Talk:1882: Color Models - Revision history

172.71.242.140: Possibly over-the-top counterponderings...

2023-01-07T16:08:56Z

Possibly over-the-top counterponderings...

Nitpicking: quibbling

2023-01-07T12:52:15Z

quibbling

108.162.237.59 at 20:01, 26 August 2022

2022-08-26T20:01:17Z

Dgbrt at 21:37, 9 September 2017

2017-09-09T21:37:26Z

108.162.237.100 at 17:00, 6 September 2017

2017-09-06T17:00:57Z

Promethean at 20:57, 2 September 2017

2017-09-02T20:57:33Z

172.68.47.66 at 14:52, 30 August 2017

2017-08-30T14:52:04Z

198.41.238.34: We can see polarised light.

2017-08-30T10:09:31Z

We *can* see polarised light.

162.158.111.211 at 06:13, 30 August 2017

2017-08-30T06:13:33Z

SteveBaker: Correct my sig.

2017-08-29T16:55:28Z

Correct my sig.

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:08, 7 January 2023
Line 82:		Line 82:

	:Depends on what you mean by ''color''. I don't think eyes (or digital sensors) can perceive an '''infinite''' range of frequencies. Referring to high-energy gamma rays as "colors" and then trying to distinguish between colors based on their energy difference would be to distort the meaning of the term. Same for radio at the other end. Even in the visual range, can the eye distinguish between 660nm and 660.1nm light? I very much doubt it. In any practical sense, then, there are not "infinite" colors. [[User:Nitpicking\|Nitpicking]] ([[User talk:Nitpicking\|talk]]) 12:52, 7 January 2023 (UTC)		:Depends on what you mean by ''color''. I don't think eyes (or digital sensors) can perceive an '''infinite''' range of frequencies. Referring to high-energy gamma rays as "colors" and then trying to distinguish between colors based on their energy difference would be to distort the meaning of the term. Same for radio at the other end. Even in the visual range, can the eye distinguish between 660nm and 660.1nm light? I very much doubt it. In any practical sense, then, there are not "infinite" colors. [[User:Nitpicking\|Nitpicking]] ([[User talk:Nitpicking\|talk]]) 12:52, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
		+
		+	::I'm not sure what the qualification is for "colour", but if it's based upon a particular sensing creature/aparatus, then there is a degree of finiteness tied to how many chromatic detection ranges it employs (and the response curve each is informed by, and then further by the perception resolution of the near neighbouring frequencies). It could be quite tight, and it would be fully calculable if it involved digital encoding (less sure in analogue scenarios and, e.g., human vision is tricksy... as can be seen in the {{w\|Checker shadow illusion}}, and similar) so properly finite. Even for a given {{w\|Hyperspectral imaging\|hyperspectral camera}}.
		+	::But if you want to cover [i]any[/i] observation(/-device) that can be made then you're effectively unbounded by the possibilities of 'spectral resolution'. Can your eye differentiate between 660nm and 660.1nm? Probably not. But you cannot say that no eye does (and we can and do build sensors that would do so).
		+	::Possibly physical laws intervene at one point though. Effectively a "Planck spectral-separation", as the limited number of elements compounded into a (very large but still finite...ish) number of receptive materials, setting an upper bound of direct response to bits of any spectra. Or, if prism-split and projected, the limit to which the resulting smear of rainbow light can be spread out and then having the limit of assessing a thin enough wedge of it. But, with always the possibility of finding a trick to go beyond the current level chromatic differentiation (applying an oscillating reflector, LIGO-like, to alternate the very slightest red-/blue-shifts back and forth across the existing threshold in a detectable way?), its as near as dammit an infinitely detailed continuum, probably even beyond what useful detail might be usefully presented by the otherwise sane bit of the universe that is blithely transmitting whatever light we are so interested in receiving for analysis. [[Special:Contributions/172.71.242.140\|172.71.242.140]] 16:08, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 12:52, 7 January 2023
Line 80:		Line 80:
	For what it's worth, the most natural way to describe color exactly is as an infinite-dimensional Hilbert space. Each pure frequency is a dimension, so a color is a vector with \|R\|-many elements, each representing the intensity of a different frequency. The inner product induces a norm that represents the brightness of the color. The sensitivities of the cone cells are basically encoded in the definition of the inner product.		For what it's worth, the most natural way to describe color exactly is as an infinite-dimensional Hilbert space. Each pure frequency is a dimension, so a color is a vector with \|R\|-many elements, each representing the intensity of a different frequency. The inner product induces a norm that represents the brightness of the color. The sensitivities of the cone cells are basically encoded in the definition of the inner product.
	[[Special:Contributions/108.162.237.59\|108.162.237.59]] 20:01, 26 August 2022 (UTC)		[[Special:Contributions/108.162.237.59\|108.162.237.59]] 20:01, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
		+
		+	:Depends on what you mean by ''color''. I don't think eyes (or digital sensors) can perceive an '''infinite''' range of frequencies. Referring to high-energy gamma rays as "colors" and then trying to distinguish between colors based on their energy difference would be to distort the meaning of the term. Same for radio at the other end. Even in the visual range, can the eye distinguish between 660nm and 660.1nm light? I very much doubt it. In any practical sense, then, there are not "infinite" colors. [[User:Nitpicking\|Nitpicking]] ([[User talk:Nitpicking\|talk]]) 12:52, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 20:01, 26 August 2022
Line 75:		Line 75:

