You seem to have wandered well off of your path. Since you are lost, I leave the following breadcrumbs to help you find your way back...
It seems the ideas in this archive have spread to places the author would never have guessed. A small document to help those who have tried to parse the scripts felt in order.
Generally speaking, the nature of the structure of some random curve is completely inconsequential in terms of an affecting force. Because the techniques included herein are entirely effective, we can expect no such correspondence beyond broad and hand wavy things. Changing the R stimuli level is not changing the "hue" or "lightness" or "colourfulness"; the "nesses" are cognitive computations that emerge from stimuli relations, not the discrete samples.
The stimuli (RGB wattage values) are disconnected from colour cognition in the way folks believe.
Always remember that we are adjusting normalized stimuli wattages when adjusting RGB, and as such, it's all mumbo jumbo janky in terms of what we are trying to control. Authors seek to control colour, but colour is a cognitive computation. Sadly, it is akin to an author attempting to control a puppet, by way of pulleys and strings, while wearing a blindfold. Colour cognition does not "follow" from the RGB stimuli.
For example, adjusting an RGB value will not adjust the "hueness" of a colour. It will effect and change the "hueness", but the "hueness" is not "within" the stimuli (RGB) itself; "hueness" is the end result of a cognitive computation.
No amount of misleading knobs, pulleys, widgets, wheels, and other ephemera, no matter how much an author professes with language, will affect the cognized elements. The metrics of all curves are normalized RGB wattages, and as such, the curve formula employed herein is detached from the more important mechanisms present in this archive.
Curves manipulate metrics, and the metrics are detached from the desired meaning territory in the RGB stimuli sense. Do not become obsessed with formulas for curves. They do not matter in the least, and they do not control what people think they control.
The original sigmoidal curve within this repository was originally authored by Jed Smith. It can be swapped out with anything that patterns a general sigmoidal response in theory. The interactions that create the final stimuli triplet are complexly intertwined with several variables, and as such, no degree of "precision" can afford much utility.
The key part of the mechanisms in this mausoleum can be distilled down to two crucial parts:
- Additive stimuli
- Rotation and control over the coordinates
The effort within this vault was an experiment to address cognitive issues with pictorial depictions, and the way we use algorithms to form those pictorial depictions.
By using a simplistic matrix approach, we can add additive energy to the opponent stimuli. This relates to our segmentation-decomposition cognitive mechanisms, and formulates a cognitive "grammar" when a channel by channel lookup or formula is employed.
Permitting an author to control the basis coordinates is key for authorship. Our cognitive machinations that yield segmentation-decomposition are, at best, poorly understood. Worse, our existing stimuli-centric models are extremely impoverished. As such, it is absolutely imperative that the picture formation approach allows an author to control the nature of the formation for their specific pictorial needs. At the same time, ergonomics are crucially important.
The technique employed herein attempts to balance ergonomics with adjustment. Authorial control is key, and this is lost when an author is faced with a jet cockpit level of controls that ultimately fail to affect the territory in question. The foolish would model the universe in an attempt to emulate creative chemical film, only to discover that a well designed matrix will exceed the performance of the Universe Emulator, with a much higher probability of fewer cognitive errors.
Any attempt to harness the ideas within this archive should expose these rotation and inset parameters. If one does not understand why, one would do well to try and understand how they interact with the channel by channel mechanisms.
Small minds concern themselves with such a term. Wise minds ask themselves what the goal is. If the goal seems self-explanatory to a mind, it is with certainty we can claim that such a mind has not contemplated the topic.
This is not to say that the issue of out of domain stimuli is not an issue, but rather that there are no answers, yet. Feel free to attempt to employ the bogus nonsense some groups have tried. These approaches do not work in any way, shape, or form.
For the wise among you looking for a reasonable entry point, look to the neurophysiological gradients, and how they may rest at the feet of cognitive Cartesian-like constructions of spatial relationships between forms in our minds. That is, avoid obsessing over faulty human crafted stimuli models or "colour spaces", and instead focus on how cognitition derives colour as space.
Feel free to read the worthless book entitled with the subject of this section, but no answers rest in colourimetric stimuli models, nor any other practitioner of charlatanism.
In light of the above, it is worthwhile for folks to experiment with the handling of out of domain stimuli and the relationships to our cognition of projected Cartesian-like frames. Do not succumb to number fornications, and always put cognition first, not the janky mumbo jumbo of the foolish number fornicators.
Hopefully there are enough breadcrumbs here for the quiet lurker to get off of the ground reasonably well. There are vastly better ideas than those in this repository, but you have not crafted them yet.