4 ms·
I’ve always found it deeply disturbing that we ascribe special significance to red/green/blue (that’s only what the eye is best at detecting) as “primary” color
by BobbyTables2 2y ago
I’ve always found it deeply disturbing that we ascribe special significance to red/green/blue (that’s only what the eye is best at detecting) as “primary” colors. Why do we teach this to kids?
It’s ridiculous that linearly adding “red” and “blue” would make “purple” — all different wavelengths — without a nonlinear effect occurring. CA prism separates these two back out and shows us purple didn’t exist in such an experiment. But we do see “purple” in a rainbow !?!?
We see beautiful pictures on LCD screens but we only sense only 3 colors from it? An alien that could see the whole spectrum would think we were completely crazy!
- SAI_Peregrinus 2y ago"Purple" is not a spectral color. Violet is, but the purples are a mix of violet & red, or red & blue, or such. Red/green/blue are one set of primaries. Lots of artists working with paint use red/yellow/blue. Inkjet printers use cyan/magenta/yellow. Which colors are "primary" depends on the medium.
- carlob 2y agoNot quite RGB or CYM(K) depends on whether you are adding or subtracting colors i.e. if the light is transmitted or reflected.
- SAI_Peregrinus 2y agoYes, that's a change of medium. You can also have color-equivalents in non-visible light, such as in frequency-division multiplexing in radio links or fiber optics. Every broadcast TV channel is a different spectral radio color (well, a small range of them).