On Mon, 14 Sep 2020 22:54:20 +0100, "Commander Kinsey"
wrote:

On Fri, 11 Sep 2020 15:35:20 +0100, Custos Custodum wrote:

On Thu, 10 Sep 2020 01:17:04 +0100, "Commander Kinsey"
wrote:

On Thu, 10 Sep 2020 00:49:32 +0100, Custos Custodum wrote:

On Wed, 09 Sep 2020 23:43:31 +0100, "Commander Kinsey"
wrote:

On Wed, 09 Sep 2020 22:34:06 +0100, Custos Custodum wrote:

On Wed, 09 Sep 2020 22:27:13 +0100, "Commander Kinsey"
wrote:

Radiation exposure?

Nope.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gamma_correction

We were discussing real life dogs viewed by eye, not faulty monitors and cameras.

The eye is subject to precisely the same limitations. The perception
of colour is very much dependent on light quality and level.

The eye is a damn sight better at detecting what is real than a camera.

Nonsense! While its performance is remarkable given what it is, the
human eye is actually a pretty poor camera. Other species have far
better visual acuity. When shopping for clothes, my wife

Does your wife know you just referred to her as a different species?

(and I'm sure
most other women) will often take the item to the front door of the
shop, and even out into the street, just to see what the colours look
like in daylight..

That's not a limitation of the eye, that's a limitation of the lighting. Which is why I always buy daylight white lights.

It's due to the eye's inability to respond linearly to changes in
illumination. Which brings us back to 'gamma'.


The camera has limitations too (you may remember
having to decide whether to buy colour film for daylight or artificial
light) but it never lies, although obviously it can be used to
deceive. What people see is largely what they want to see.

I never chose film like that. I just bought Kodak ISO400 slide film. Grainier, but I could take better motion shots and/or have a bigger depth of field. I hate it when you can't have more than one thing in focus.

Think of auto white balance but times 100.

How would you define "yellow" anyway, if not by hue and saturation?

In the only way that makes sense to the human eye, RGB. Pure yellow being equal quantities of red and green.

There's no such thing as a "pure" colour. "Yellow", "red" and "green"
are simply labels given to continua within the visible spectrum.
Sometimes there is even a cultural element involved in determining
where the boundaries of these continua lie.

Red green and blue are precisely defined by the frequency (why do people think in wavelengths?)

Because it isn't possinle to measure frequency directly on that part
of the spectrum. Wavelengths, OTOH, can be measured relatively easily
using diffraction gratings. This works up to the gamma range (see what
I did there?), where we have to use photon energy as the only
measurable property.

at which the cones in your eye are most receptive.

How can you know that everyone's eyes respond identically?

Other colours can therefore be placed equally along the spectral line.

Gobbledegook.

On Sun, 20 Sep 2020 22:35:30 +0100, Custos Custodum, another absolutely
brain dead, troll-feeding, senile HUGE ASSHOLE, blathered:

Because it isn't possinle to

Isn't it possinle for you to wean your toothless gob away from the unwashed
Scottish ******'s cock, you troll-cock sucking senile ****head?

On Sun, 20 Sep 2020 22:35:30 +0100, Custos Custodum wrote:

On Mon, 14 Sep 2020 22:54:20 +0100, "Commander Kinsey"
wrote:

On Fri, 11 Sep 2020 15:35:20 +0100, Custos Custodum wrote:

On Thu, 10 Sep 2020 01:17:04 +0100, "Commander Kinsey"
wrote:

On Thu, 10 Sep 2020 00:49:32 +0100, Custos Custodum wrote:

On Wed, 09 Sep 2020 23:43:31 +0100, "Commander Kinsey"
wrote:

On Wed, 09 Sep 2020 22:34:06 +0100, Custos Custodum wrote:

On Wed, 09 Sep 2020 22:27:13 +0100, "Commander Kinsey"
wrote:

Radiation exposure?

Nope.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gamma_correction

We were discussing real life dogs viewed by eye, not faulty monitors and cameras.

The eye is subject to precisely the same limitations. The perception
of colour is very much dependent on light quality and level.

The eye is a damn sight better at detecting what is real than a camera.

Nonsense! While its performance is remarkable given what it is, the
human eye is actually a pretty poor camera. Other species have far
better visual acuity. When shopping for clothes, my wife

Does your wife know you just referred to her as a different species?

(and I'm sure
most other women) will often take the item to the front door of the
shop, and even out into the street, just to see what the colours look
like in daylight..

That's not a limitation of the eye, that's a limitation of the lighting. Which is why I always buy daylight white lights.

It's due to the eye's inability to respond linearly to changes in
illumination. Which brings us back to 'gamma'.

It's not just brightness that changes. Artificial light often omits certain frequencies. An extreme example - you wouldn't expect to be able to see a green object under a red light. They ****ed that up in the UK when we used to have orange sodium streetlights - you couldn't tell which colour wheelybin was which, and a study found it increased car crashes, because a lot of colours looked the same so things blended in with each other.

The camera has limitations too (you may remember
having to decide whether to buy colour film for daylight or artificial
light) but it never lies, although obviously it can be used to
deceive. What people see is largely what they want to see.

I never chose film like that. I just bought Kodak ISO400 slide film. Grainier, but I could take better motion shots and/or have a bigger depth of field. I hate it when you can't have more than one thing in focus.

Think of auto white balance but times 100.

How would you define "yellow" anyway, if not by hue and saturation?

In the only way that makes sense to the human eye, RGB. Pure yellow being equal quantities of red and green.

There's no such thing as a "pure" colour. "Yellow", "red" and "green"
are simply labels given to continua within the visible spectrum.
Sometimes there is even a cultural element involved in determining
where the boundaries of these continua lie.

Red green and blue are precisely defined by the frequency (why do people think in wavelengths?)

Because it isn't possinle to measure frequency directly on that part
of the spectrum. Wavelengths, OTOH, can be measured relatively easily
using diffraction gratings.

They're directly related using c, the speed of light. So you can denote a colour in frequency or wavelength very easily. I find it easier to think in frequencies. Sound is measured in frequencies. You wouldn't denote middle C as 1.31 metres.

This works up to the gamma range (see what
I did there?), where we have to use photon energy as the only
measurable property.

at which the cones in your eye are most receptive.

How can you know that everyone's eyes respond identically?

We have to assume perfect eyesight, as with everything else.

Other colours can therefore be placed equally along the spectral line.

Gobbledegook.

ROYGBIV.