4 ms·

Yea I live on a street with the pilot program and no doubt they were much brighter than 3000K. They were very blue but I really like them. It gave my neighborho

Yea I live on a street with the pilot program and no doubt they were much brighter than 3000K. They were very blue but I really like them. It gave my neighborhood a more small town feel if that makes any sense.

colechristensen 9y ago
3000K is about color not intensity
- icelancer 9y ago
  Not in perception, however.
  - kakarot 9y ago
    Unfortunately, using "brighter" here is still completely incorrect and parent is right for correcting him.
    - weberc2 9y ago
      I always perceive blue light as brighter. I dabble in indoor lighting, and warmer (bluer) bulbs always seem brighter. Unless the brightness of fluorescents changes with the color temperature, I'm inclined to agree with the original comment. Besides, nit picking is rarely useful.
      - Karunamon 9y ago
        There's actually a reason for that - bluer light reflects in front of the retina rather than focusing onto it, and so it scatters throughout the eye more than other wavelengths, especially when there's little ambient light. It's called the Purkinje effect. The light doesn't have greater luminosity, but it is perceived as brighter. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Purkinje_effect https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Purkinje_effect https://blog.codinghorror.com/blue-led-backlash/ https://blog.codinghorror.com/blue-led-backlash/
        justin66 9y ago
        Thank God you cleared that up.
      - kakarot 9y ago
        Who is nitpicking here? My parent? Me? You? We are all just trying to help someone be more correct. For me at least, it isn't because I wish to nit pick. Perhaps you could have had a more useful comment by not adding your personal anecdote and instead providing a citation? The other responder to your comment is correct. It is entirely perceived and there is no real change in luminosity and thus brightness is the incorrect term. I was offering my insight as both a graphic designer and amateur technical 3D artist with solid grasp of color theory and optics. Meanwhile you just butted in to tell me I'm wrong and I shouldn't tell other people they are wrong. That's a conflicting position, and furthermore the person I was replying to was correcting someone else, and I was clarifying for both of them. So I really don't know why you felt the need to comment in the first place.
        weberc2 9y ago
        Either you're responding to the wrong person, or you did a very poor job at reading my comment. In case of the latter: > Who is nitpicking here? You and /u/colechristensen > We are all just trying to help someone be more correct. No one doubts the purity of your motives. > The other responder to your comment is correct. It is entirely perceived and there is no real change in luminosity and thus brightness is the incorrect term. No one disputes that the effect is perceived. > I was offering my insight as both a graphic designer and amateur technical 3D artist with solid grasp of color theory and optics. No one disputes your qualifications. > Meanwhile you just butted in to tell me I'm wrong and I shouldn't tell other people they are wrong. No one said you were wrong. I simply said that my experience is like that of /u/icelander and /u/pducks32 in that I perceive blue light to be brighter, which you disagreed with in your previous comment, but seem to agree with in this one. I didn't tell you not to correct other people, I said nit picking (i.e., correcting a minor discrepancy which isn't important, relevant, or otherwise causing confusion) is rarely helpful. Interestingly, /u/Karunamon pointed us to the [Purkinje Effect][1] as an explanation for why blue light is perceived to be brighter, so perhaps you aren't correct despite your qualifications (I guess you espoused both sides of the argument, which would make you simultaneously correct and incorrect :p ). This certainly isn't my subject, so I'll leave you to sort it out on your own. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Purkinje_effect https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Purkinje_effect
- pducks32 9y ago
  I know sorry wasn't thinking.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]

colechristensen 9y ago

3000K is about color not intensity

icelancer 9y ago
Not in perception, however.
- kakarot 9y ago
  Unfortunately, using "brighter" here is still completely incorrect and parent is right for correcting him.
  - weberc2 9y ago
    I always perceive blue light as brighter. I dabble in indoor lighting, and warmer (bluer) bulbs always seem brighter. Unless the brightness of fluorescents changes with the color temperature, I'm inclined to agree with the original comment. Besides, nit picking is rarely useful.
    - Karunamon 9y ago
      There's actually a reason for that - bluer light reflects in front of the retina rather than focusing onto it, and so it scatters throughout the eye more than other wavelengths, especially when there's little ambient light. It's called the Purkinje effect. The light doesn't have greater luminosity, but it is perceived as brighter. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Purkinje_effect https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Purkinje_effect https://blog.codinghorror.com/blue-led-backlash/ https://blog.codinghorror.com/blue-led-backlash/
      - justin66 9y ago
        Thank God you cleared that up.
    - kakarot 9y ago
      Who is nitpicking here? My parent? Me? You? We are all just trying to help someone be more correct. For me at least, it isn't because I wish to nit pick. Perhaps you could have had a more useful comment by not adding your personal anecdote and instead providing a citation? The other responder to your comment is correct. It is entirely perceived and there is no real change in luminosity and thus brightness is the incorrect term. I was offering my insight as both a graphic designer and amateur technical 3D artist with solid grasp of color theory and optics. Meanwhile you just butted in to tell me I'm wrong and I shouldn't tell other people they are wrong. That's a conflicting position, and furthermore the person I was replying to was correcting someone else, and I was clarifying for both of them. So I really don't know why you felt the need to comment in the first place.
      - weberc2 9y ago
        Either you're responding to the wrong person, or you did a very poor job at reading my comment. In case of the latter: > Who is nitpicking here? You and /u/colechristensen > We are all just trying to help someone be more correct. No one doubts the purity of your motives. > The other responder to your comment is correct. It is entirely perceived and there is no real change in luminosity and thus brightness is the incorrect term. No one disputes that the effect is perceived. > I was offering my insight as both a graphic designer and amateur technical 3D artist with solid grasp of color theory and optics. No one disputes your qualifications. > Meanwhile you just butted in to tell me I'm wrong and I shouldn't tell other people they are wrong. No one said you were wrong. I simply said that my experience is like that of /u/icelander and /u/pducks32 in that I perceive blue light to be brighter, which you disagreed with in your previous comment, but seem to agree with in this one. I didn't tell you not to correct other people, I said nit picking (i.e., correcting a minor discrepancy which isn't important, relevant, or otherwise causing confusion) is rarely helpful. Interestingly, /u/Karunamon pointed us to the [Purkinje Effect][1] as an explanation for why blue light is perceived to be brighter, so perhaps you aren't correct despite your qualifications (I guess you espoused both sides of the argument, which would make you simultaneously correct and incorrect :p ). This certainly isn't my subject, so I'll leave you to sort it out on your own. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Purkinje_effect https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Purkinje_effect
pducks32 9y ago
I know sorry wasn't thinking.

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]