4 ms·

So principally that the perceived luminance would be dependent on hue so that each hue in the gamut, and each interrelationship has such a relationship perceive

So principally that the perceived luminance would be dependent on hue so that each hue in the gamut, and each interrelationship has such a relationship perceived intensity as a function of powered intensity. I can only assume that's what they mean by second-order. Now, is this in equilibrium viewing? What's really gonna cook these guys noodle is the effect of pupillary action, e: and afterimages for that matter

hilbert42 4y ago
"Now, is this in equilibrium viewing? What's really gonna cook these guys noodle is the effect of pupillary action." Right - and more I reckon. In hindsight things seem so easy or fall easily into place and this is no exception. The obvious thing with respect to this new 'color space' is its nonlinearity/'curvature'. We should have gleaned this (or have taken more cognizance from existing overvations) from the way the eye works in different circumstances - and for that matter from the fact that different eyes perceive colors in different ways - as Ishihara tests bear out. It also should have been obvious from the 'dynamical' way the eye perceives color. Anyone who has done color balancing/grading or tried to match colors knows how easily it is to be fooled unless they've lots of calibration equipment around them, as the eye automatically adjusts color balance and such depending on lighting and circumstance (remember those shadow images that fool everyone). There are other clues too: why do a small percentage of women have superior color resolution in the green spectrum (as if they had multiple green channels) and the fact that the degree of this capability also depends on conditions and circumstance (a seemingly nonlinear effect)? That's right, the signs were there and it's good that we've now picked them up and are now running with them. That said, we cannot be too critical of that earlier work, in fact what was done was pretty monumental. After all, the 1931 CIE work was and still is quite remarkable and it's still serving us well today - 91 years on. Like Newtonian mechanics and Relatively, every development inches us closer to the truth and or provides us with better accuracy.
- ff317 4y ago
  > There are other clues too: why do a small percentage of women have superior color resolution in the green spectrum (as if they had multiple green channels) Apparently a small number of women have Tetrachromacy, where they have a 4th type of cone in their eye and can see a much broader range of colors, thanks to their genes. The gene isn't super-rare (I think one article claimed ~12% of women have the genetic condition for it), but the functional ability to perceive with all 4 types of cones is very rare. https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20140905-the-women-with-super-human-vision https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20140905-the-women-with-s... has a story about one confirmed case.
  - milleramp 4y ago
    This was also covered on Radiolab, colors, super interesting episode. https://radiolab.org/episodes/211119-colors https://radiolab.org/episodes/211119-colors
  - hilbert42 4y ago
    Right tetrachromacy is proven and I've learned the hard way never to argue with women who insist there are shades of color that I cannot see. Moreover, these women make excellent color graders (in film work, etc.) as their output is more consistent. My comment was made in the general sense from a modeling perspective. The trouble is - as you've implied - things get very complex once one scratches the surface especially so with seeing and perception as one's interpretation is also subjective and we don't have an adequate language to describe what we see. That's why calibration and measurement are so important. These difficulties also likely account for why there's been a 91-year delay between the '31 CIE work and this discovery. Incidentally, I've just noticed that Adrian_b makes the point that the "non-Riemannian nature of perceptual color space" has been known for decades. In hindsight, I should have strengthened my earlier comment about the evidence behind this new work having been known about for some considerable time.

hilbert42 4y ago

"Now, is this in equilibrium viewing? What's really gonna cook these guys noodle is the effect of pupillary action." Right - and more I reckon. In hindsight things seem so easy or fall easily into place and this is no exception. The obvious thing with respect to this new 'color space' is its nonlinearity/'curvature'. We should have gleaned this (or have taken more cognizance from existing overvations) from the way the eye works in different circumstances - and for that matter from the fact that different eyes perceive colors in different ways - as Ishihara tests bear out. It also should have been obvious from the 'dynamical' way the eye perceives color. Anyone who has done color balancing/grading or tried to match colors knows how easily it is to be fooled unless they've lots of calibration equipment around them, as the eye automatically adjusts color balance and such depending on lighting and circumstance (remember those shadow images that fool everyone). There are other clues too: why do a small percentage of women have superior color resolution in the green spectrum (as if they had multiple green channels) and the fact that the degree of this capability also depends on conditions and circumstance (a seemingly nonlinear effect)? That's right, the signs were there and it's good that we've now picked them up and are now running with them. That said, we cannot be too critical of that earlier work, in fact what was done was pretty monumental. After all, the 1931 CIE work was and still is quite remarkable and it's still serving us well today - 91 years on. Like Newtonian mechanics and Relatively, every development inches us closer to the truth and or provides us with better accuracy.

ff317 4y ago
> There are other clues too: why do a small percentage of women have superior color resolution in the green spectrum (as if they had multiple green channels) Apparently a small number of women have Tetrachromacy, where they have a 4th type of cone in their eye and can see a much broader range of colors, thanks to their genes. The gene isn't super-rare (I think one article claimed ~12% of women have the genetic condition for it), but the functional ability to perceive with all 4 types of cones is very rare. https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20140905-the-women-with-super-human-vision https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20140905-the-women-with-s... has a story about one confirmed case.
- milleramp 4y ago
  This was also covered on Radiolab, colors, super interesting episode. https://radiolab.org/episodes/211119-colors https://radiolab.org/episodes/211119-colors
- hilbert42 4y ago
  Right tetrachromacy is proven and I've learned the hard way never to argue with women who insist there are shades of color that I cannot see. Moreover, these women make excellent color graders (in film work, etc.) as their output is more consistent. My comment was made in the general sense from a modeling perspective. The trouble is - as you've implied - things get very complex once one scratches the surface especially so with seeing and perception as one's interpretation is also subjective and we don't have an adequate language to describe what we see. That's why calibration and measurement are so important. These difficulties also likely account for why there's been a 91-year delay between the '31 CIE work and this discovery. Incidentally, I've just noticed that Adrian_b makes the point that the "non-Riemannian nature of perceptual color space" has been known for decades. In hindsight, I should have strengthened my earlier comment about the evidence behind this new work having been known about for some considerable time.