	What if, what you see as blue when you look at the sky in real life, I see as a slightly different blue, because the different web browsers we've been using have retrained our eyes to perceive meatspace differently? [[User:Promethean\|Promethean]] ([[User talk:Promethean\|talk]]) 20:57, 2 September 2017 (UTC)		What if, what you see as blue when you look at the sky in real life, I see as a slightly different blue, because the different web browsers we've been using have retrained our eyes to perceive meatspace differently? [[User:Promethean\|Promethean]] ([[User talk:Promethean\|talk]]) 20:57, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
		+
		+	----
		+
		+	For what it's worth, the most natural way to describe color exactly is as an infinite-dimensional Hilbert space. Each pure frequency is a dimension, so a color is a vector with \|R\|-many elements, each representing the intensity of a different frequency. The inner product induces a norm that represents the brightness of the color. The sensitivities of the cone cells are basically encoded in the definition of the inner product.
		+	[[Special:Contributions/108.162.237.59\|108.162.237.59]] 20:01, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

@@ Line 55: / Line 55: @@
 [[User:Hakr14|Hakr14]] ([[User talk:Hakr14|talk]]) 23:03, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
 :Just to explain to the people that aren't engineers, physicists, or mathematicians; while "the three dimensions" are commonly thought of as height/width/depth, with time often used as the 4th dimension, there is nothing that requires "dimensions" to refer to those properties. For example: a flat plane with a temperature distribution could be said to have three dimensions (height/width/temperature), or a cube could be said to have four (height/width/depth/temperature)[[Special:Contributions/108.162.237.100|108.162.237.100]] 17:00, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
+::Much better in this context: Red/Green/Blue (RGB) is known by everybody as the basis to represent color mixtures, the fourth dimension is simply the brightness. --[[User:Dgbrt|Dgbrt]] ([[User talk:Dgbrt|talk]]) 21:37, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
 Isn't the title text a reference to [https://bugs.chromium.org/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=44872 that pretty old Chromium bug]?  [[Special:Contributions/162.158.22.4|162.158.22.4]] 13:53, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 17:00, 6 September 2017
Line 54:		Line 54:

	[[User:Hakr14\|Hakr14]] ([[User talk:Hakr14\|talk]]) 23:03, 28 August 2017 (UTC)		[[User:Hakr14\|Hakr14]] ([[User talk:Hakr14\|talk]]) 23:03, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
		+	:Just to explain to the people that aren't engineers, physicists, or mathematicians; while "the three dimensions" are commonly thought of as height/width/depth, with time often used as the 4th dimension, there is nothing that requires "dimensions" to refer to those properties. For example: a flat plane with a temperature distribution could be said to have three dimensions (height/width/temperature), or a cube could be said to have four (height/width/depth/temperature)[[Special:Contributions/108.162.237.100\|108.162.237.100]] 17:00, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 20:57, 2 September 2017
Line 72:		Line 72:

	There is no mention of the RGB/RYB/CYMK issue in the explenation [[Special:Contributions/162.158.111.211\|162.158.111.211]] 06:13, 30 August 2017 (UTC)		There is no mention of the RGB/RYB/CYMK issue in the explenation [[Special:Contributions/162.158.111.211\|162.158.111.211]] 06:13, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
		+
		+	What if, what you see as blue when you look at the sky in real life, I see as a slightly different blue, because the different web browsers we've been using have retrained our eyes to perceive meatspace differently? [[User:Promethean\|Promethean]] ([[User talk:Promethean\|talk]]) 20:57, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 14:52, 30 August 2017
Line 44:		Line 44:

	Exactly this. Although really that only relates to our experience of colour, so I'm not sure how much relevance it has to the colour mixing track, despite the arrow. [[Special:Contributions/141.101.98.106\|141.101.98.106]] 13:11, 29 August 2017 (UTC)		Exactly this. Although really that only relates to our experience of colour, so I'm not sure how much relevance it has to the colour mixing track, despite the arrow. [[Special:Contributions/141.101.98.106\|141.101.98.106]] 13:11, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
		+
		+	I added a comment about qualia, which could probably be improved upon. --[[Special:Contributions/172.68.47.66\|172.68.47.66]] 14:52, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

	----		----

← Older revision		Revision as of 10:09, 30 August 2017
Line 61:		Line 61:

	The Mantis Shrimp can see 12 'primary colors' and is sensitive to the plane of polarization of the light. We see 3 primaries and have no clue about polarization.		The Mantis Shrimp can see 12 'primary colors' and is sensitive to the plane of polarization of the light. We see 3 primaries and have no clue about polarization.
		+
		+	: That's not true. We can see Haidinger's Brush. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haidinger%27s_brush . [[Special:Contributions/198.41.238.34\|198.41.238.34]] 10:09, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

	Humans are all essentially color blind.		Humans are all essentially color blind.

← Older revision		Revision as of 06:13, 30 August 2017
Line 64:		Line 64:
	Humans are all essentially color blind.		Humans are all essentially color blind.
	[[User:SteveBaker\|SteveBaker]] ([[User talk:SteveBaker\|talk]]) 16:55, 29 August 2017 (UTC)		[[User:SteveBaker\|SteveBaker]] ([[User talk:SteveBaker\|talk]]) 16:55, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
		+
		+	----
		+
		+	There is no mention of the RGB/RYB/CYMK issue in the explenation [[Special:Contributions/162.158.111.211\|162.158.111.211]] 06:13, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:55, 29 August 2017
Line 63:		Line 63:

	Humans are all essentially color blind.		Humans are all essentially color blind.
−		+	[[User:SteveBaker\|SteveBaker]] ([[User talk:SteveBaker\|talk]]) 16:55, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
−	[[~~Special~~:~~Contributions/162.158.69.39~~\|~~162.158.69.39~~]] 14:57, 29 August 2017 (UTC)