To be blunt: your system blithely ignores the color space, gamma curves, and human perception.
There’s like… entire textbooks written on the topic of optimal encoding of hues given a fixed number of bits! That’s most of the secret sauce of Dolby Vision, for example.
Sorry to burst your bubble like this, but the assumption that “RGB” means anything at all is hilariously naive.
It’s like specifying a text format and neglecting to mention the encoding or the escaping rules! It will get mangled by the receiver.
It’s factual and references the state of the art — which the OP couldn’t even be bothered to Google.
How is it uncalled for? It’s here! In the public sphere! The OP published it and is showing it off!
Their grand contribution to color theory: divide a nonlinear, unspecified encoding by ten.
channel / 10
I’m sorry, but unless the OP is still in (junior!) school this doesn’t warrant a website like he’s cracked the secret code that has been holding back color theory for decades.
Something worthy of HN front page would be a tiny NN that optimally allocates perceptually uniform color divisions such that +1 or -1 was always consistently what an artist would expect. That would be cool and worthy of a website and a discussion on a tech forum.
Sometimes we need to encourage something hopelessly naive, but I put my limit somewhere around… this.
Anyway, why do you care if I dismiss the OP's "contribution" out of hand? The OP doesn't care about his "work" in the slightest! To quote: "Or something like that roughly... It doesn't matter if it's not perfect."
