- #1
DaTario
- 1,039
- 35
Hi All,
Is it true that the brown color has not a single frequency attached to it?DaTario
Is it true that the brown color has not a single frequency attached to it?DaTario
Doesn't it just make you cross that even 'reputable' Science sources confuse wavelength and colour?Drakkith said:The only colors which have a corresponding frequency(or rather a small, continuous range of frequencies) are spectral colors.
sophiecentaur said:Doesn't it just make you cross that even 'reputable' Science sources confuse wavelength and colour?
Is it correct to say that there are colors which are not expressible in terms of a thin an monomodal spectrum?Drakkith said:Indeed. It makes me 655 nm in the face.
Yes, see my previous reply for a few examples of such non spectral colors.DaTario said:Is it correct to say that there are colors which are not expressible in terms of a thin an monomodal spectrum?
DaTario said:I saw it. Thank you for sharing, Dale. So it seems that the concept of color has something of the physiology of eye inside, isn´t it?
I have heard of metamerism, i.e., visible radiations with different spectra but recognized by the eye as having equal color. Does it imply that the color concept does not have even an objective association with spectrum?
DaTario said:I saw it. Thank you for sharing, Dale. So it seems that the concept of color has something of the physiology of eye inside, isn´t it?
I have heard of metamerism, i.e., visible radiations with different spectra but recognized by the eye as having equal color. Does it imply that the color concept does not have even an objective association with spectrum?
It's always worth while referring to the https://www.siggraph.org/education/materials/HyperGraph/color/colorcie.htm when discussing colorimetry. It's really worth reading around all the sites that a Google search will throw up. Visible colours (the only colours that exist because colours are in your head) The chart is a totally artificial representation of our (average) perception of colours and mixes of colours and I'm sure there are purists who will cast doubt on such a simplistic representation but the whole mechanism is pretty fuzzy and the accepted human colour analysis curves are only based on 'average' performance.DaTario said:I saw it. Thank you for sharing, Dale. So it seems that the concept of color has something of the physiology of eye inside, isn´t it?
I have heard of metamerism, i.e., visible radiations with different spectra but recognized by the eye as having equal color. Does it imply that the color concept does not have even an objective association with spectrum?
To whom is your remark made?LaplacianHarmonic said:You are not studying the correct category. You have to look into the wavelength.
The Land Retinex theory of colour vision attempts to quantify how we actually perceive colour. See this link and then Google the terms: Land, Retinex Mondrian. It is fascinating and it amazes me that, in the light of his work, colour TV works so well!rumborak said:Color perception is very complex indeed. Just look at that picture that was going around with the yellow (or blue?) dress. The wavelengths and strengths were exactly the same, but to some it looked yellow, to some it looked blue (mostly dependent on where they were looking at the picture).
rumborak said:Color perception is very complex indeed. Just look at that picture that was going around with the yellow (or blue?) dress. The wavelengths and strengths were exactly the same, but to some it looked yellow, to some it looked blue (mostly dependent on where they were looking at the picture).
pixel said:I think that was just a matter of whether someone's browser was properly color managed and their monitor calibrated (so as you say, where they were looking at it). It didn't really have to do with color perception per se.
Drakkith said:Sure it did. People would get into arguments over the color after looking at the picture on the same monitor.
I think people should read about Land's work in detail before questioning his ideas too much. What he found out was not an "internet sensation'. The work was done decades ago.pixel said:That's news to me. There are variations of vision from person to person, but would people looking at the same monitor disagree about whether the dress were yellow or blue, in such large numbers as to become an internet sensation?
sophiecentaur said:TV technology is only interested in 'colour fidelity' and presents a limited range of scenes.
Firstly, additive colour mixing can only represent colours that lie within the triangle with the phosphors at the vertices. That takes care of enough scenes to satisfy most viewers that the coloured regions of the scene are being portrayed 'well enough'. Secondly, the system will just pass on the sort of illusions that Land was producing in his experiments. An isolated patch of colour in a scene will be reproduced the same, whatever colours happen to surround it. It can't compensate for how the brain will experience it.DaTario said:What do you mean by "a limited range of scenes"?
sophiecentaur said:Firstly, additive colour mixing can only represent colours that lie within the triangle with the phosphors at the vertices. That takes care of enough scenes to satisfy most viewers that the coloured regions of the scene are being portrayed 'well enough'.
Our brain will 'match' spectral violet (outside the triangle) with a colour on the screen that's produced with a lot of B and a smidgen of R and G (inside the triangle).Drakkith said:Indeed. This may shock some, but you absolutely cannot render the color violet on a screen. Purple, yes. But not violet. The two are, in fact, different colors.
Drakkith said:Indeed. This may shock some, but you absolutely cannot render the color violet on a screen. Purple, yes. But not violet. The two are, in fact, different colors.
Yes. I saw demonstrations of this by Land I think in the 1960s. It was quite amazing. One display was of an American flag. The actual colors used to make the display were two different spectral yellows. About half the audience saw approximately normal (not as intense) red, white, and blue colors, and half saw odd colors. What each person saw was stable for them. No one saw yellow.nasu said:Yes, they did. I have seen this at work.
The sources would have to be spectral, too. You couldn't;t get away with the normal trick of fairly broad band phosphors as in TV.Eric Bretschneider said:They are 100% saturated, but require mixtures of violet and red light.
That is true for some browns but pretty much all real colors are desaturated and many are low luminance. I still think it's unwise to connect wavelength with colour. It's comparing a one dimensional quantity with a (at least) three dimensional quantity.Lish Lash said:Brown does in fact have a central wavelength. It is a dark, desaturated shade of orange, around 620 nm.
Eric Bretschneider said:You can in fact render violet, but not at 100% saturation.
John Green said:A fair amount of research since the 1960s suggests that language affects how we perceive colors. For example some languages do not have different words for blue and green and native speakers of those languages do not make much distinction between them and seem to perceive as much more similar than say English speakers.