3 ms·
True, it’s hard to visualize a color in much detail without going to another model, but for a rough guesstimate this does fine and despite the long explanation
by svachalek 8y ago
True, it’s hard to visualize a color in much detail without going to another model, but for a rough guesstimate this does fine and despite the long explanation it’s pretty easy to do in your head almost instantly.
Due to childhood hours spent programming the TI-99/4A I can look at hex numbers and see bitmaps which is also not a particularly useful skill but trivial with a little practice. (unlike what they said in the Matrix, I doubt anyone would ever prefer it that way though)
- jacobolus 8y agoIt’s not so much that it’s “hard to visualize” the colors. The problem is that comparing the results numerically is grossly misleading, because RGB are not perceptually relevant color dimensions. For example, this article says “D is the highest value, 2 is the lowest. D is high. 2 is low. That's a wide range, but not completely wide. So our color has moderate saturation, thus making it a washed color.” But you can make a wide variety of colors where 34/255 is the lowest sRGB coordinate and 221/255 is the highest sRGB coordinate, including some which are extremely intense (e.g. #d2d) and others which are more moderate (e.g. #da2). The article says, “the values are both high and low, so it has middle lightness,” again based on the example #d92. But try comparing the lightness of #92d and #9d2. While HSL or HSV “L” or “V” will be the same between the two, one is a light yellowish green color, the other is dark purple. These heuristics are grossly misleading and should not be relied on.