(no title)
subb | 3 months ago
It's definitely not something you can plug into a three-value model. Those are good stimuli encoding space, however.
The distinction between brain-color and physical-color is what screws everyone up.
subb | 3 months ago
It's definitely not something you can plug into a three-value model. Those are good stimuli encoding space, however.
The distinction between brain-color and physical-color is what screws everyone up.
dahart|3 months ago
What do you mean? And what is screwed up? We use 3 dimensions because most of us are trichromats, and because (un-coincidentally) most digital display devices have 3 primaries. The three-value models definitely are sufficient for many color tasks & goals. Three-value models work so well that outside of science and graphics research it’s hard to find good reasons to need more, especially for art & design work. It’d be more interesting to identify cases where a 3d color model or color space doesn’t work… what cases are you thinking of? 3D cone response is neither physical (spectral) color nor perceptual (“brain”) color, and it lands much closer to the physically-based side of things, but completely physically justifies using 3D models without needing to understand the brain or perception, does it not?
subb|3 months ago
Akiyoshi's color constancy demonstrations are good examples of this. The RGB model (and any three-values "perceptual" model) fails to predict the perceived color here. You are seeing different colors but the RGB values are the same.
https://www.psy.ritsumei.ac.jp/akitaoka/marie-eyecolorconsta...
IgorPartola|3 months ago
zeroq|3 months ago
As with most recent technological breakthroughs it uses math from 1931 paper to magically blend colors in ways that seems so realistic it's almost uncanny.