3 ms·

This phrase implies that there are some "true colors", but are they? People see colors in weird ways, and it is a bold move to declare them to be the true ways.

• jakear 4y ago
  Monitors output color via modulating three color channels. The modulation can either vaguely correspond to how the original wavelength would activate the three cone varietals in most humans, or can bear absolutely no relation to that. Equating the two is possible, but lazy.
  • ordu 4y ago
    I do not believe that human perception has anything to do with "true" colors. Such a complex system with so many quirks cannot be called the true way to deal with wavelengths. And yes it starts with cones in a retina, which wipe out most of information about a spectrum of a light. Some information got lost completely, some is mixed up, to a point where it is just vaguely represents the source signal. But if it seems to you too vague, then I can come to a point from a different angle: did you hear about tetrachromacy? "A study from 2010 actually suggests that a rare condition known as tetrachromacy exists in up to 12% of women in the world."[1] Don't you think that these women see colors in a "more true" way than other people? I personally think they are. It means, at least, that a more common way of a trichromacy is not the true way to see colors. It gives us not true colors, but some approximation which is very far from reality. You mentioned "most humans" as a reference point, so probably you believe that the truth can be established by a voting. I do not. I know that the objective truth is an unattainable ideal, but I do not believe that the majority of votes would be enough to establish an acceptable approximation to the ideal. It needs something more than that. [1] https://azretina.sites.arizona.edu/index.php/node/852 https://azretina.sites.arizona.edu/index.php/node/852