3 ms·

This is mistaken. A correct renderer would look correct to whatever creature was looking at it. If we had monochrome vision, we couldn't simply use scalars beca

by shawn 8y ago

This is mistaken. A correct renderer would look correct to whatever creature was looking at it. If we had monochrome vision, we couldn't simply use scalars because it wouldn't look right for those who could see more. And how could it be otherwise? Real life looks correct to any creature that looks at it. And our renderers supposedly model real life. This is a contradiction, and rather than trying to disprove what I'm saying, it's worth chasing down the logical fallacy.

pandaman 8y ago
>This is mistaken. A correct renderer would look correct to whatever creature was looking at it. I am not discussing "correctness" whatever it means, I am arguing against your assertion that "multiplying colors makes no sense". Are we done with that?
- shawn 8y ago
  You can come up with whatever mathematical definitions you want. When I say "It makes no sense," I'm speaking very precisely: There is nothing in nature which corresponds to the idea of multiplying two RGB colors together. In that context, it makes no sense to multiply two colors together.
  - pandaman 8y ago
    There is. There is energy attenuation in different frequencies. Look at an object of any color under artificial light then take it outside. Now the light hitting the object's surface has orders of magnitude more energy yet you still see it as same color. Because its surface attenuates the incoming light the same way and your brain detects that attenuation as "color". Speaking of which (the brain), the "color" does not exist in nature at all, it's just an effect of human brain analyzing image projected on the retina. So let's agree that there is nothing in nature which corresponds to the human concept of color.
slavik81 8y ago
> A correct renderer would look correct to whatever creature was looking at it. Impossible. RGB is just a 3-bin spectrum. It's the minimum number of bins needed to represent any color humans can perceive because we have 3 color sensors that are at least partly independent. You could always imagine a hypothetical creature with yet more sensors, until you need a bin for every possible wavelength of light. Eventually you'd effectively be simulating individual photons. The world has too many atoms for us to simulate it at that level. We sometimes use larger spectrums than RGB because while humans may not always be able to perceive the difference between two different spectrums of equivalent color, sometimes they interact differently with other things. For example, white light formed by the full spectrum of visible light will seperate into a rainbow when passed through a prism. White light formed by red, green and blue lasers may be indistinguishable when viewed directly, but will only seperate into red, green and blue when passed through a prism. The number of bins we use for that sort of simulation depends on how many we need to get a result that is a satisfactory approximation of reality. All models are wrong. The question is always whether they are good enough for our purposes.

by shawn 8y ago

pandaman 8y ago

>This is mistaken. A correct renderer would look correct to whatever creature was looking at it. I am not discussing "correctness" whatever it means, I am arguing against your assertion that "multiplying colors makes no sense". Are we done with that?

shawn 8y ago
You can come up with whatever mathematical definitions you want. When I say "It makes no sense," I'm speaking very precisely: There is nothing in nature which corresponds to the idea of multiplying two RGB colors together. In that context, it makes no sense to multiply two colors together.
- pandaman 8y ago
  There is. There is energy attenuation in different frequencies. Look at an object of any color under artificial light then take it outside. Now the light hitting the object's surface has orders of magnitude more energy yet you still see it as same color. Because its surface attenuates the incoming light the same way and your brain detects that attenuation as "color". Speaking of which (the brain), the "color" does not exist in nature at all, it's just an effect of human brain analyzing image projected on the retina. So let's agree that there is nothing in nature which corresponds to the human concept of color.

slavik81 8y ago

> A correct renderer would look correct to whatever creature was looking at it. Impossible. RGB is just a 3-bin spectrum. It's the minimum number of bins needed to represent any color humans can perceive because we have 3 color sensors that are at least partly independent. You could always imagine a hypothetical creature with yet more sensors, until you need a bin for every possible wavelength of light. Eventually you'd effectively be simulating individual photons. The world has too many atoms for us to simulate it at that level. We sometimes use larger spectrums than RGB because while humans may not always be able to perceive the difference between two different spectrums of equivalent color, sometimes they interact differently with other things. For example, white light formed by the full spectrum of visible light will seperate into a rainbow when passed through a prism. White light formed by red, green and blue lasers may be indistinguishable when viewed directly, but will only seperate into red, green and blue when passed through a prism. The number of bins we use for that sort of simulation depends on how many we need to get a result that is a satisfactory approximation of reality. All models are wrong. The question is always whether they are good enough for our purposes.