my reasoning: the actual colors we can see -> the wavelengths that we can extrapolate to -> basically extrapolated wavelengths plus an 'unpure-ness' factor -> not even real wavelengths (ok well king blue and maybe lavender if I'm being generous could be)

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] AdrianTheFrog -1 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

I called black a real color because if we see black, we know for certain there’s actually no light.

And yes I know all that other stuff.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

I called black a real color because if we see black, we know for certain

But how can you tell when you see cyan, if it's actually cyan wavelength or a combination of two completely separate wavelengths that your brain just averages into 'light blue' or whatever?

[–] AdrianTheFrog 1 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

yea I know thats why I called it a slippery slope, because if you know for certain that there's only one wavelength in the scene then you could tell its cyan, but if it could be any spectrum then you would have no idea

[–] [email protected] 3 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

So how is red not a slippery slope for the same reasons?

[–] AdrianTheFrog 1 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) (1 children)

IDK, I can't tell from looking at the 2015 CIE CMFs (I think these are the most accurate? also I used the firefox plugin "unpaywall" to see them as sci-hub wasn't working) if there are any completely identifiable red colors or not. I initially assumed there were, but I guess I don't really know (I had assumed any perceived color could be made from a standard red green and blue, but now I also don't know if that's true).

edit: if that assumption is true than there would be no way to produce photons of different wavelengths in a way that looks like a fully saturated red

also the falloff at the end of the spectrum might mess with that a little, it looks like there is a continuously varying ratio of red to green along the end of the spectrum, but I can't really tell

edit2: it also varies somewhat with age and among individuals apparently, so that might complicate things further

[–] [email protected] 1 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) (1 children)

And your brainhole specifics - everything gets processed like this (even monitors with subpixels use a lot of this stuff, or even why you can watch 24p movies):
wiki/White%27s_illusion

[–] AdrianTheFrog 1 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

yea, there's also the afterimage / auto white balance factor

also those are fun optical illusions

mildly unrelated, but have you seen https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caf%C3%A9_wall_illusion and https://www.shadertoy.com/view/4dBfWK

[–] [email protected] 1 points 3 weeks ago

Yes, brains are wild!