 | | | | | | |
| |
|
On Sat, Aug 30, 2003 at 09:25:38PM +0000, Ray Sanders wrote:
> After staring at this list for a while, I think it will be a sea
> change to use some of these names. For example: color #25 is called
> 'Earth Orange'. To my eye, this looks much darker than the color of a
> Kaadu (which we have called earth orange, for lack of more official
> naming). I am *very* happy to see something that we can depend on for
> consistancy, but I see a very real need for a 'Rosetta stone' to help
> up transition from the old names (various color naming systems) to
> this set.
The way I see it, we probably will never switch to calling colors by
their LEGO names - some, like 'Lig. Yellowich Orange' just don't work
for me :) It would be nice to correlate the names we use to the entries
in the table. For that matter, it would be nice to be able to have a
comprehensive chart, that includes all the known naming conventions. The
best bit of data I see getting from LEGO's chart is just the RGB/Pantone
values for the colors. Those we could use, especially in LDraw/POV
applications.
Dan
--
Dan Boger
dan@peeron.com
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.cad.dev, Dan Boger wrote:
> The way I see it, we probably will never switch to calling colors by
> their LEGO names - some, like 'Lig. Yellowich Orange' just don't work
> for me :) It would be nice to correlate the names we use to the entries
> in the table. For that matter, it would be nice to be able to have a
> comprehensive chart, that includes all the known naming conventions. The
> best bit of data I see getting from LEGO's chart is just the RGB/Pantone
> values for the colors. Those we could use, especially in LDraw/POV
> applications.
>
> Dan
With respect to the RGB and the CMYK numbers... I did a bit of quick reading
about the two color specification models. If I understood it correctly, RGB is
more oriented towards monitor displays, while CMYK (subtractive) is intended to
specify more accurately imaging on a medium (such as paper, etc). Are the CMYK
numbers given for printing those colors ?
Ray
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.cad.dev, Ray Sanders wrote:
> In lugnet.cad.dev, Dan Boger wrote:
> > The way I see it, we probably will never switch to calling colors by
> > their LEGO names - some, like 'Lig. Yellowich Orange' just don't work
> > for me :) It would be nice to correlate the names we use to the entries
> > in the table. For that matter, it would be nice to be able to have a
> > comprehensive chart, that includes all the known naming conventions. The
> > best bit of data I see getting from LEGO's chart is just the RGB/Pantone
> > values for the colors. Those we could use, especially in LDraw/POV
> > applications.
> >
> > Dan
>
> With respect to the RGB and the CMYK numbers... I did a bit of quick reading
> about the two color specification models. If I understood it correctly, RGB is
> more oriented towards monitor displays, while CMYK (subtractive) is intended to
> specify more accurately imaging on a medium (such as paper, etc). Are the CMYK
> numbers given for printing those colors ?
Ray-
I asked about this and got a sort of vague responce:
The CMYK is given to tell people what the CMYK value is.
If you want to print with it because it is better for printing, then use that.
The values listed are for color the actual plastic.
The point is that the colors are given in a variety of formats for a variety of
purposes... up to the user to choose which one to use.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.cad.dev, Jennifer L. Boger wrote:
> I asked about this and got a sort of vague responce:
>
> The CMYK is given to tell people what the CMYK value is.
> If you want to print with it because it is better for printing, then use >that.
It should be, since most modern printers use cyan, magenta, and yellow ink
for color printing (I'm guessing "K" is for "blacK"?). In working with light,
the primaries are red, blue, and green, and the secondaries are cyan, magenta,
and _amber_ (a bit on the orangy side). It makes sense that they'd want to have
seperate color values for printing, given their fondness for printing color
instruction manuals.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
(I'm guessing "K" is for "blacK"?).
"K" stands for Key, but why black is called key I don't know, you'd have to ask
a printer (Person not a machine!)
Tim
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.cad.dev, Jennifer L. Boger wrote:
> I asked about this and got a sort of vague responce:
>
> The CMYK is given to tell people what the CMYK value is.
> If you want to print with it because it is better for printing, then use that.
> The values listed are for color the actual plastic.
> The point is that the colors are given in a variety of formats for a variety of
> purposes... up to the user to choose which one to use.
The way to test this is to do the translation between CMYK and RGB. If the
numbers in the table convert more or less exactly, then we know it's just a
simple translation. If they don't match, then it's likely the CMYK values have
been ajusted for printing.
Unfortunately I don't have a good enough graphics program available to test this
out myself. The few I have only have RGB and HSV.
Derek
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.cad.dev, Dan Boger wrote:
> The way I see it, we probably will never switch to calling colors by
> their LEGO names - some, like 'Lig. Yellowich Orange' just don't work
> for me :)
What's wrong with it? "Lig." is an abbreviation for "light" (not the one
we're used to, but...), "yellowich" is only one letter different from
"yellowish"...ah, you must object to their use of the strange foreign word
"orange", right? ;P
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.cad.dev, David Laswell wrote:
> "yellowich" is only one letter different from "yellowish"
On further comparison, "Lig. Yellowich Orange" is the only color that uses
the spelling "yellowich", while every other use is spelled "yellowish". I
propose that the C-spelling is a typo and should be corrected.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.cad.dev, David Laswell wrote:
> In lugnet.cad.dev, David Laswell wrote:
> > "yellowich" is only one letter different from "yellowish"
>
> On further comparison, "Lig. Yellowich Orange" is the only color that uses
> the spelling "yellowich", while every other use is spelled "yellowish". I
> propose that the C-spelling is a typo and should be corrected.
I've no doubt that it's a typo, but that's what they gave us, we didn't want to
touch it just yet :)
Jennifer
| | | | | | |
