3 ms·

> the grid itself is perceptually more or less uniform I can tell you that the grid is more physically uniform than perceptually uniform. It is well known that

> the grid itself is perceptually more or less uniform I can tell you that the grid is more physically uniform than perceptually uniform. It is well known that humans are physiologically less capable of distinguishing hues of blue than of most other broad categories. This property is encoded in most colorimetric systems, such as CIEDE 2000. Update: I read a paper some years ago which I can no longer find an English copy of[0]. The author used Isomap to project the mutual perceptual distances (as modeled by CIEDE 2000) of physically-uniform colors onto a two and three dimensional euclidean space, with very interesting results (toward the end of the PDF). [0]: https://www.maxwell.vrac.puc-rio.br/22445/22445.PDF https://www.maxwell.vrac.puc-rio.br/22445/22445.PDF

sporkologist 9y ago
It may be that blue is pervasive, at least in blue-skyed cultures, such that any variations in blue are not that important for tasks such as finding ripe fruits or rancid meats. So then, maybe blue was relegated to the background of consciousness as being unremarkable in itself.
- microcolonel 9y ago
  Blue is generally pretty useless, very few natural things are blue in terms of diffuse/albedo hue. I'd accept an assertion that it is largely useless for an animal to distinguish between blue band wavelengths.
iainmerrick 9y ago
I can tell you that the grid is more physically uniform than perceptually uniform. If they're Munsell colors, as the article suggests, they should be close to perceptually uniform. The Munsell system was specifically designed around perceptible color differences: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Munsell_color_system https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Munsell_color_system It's pretty old, so it predates any of the modern standardized color systems you'd typically use in software today.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
Pyxl101 9y ago
I did notice that there wasn't any good "blue" on the grid they provided: https://theconversation.imgix.net/files/186280/original/file-20170917-25673-migist.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000 https://theconversation.imgix.net/files/186280/original/file... My two monitors display the grids a bit differently, but A3 is pretty obviously red, B4 is orange, E7 is the best yellow, H4 is the best green. None of the blues look like the primary color blue though. I took a sample of the blue colors in a paint program and they all seemed pretty far away from a proper blue. The hue is off. N4, which was presented in the article as blue, is RGB (35, 131, 172). A3 red by comparison is (190, 27, 50) and H4 green is (42, 144, 48). As an additional test, I edited the grid, drawing rectangles of red (255, 0, 0) and blue (0, 255, 0) over each of the proximate color squares. Pure red is fairly close to A3 whereas pure blue is very different from all blue-like squares on the grid. It feels to me that something is off about this grid, like it doesn't cover enough of the color space to encompass a proper primary blue, but I don't know enough about color theory to characterize what's wrong with it.
- microcolonel 9y ago
  Yeah, O3 is a much more prototypical blue than N4 anyway. I think this chart would definitely have an impact on the results of this study, though I suspect they have some reasoning. I'm not sure how seriously I take the results if this is the chart.

sporkologist 9y ago

It may be that blue is pervasive, at least in blue-skyed cultures, such that any variations in blue are not that important for tasks such as finding ripe fruits or rancid meats. So then, maybe blue was relegated to the background of consciousness as being unremarkable in itself.

microcolonel 9y ago
Blue is generally pretty useless, very few natural things are blue in terms of diffuse/albedo hue. I'd accept an assertion that it is largely useless for an animal to distinguish between blue band wavelengths.

iainmerrick 9y ago

I can tell you that the grid is more physically uniform than perceptually uniform. If they're Munsell colors, as the article suggests, they should be close to perceptually uniform. The Munsell system was specifically designed around perceptible color differences: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Munsell_color_system https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Munsell_color_system It's pretty old, so it predates any of the modern standardized color systems you'd typically use in software today.

deleted 9y ago
[deleted]

Pyxl101 9y ago

I did notice that there wasn't any good "blue" on the grid they provided: https://theconversation.imgix.net/files/186280/original/file-20170917-25673-migist.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000 https://theconversation.imgix.net/files/186280/original/file... My two monitors display the grids a bit differently, but A3 is pretty obviously red, B4 is orange, E7 is the best yellow, H4 is the best green. None of the blues look like the primary color blue though. I took a sample of the blue colors in a paint program and they all seemed pretty far away from a proper blue. The hue is off. N4, which was presented in the article as blue, is RGB (35, 131, 172). A3 red by comparison is (190, 27, 50) and H4 green is (42, 144, 48). As an additional test, I edited the grid, drawing rectangles of red (255, 0, 0) and blue (0, 255, 0) over each of the proximate color squares. Pure red is fairly close to A3 whereas pure blue is very different from all blue-like squares on the grid. It feels to me that something is off about this grid, like it doesn't cover enough of the color space to encompass a proper primary blue, but I don't know enough about color theory to characterize what's wrong with it.

microcolonel 9y ago
Yeah, O3 is a much more prototypical blue than N4 anyway. I think this chart would definitely have an impact on the results of this study, though I suspect they have some reasoning. I'm not sure how seriously I take the results if this is the chart.