3 ms·

Anyone here using Penumbra? https://github.com/nealmckee/penumbra https://github.com/nealmckee/penumbra > »Penumbra is a mathematically balanced colour scheme

Anyone here using Penumbra? https://github.com/nealmckee/penumbra https://github.com/nealmckee/penumbra > »Penumbra is a mathematically balanced colour scheme constructed in a perceptually uniform colour space with base colours inspired by the shades of colour occurring in nature due to the light of the sun and the sky. It cleanly separates the perceptual properties of colours while optimally utilizing the available colour space of typical displays.« It was mentioned here ~3 months ago: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32348461 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32348461

Aeolun 4y ago
For some reason I find it really hard to look at. Everything has the same weight (in terms of color, if that makes sense), and I need some things to stand out, not just have a different color.
- kseistrup 4y ago
  Thanks for the mini-review.
KolenCh 4y ago
This seems interesting. But the claim about being "mathematically balanced" is skeptical to me. It seems it does better than Solarized which claimed a similar but weaker statement. The nasty details in color space is basically that it is a non-Euclidean metric (when considering perceptual uniformity). There are empirical formula describing a metric. And one can probably numerically optimize in that metric. But it doesn't seem to do something like that (I skimmed through only.)
- kseistrup 4y ago
  I agree, the “mathematically balanced” is a peculiar sales pitch. Are our eyes “mathematically balanced”? If not, then the palette probably shouldn't be either.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - KolenCh 4y ago
    What you said is about the subjective aspect. But what I'm saying is that it can be mathematically balanced, but what they are doing doesn't seem to be true. My definition of mathematically balance would be for the palette (which is N points in the colorspace) to have a certain relationship according to the metric. One example relationship would be for them to be for all nearest neighbors sharing the same distance (which might not be possible.) The one I have in mind is for a sub-set of them forming this relationship in a potentially tilted plane, and probably have 2 such planes with a certain distance apart. The symmetry in the metric probably allows you to find 2 such planes that is equidistance with the center which can then have nicer properties about the relationships between points on opposite planes. All these are easy if the metric is Euclidean, which is approximately true with some colorspace. It would be much more complicated if the empirical metric is taken into account. Bottom line is I expect them to define what mathematical balanced means and there seems none.
  - aikinai 4y ago
    The "mathematically balanced" description seems to be selling itself short actually. If you check the actual description, it says "By using the perceptually uniform colour space Oklab, I was able to achieve perceptually uniform hue differences between each of the accent colours, ensuring maximum differentiability between highlighted words. Constant chroma ensures none of them stand out from or recede into the page more than others." Doing the balancing in Oklab specifically addresses your point about perception in our eyes.
aikinai 4y ago
Thanks for suggesting this one; I missed it but it looks great. Trying it out now!

Aeolun 4y ago

For some reason I find it really hard to look at. Everything has the same weight (in terms of color, if that makes sense), and I need some things to stand out, not just have a different color.

kseistrup 4y ago
Thanks for the mini-review.

KolenCh 4y ago

This seems interesting. But the claim about being "mathematically balanced" is skeptical to me. It seems it does better than Solarized which claimed a similar but weaker statement. The nasty details in color space is basically that it is a non-Euclidean metric (when considering perceptual uniformity). There are empirical formula describing a metric. And one can probably numerically optimize in that metric. But it doesn't seem to do something like that (I skimmed through only.)

kseistrup 4y ago
I agree, the “mathematically balanced” is a peculiar sales pitch. Are our eyes “mathematically balanced”? If not, then the palette probably shouldn't be either.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- KolenCh 4y ago
  What you said is about the subjective aspect. But what I'm saying is that it can be mathematically balanced, but what they are doing doesn't seem to be true. My definition of mathematically balance would be for the palette (which is N points in the colorspace) to have a certain relationship according to the metric. One example relationship would be for them to be for all nearest neighbors sharing the same distance (which might not be possible.) The one I have in mind is for a sub-set of them forming this relationship in a potentially tilted plane, and probably have 2 such planes with a certain distance apart. The symmetry in the metric probably allows you to find 2 such planes that is equidistance with the center which can then have nicer properties about the relationships between points on opposite planes. All these are easy if the metric is Euclidean, which is approximately true with some colorspace. It would be much more complicated if the empirical metric is taken into account. Bottom line is I expect them to define what mathematical balanced means and there seems none.
- aikinai 4y ago
  The "mathematically balanced" description seems to be selling itself short actually. If you check the actual description, it says "By using the perceptually uniform colour space Oklab, I was able to achieve perceptually uniform hue differences between each of the accent colours, ensuring maximum differentiability between highlighted words. Constant chroma ensures none of them stand out from or recede into the page more than others." Doing the balancing in Oklab specifically addresses your point about perception in our eyes.

aikinai 4y ago

Thanks for suggesting this one; I missed it but it looks great. Trying it out now!