care less whether an article is written in whichever of the two spelling variants is chosen by the user creating the article, provided, of course, that the spelling is consistent throughout and, as I point out below, depending on whether we're talking about "common" nouns or proper nouns. 
As pointed out in the corresponding subsection of the Wikipedia policy regarding article titles which, funnily enough, gives the precise example that "both color and colour are acceptable and both spellings are found in article titles (such as color gel and colour state)". Said subsection also gives the example "Australian Defence Force, United States Secretary of Defense". Thus, regardless of our own leanings, Wikipedia will naturally respect the "correct" spelling in the case of proper nouns.
This article is clearly not about a common noun but about a standard or product created by a company. According to that company's website, both the company (NCS Colour AB) and their standard, product, call it what you will, Natural Colour System, uses that -our variant (sources: Background & About us). In other words, they chooses the name, so they gets to decide which variant of English they wish to use. And Wikipedia simply gets to reflect that. I personally can never get used to including that there hyphen in Coca-Cola, but that's the way it is, and that's how Wikipedia writes it.
Furthermore, while the file "New Practice for Specifying Color by the Natural Color System (NCS)" at ASTM International does use the -or spelling in its title and content, it also states the following: "1.7 Acknowledgement – ASTM International has obtained a license from the Scandinavian Colour Institute AB (SCI) to use the NCS System. NCS-Natural Colour System is a trademark of the SCI, Stockholm, Sweden and is protected by copyright (www.ncscolour.com). All rights reserved." 
Curiously, the IP user who created the article back in 2002, stated that "Yes, they spell "color" differently in the name of the standard and the English translation of their name)."...
There's no doubt whatsoever in my mind that the article title should be Natural Colour System –crystal clear– but I've been asked to broach the matter here, so the ball's in the Community's court. Regards, --Technopat (talk) 00:23, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: A couple of things argue against your claim that "Colour" is more correct here.  First, if you check at uspto.gov and do a trademark search, you'll find "Natural Color System" and "NCS Natural Color System" registered to a Swedish company (I didn't look close enough to say it's the right Swedish company, but I'm guessing so; please check); I find no corresponding US trademark with the British spelling.  Second, usage in English sources is about evenly split, so we should WP:RETAIN what we have.  Dicklyon (talk) 04:38, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Name of company & name of system 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Natural Color System. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20040927031527/http://www.melack.se/eng/ncs.asp to http://www.melack.se/eng/ncs.asp
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:41, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The article says S means the current version of the standard, but below S is equated to the version of the standard in 1950. I've just read an article by Judd and Nickerson that makes it clear that the standard was adjusted post-1950, so these cannot both be true.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.67.227.181 (talk) 16:51, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  S=1950? 

message: Having read the article and in particular the section ‘Comparisons to other color systems’ I think there are some important points that are not adequately addressed.
*How does its grey scale compare to grey scales of say Munsell or CIECAM16? (Fitted luminance formula can be found in Hård, Sivik & Tonnquist 1996.)
*CIECAM16 deals with surround effects; discuss how this might make a difference when comparing the two systems in different circumstances.
*Discuss how far away the colours of patches are from the colours they theoretically should have just going by the code. (See Smith, Whitfield & Wiltshire 1991 and their previous work.)
*Discuss how consistent the colours of patches are compared to other systems. If I order a patch, will it have the same colour as other patches with the same code? (Don't know an article offhand. Some of the paints were reformulated, but maybe they were kept consistent. Some of the patches close to the edges might have crept closer to their aim colours. Tolerances, how do they compare to Munsell e.g.?)
The reason I'm not yet adding these points myself is because I sense I have different opinions about the relative importance of points than previous editors of the article and I would like to give you an opportunity to integrate the above points in places where you'd like to see them.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.67.227.181 (talk) 14:27, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comparisons to other color systems 

message: The earliest year mentioned in the article is 1964, but the system didn't just pop out of a vacuum. It builds on earlier work by Ewald Hering, Tryggve Johansson and Sven Hesselgren, only the first being even mentioned in the article.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.67.227.181 (talk) 15:29, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  History