On 12/06/2021 19:26, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Fredxx wrote:
On 12/06/2021 18:14, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Fredxx wrote:
On 12/06/2021 14:12, #Paul wrote:
Fredxx wrote:
I'm sure the eye response is very different to film emulsion response.

Also, which may be relevant here - eye responses differ, sometimes
by quite a lot - between people.

They do indeed.

But the relevant blue, red, green cones in eyes have a similar
response in terms of wavelength.

Where the difference you mention comes from having different
proportions of these cones, or even one type missing.

It's interesting to view a narrow spectrum light - like say yellow low
pressure sodium - then match it by adjusting the RGB drives to a
monitor. No two people will get the same result.

Is your experience is with CRT? These are associated with poor purity
wrt to LCD

http://www.marcelpatek.com/LCD.html

You can use a light box if you prefer. Any method of generating a variable
colour light.

I would wager, if you have a 'pure' green LED light mixed with a 'pure'
red LED I suspect the difference would be somewhat less for the average
observer, except those who are truly missing a set of cones or someone
who cannot distinguish between red and green.

BICBW

it is to demonstrate that we see colours differently. Two people with
nominally perfect colour vision will disagree about the best match. And
it's not subtle, either.

Obviously, we agree on the name of a colour by experience. But if we could
swap brains, would that still hold true?

Thanks.

My incorrect belief was that cone response would be largely
non-overlapping and uniform from person to person. And that colour
blindness would be primarily caused by missing or mixing of cones'
responses.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cone_cell
This suggests that colour response is different from person to person
for a specific type of cone.

This is an interesting article regarding tetrachromacy in humans.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tetrachromacy