flat assembler
Message board for the users of flat assembler.

Index > Heap > some thoughts on colors..

Author
Thread Post new topic Reply to topic
tthsqe



Joined: 20 May 2009
Posts: 724
tthsqe
It just occurred to me that the RGB or HSB (3 dimensions) color display might not be a completely accurate way a representing color. For example, each point in our retina receives a distribution of visible wavelengths. The HSB keeps track of the following statistics:
- the mean wavelengths of the photons (hue)
- the variance of the wavelengths (saturation)
- the number of photons (brightness)
Obviously, there is more to a distribution than just these three statistics.
Post 14 Jan 2014, 10:40
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
typedef



Joined: 25 Jul 2010
Posts: 2913
Location: 0x77760000
typedef
So what more could you ask for? I don't see anything lacking Razz

**See what I did there?*** Very Happy
Post 14 Jan 2014, 11:39
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
MHajduk



Joined: 30 Mar 2006
Posts: 6034
Location: Poland
MHajduk
No no, RGB should stand for

R = Rayless
G = Grey
B = Black

Just kidding. Razz LOL Laughing
Post 14 Jan 2014, 12:17
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
YONG



Joined: 16 Mar 2005
Posts: 8000
Location: 22° 15' N | 114° 10' E
YONG
Well, we may also need to consider the CMYK color model:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CMYK

Wink
Post 14 Jan 2014, 12:57
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
tthsqe



Joined: 20 May 2009
Posts: 724
tthsqe
the cmyk scheme is about pigments wihich absorb certain wavelengths and reflect others. I am talking about the loss of information inherent in representing a distribution of photon wavelengths by only three numbers.
Post 14 Jan 2014, 20:29
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
revolution
When all else fails, read the source


Joined: 24 Aug 2004
Posts: 17278
Location: In your JS exploiting you and your system
revolution
It is well known that the physical RGB used in monitors today cannot cover all of the eye's colour sensitive ability. But it is "good enough" for most purposes. If we were to change all of our monitors and software/OSes to make a four (or more) colour system to produce every colour perceivable the costs would be rather large and mostly unnecessary.
Post 14 Jan 2014, 22:33
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
matefkr



Joined: 02 Sep 2007
Posts: 1291
Location: Ukraine, Beregovo
matefkr
the sum of two waves at some points, are so that the slower wave will pull somewhat up the composite wave, but the faster wave will put it down much more, however it is not an average. it is like similar to presense of two different waves, distorted for example one is the average wave, wich means that things sensitive for this wave will react a little weakly.
Post 15 Jan 2014, 01:21
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
edfed



Joined: 20 Feb 2006
Posts: 4237
Location: 2018
edfed
yep, it misses a lot of other wave lengths.
infrareds, ultraviolets, reds, blues, yellows, greens, gammas, x, terahertz...
but for visual purpose, what is needed for us?

the tree colors corresponding to the 3 cones types our retina holds.

of course, our cones aren't always sensitive to the exact smae wavelengh, but it is enough to use names for colors and recognise them without any problem (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Color_blindness).
Post 15 Jan 2014, 23:27
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
tthsqe



Joined: 20 May 2009
Posts: 724
tthsqe
of course I was only talking about the visible range.
So if we have three cones that that have peak responses at three different wave lengths, the photon data is ultimately transferred to the brain by three real numbers. In this case it would seem that our perception of color is ultimately 3 dimensional or 4 dimensional if you add it the extra dimension for the rods. Does this seem right? If this is the case there is no need to develop displays with more than 4 primary wavelengths...?
Post 16 Jan 2014, 02:00
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
revolution
When all else fails, read the source


Joined: 24 Aug 2004
Posts: 17278
Location: In your JS exploiting you and your system
revolution
tthsqe wrote:
of course I was only talking about the visible range.
So if we have three cones that that have peak responses at three different wave lengths, the photon data is ultimately transferred to the brain by three real numbers. In this case it would seem that our perception of color is ultimately 3 dimensional or 4 dimensional if you add it the extra dimension for the rods. Does this seem right? If this is the case there is no need to develop displays with more than 4 primary wavelengths...?
The retina is more complex than the simple three colour models used. To fully cover the entire sensitivity range of the human eye requires very complex colour rendering. But it is also pointless because the missing colours from the standard RGB are minor and mostly go unnoticed except in very specific situations.
Post 16 Jan 2014, 02:23
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
edfed



Joined: 20 Feb 2006
Posts: 4237
Location: 2018
edfed
we canno't render fluorescent colors using RGB or CMYN models, but mainly cause fluorescence is a microscopic texture, not a color....
Post 16 Jan 2014, 13:02
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
HaHaAnonymous



Joined: 02 Dec 2012
Posts: 1180
Location: Unknown
HaHaAnonymous
[ Post removed by author. ]


Last edited by HaHaAnonymous on 28 Feb 2015, 18:29; edited 1 time in total
Post 16 Jan 2014, 13:26
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
revolution
When all else fails, read the source


Joined: 24 Aug 2004
Posts: 17278
Location: In your JS exploiting you and your system
revolution
The old CRTs used florescence to display RGB. Even the old monochrome CRTs used florescence.
Post 16 Jan 2014, 13:35
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
HaHaAnonymous



Joined: 02 Dec 2012
Posts: 1180
Location: Unknown
HaHaAnonymous
[ Post removed by author. ]


Last edited by HaHaAnonymous on 28 Feb 2015, 18:29; edited 1 time in total
Post 16 Jan 2014, 13:46
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
tthsqe



Joined: 20 May 2009
Posts: 724
tthsqe
does this CGI not look florescent to you? To me it looks florescent and underwater (since there are no direct lights).
Post 17 Jan 2014, 00:22
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Display posts from previous:
Post new topic Reply to topic

Jump to:  


< Last Thread | Next Thread >
Forum Rules:
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You can attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum


Copyright © 1999-2020, Tomasz Grysztar.

Powered by rwasa.