Apologies to Brian, the link is of pictures of golden Labradors.
Why do people have a problem identifying basic colours? Search "yellow dog" and you get these images (clearly light brown):
There is a little yellow color there, but it's mostly brown. I would never have considered calling them "yellow dogs" until I heard people saying that.
There's a lot of cats like that too.
Its all down to the gamma that's why. Brian
Odd, I only ever see black, white, ginger, mixture of any of those in stripes/patches.
Nope.
Brian Gaff (Sofa) snipped-for-privacy@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote
Its actually down to the google image search being much more relaxed than a normal google search.
We were discussing real life dogs viewed by eye, not faulty monitors and cameras.
The eye is subject to precisely the same limitations. The perception of colour is very much dependent on light quality and level. How would you define "yellow" anyway, if not by hue and saturation?
The eye is a damn sight better at detecting what is real than a camera. Think of auto white balance but times 100.
In the only way that makes sense to the human eye, RGB. Pure yellow being equal quantities of red and green.
Nonsense! While its performance is remarkable given what it is, the human eye is actually a pretty poor camera. Other species have far better visual acuity. When shopping for clothes, my wife (and I'm sure most other women) will often take the item to the front door of the shop, and even out into the street, just to see what the colours look like in daylight.. The camera has limitations too (you may remember having to decide whether to buy colour film for daylight or artificial light) but it never lies, although obviously it can be used to deceive. What people see is largely what they want to see.
There's no such thing as a "pure" colour. "Yellow", "red" and "green" are simply labels given to continua within the visible spectrum. Sometimes there is even a cultural element involved in determining where the boundaries of these continua lie.
Does your wife know you just referred to her as a different species?
That's not a limitation of the eye, that's a limitation of the lighting. Which is why I always buy daylight white lights.
I never chose film like that. I just bought Kodak ISO400 slide film. Grainier, but I could take better motion shots and/or have a bigger depth of field. I hate it when you can't have more than one thing in focus.
Red green and blue are precisely defined by the frequency (why do people think in wavelengths?) at which the cones in your eye are most receptive. Other colours can therefore be placed equally along the spectral line.
Fucking OCD retard :-P
It's due to the eye's inability to respond linearly to changes in illumination. Which brings us back to 'gamma'.
Because it isn't possinle to measure frequency directly on that part of the spectrum. Wavelengths, OTOH, can be measured relatively easily using diffraction gratings. This works up to the gamma range (see what I did there?), where we have to use photon energy as the only measurable property.
How can you know that everyone's eyes respond identically?
Gobbledegook.
It's not just brightness that changes. Artificial light often omits certain frequencies. An extreme example - you wouldn't expect to be able to see a green object under a red light. They f***ed that up in the UK when we used to have orange sodium streetlights - you couldn't tell which colour wheelybin was which, and a study found it increased car crashes, because a lot of colours looked the same so things blended in with each other.
They're directly related using c, the speed of light. So you can denote a colour in frequency or wavelength very easily. I find it easier to think in frequencies. Sound is measured in frequencies. You wouldn't denote middle C as 1.31 metres.
We have to assume perfect eyesight, as with everything else.
ROYGBIV.
HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.