Timeline for Why do we use RGB instead of wavelengths to represent colours?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
10 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Aug 31, 2017 at 0:30 | comment | added | can-ned_food | @MichaelClark Yes, I know all that, and that ‘white’ is even less of an objective color than any of the others. I was surprised to see the claim that our brains recognize the formula of black-body radiation and will compensate to see surfaces as white. Perhaps you are referring to acclimation with our perception of ambient colors in environments where a single source of light dominates? Drat; I should've started a chat room for this. Lo siento. | |
| Aug 30, 2017 at 23:48 | comment | added | Michael C | @can-ned_food The point is, although the cones in our retinas may be slightly more responsive to certain parts of the visible spectrum (primarily the parts near the center), our brains can adaptively interpret the signals from our retinas and compensate for that bias. There are no 'colors' in nature. Our retinas and brains create 'color'. There are only various wavelengths of EMR, a portion of which we call the visible spectrum because our eyes chemically respond to that portion and not to other portions that are fundamentally the same in terms of the physics involved. | |
| Aug 30, 2017 at 23:41 | comment | added | can-ned_food | @MichaelClark Yes — or, almost the same, as one surface could be perceived as darker than the other. Anyways, I'm yet not certain that I understood your first comment; I'll need to research that. | |
| Aug 30, 2017 at 22:43 | comment | added | Michael C | @can-ned_food Under very limited spectrum light the response from the cones in our retinas can be identical for two different objects with different 'colors' when viewed under fuller spectrum lighting.That's the issue with limited spectrum lighting. In order to perceive 'white', which is not a 'color' but rather a combination of all colors, there must be broad enough spectrum light to create a response in all three sizes of the cones in our retinas. Only if that is the case can our brains, and not eyes, interpret the object as 'white'. | |
| Aug 30, 2017 at 13:48 | comment | added | can-ned_food | @MichaelClark Hmm. Well, even if our vision recognizes the profile of black-body reflection off a perfectly white object (and not merely apparently white for a given incident spectrum), and thus always perceives that object as white, then such a hypothetical ‘egalitarian’ spectra would differ from the expected black-body profile, would it not? | |
| Aug 30, 2017 at 7:10 | comment | added | Michael C | @can-ned_food You're forgetting that our brains interpret those signals from the cones in our retinas based on what it expects to see. That is how we can tell a white object is white under both full spectrum sunlight centered on around 5500K and under fairly full spectrum (but not as full spectrum as sunlight) light centered on 2700K such as the light from a tungsten bulb. Only when a significant portion of the spectrum is missing do we have trouble telling a light blue shirt from a white shirt ( in such a case because there is no red or green light present). | |
| Jun 7, 2017 at 14:29 | history | edited | Carsogrin | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
Corrected referring expression (grammar).
|
| Jun 5, 2017 at 11:25 | comment | added | can-ned_food | I believe that a mixture of light representing every wavelength — let's say in nanometer increments — within the range of most human sensitivity would have a stronger response between the red and green than between the blue and green due to the larger integral summation under the curves near the yellow wavelengths than near the cyan ones: it would appear yellowish. | |
| Jun 4, 2017 at 13:54 | review | First posts | |||
| Jun 4, 2017 at 19:31 | |||||
| Jun 4, 2017 at 13:51 | history | answered | Carsogrin | CC BY-SA 3.0 |