• shneancy@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      10 hours ago

      yeah that part of the graph is completely useless to people who haven’t memorised the exact degrees of the scale, which is most people, even most artists

      • bob_lemon@feddit.org
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        11
        ·
        15 hours ago

        The problem is that averaging hue makes no sense at all because hue is not a longest scale.

        If you take a red poster (0) and a blue poster (240), it averages to green. Or take red (0) and red (359), averaging to cyan (180).

        • Starbuncle@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          3 hours ago

          It would have made more sense if they had shown the distribution of hue as a polar graph and just had one every decade to show how it changes over time.

        • flying_sheep
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          13 hours ago

          The average of 0° and 359° is obviously 359.5°.

          it’s a radial scale.

          • Starbuncle@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            3 hours ago

            I wouldn’t trust someone who tried to visualize hue like this to make that calculation correctly.

            • flying_sheep
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              12 hours ago

              Not if there is a clear trend. If most movie posters are blue, three average will be blue.

              But i agree, it is useless if there is no clear trend.