![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
|
![]() | This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
|
|
I believe this plot is misleading in two ways:
First, it claims to be adapted from Stockman et al. Vol. 10, No. 12/December 1993/J. Opt. Soc. Am. A 2491). However, it would appear the adaptation was not sufficiently careful, as it missed the UV behavior, see figure 12 in above reference.
Second, and more importantly, it does not accurately reflect reality, and fails to account for the following phenomena: We know the shortest wavelength on the rainbow appears purple, as does and equal combination of red + blue (RGB 128,0,128). This is inconsistent with the above plot.
Instead, see discussion on StackExchange. The correct plot should be http://i.stack.imgur.com/z3dtf.png, which is referenced to Bowmaker, J.K., & Dartnall, H.J.A. Visual pigments of rods and cones in a human retina. Journal of Physiology, 298, 1980, 501-511 figure 2, as it allows us to understand how an RGB-based screen can generate a color which appears as purple. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shai mach ( talk • contribs) 08:55, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
I'm a vision scientist and felt it was important to correct the content of this article. The way it was worded made it appear as if impossible colors were a well established phenomenon. While there are cases of synesthetes who see 'martian' colors, there is no conclusive evidence that a normal person will see them ... especially in the given paradigm of binocular rivalry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zuchinni one ( talk • contribs) 03:17, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
In the section "Opponent process", this article says "The color opponent process is a color theory that states that the human visual system interprets information about color by processing signals from cones and rods in an antagonistic manner." This is also the lede sentence in the article Opponent process. Should "and rods" be deleted from this sentence? Duoduoduo ( talk) 17:28, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
Yellowish-blue is not an impossible colour - its called "green". Yellowish red is called "orange". Greenish red is not impossible - its called either brown, ochre, khaki, gambodge, umber, tuscan red, or a few other names depending on the relative proportions of red and green. I have normal colour vision (to prevent any objections on those grounds). Barney Bruchstein ( talk) 18:34, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: move the page, per the discussion below. Dekimasu よ! 02:17, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
Impossible colors → Impossible color – There is no reason to pluralize per WP:PLURAL. Using the singular would make the article match other articles about types of color, such as Primary color, Secondary color, and Imaginary color. I cannot perform the move myself because the redirect has a history. ~ Boomur [ ☎] 00:26, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
Opponent process, which is currently the first section after the Introduction, is not mentioned in the Introduction nor for another two sections, until the third section following it: Chimerical colors. At the same time, the phrase "impossible colors" does not occur at all in the "Opponent process" section.
As a result, the "Opponent process" section appears to have no connection with the article until one reads the third section following it. Instead, this section ought to be integrated better into the article. Daqu ( talk) 19:25, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
People who are missing one or two of the three kinds of cone cells perceive colors that others cannot, since every humanly perceivable color normally stimulates all three types of cones, at least somewhat. I do not know much about this, but I hope someone who does will please add a section about normally "impossible" colors that color-blind people can perceive. Daqu ( talk) 19:29, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
The article currently says:
One type of imaginary color (also referred to as non-physical or unrealizable color) is a point in a color space that corresponds to combinations of cone cell responses in one eye, that cannot be produced by the eye in normal circumstances seeing any possible light spectrum. ...
This suggests that there are more than one type of imaginary color. What are the other types? SharkD Talk 22:51, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
The article mentions at least 6 different concepts that apparently are all impossible colors:
The relationship between these concepts are not clear from the article.
At one point (the first parenthesis in the first paragraph, which is supposed to list synonyms) the article claims that
But in the "Types" section, it claims that
Later it claims that
It mentions only one subtype,
It doesn't mention the other claimed subtypes.
Also, I cannot find the place where the article says that an imaginary color is either a type of or a synonym for impossible color. I might be wrong, as the section about "Real colors", where the concept of imaginary color is introduced, is difficult to understand, but I can't find a direct claim that imaginary color is either a subtype of impossible color or a synonym for it.
The section "Chimeral color" states that
This contradicts the claim from "Types", in which chimerical color is claimed to be one of only two subtypes of impossible color — unless imaginary color is in fact a direct synonym for impossible color.
I am totally confused.
Could someone who has a full understanding of the concepts and their relationships make the relationships totally clear? I cannot do it myself, as I am totally confused about the relationships.
Please remember that we are writing to people with no knowledge of the subject (such as yours truly), so it's important to state explicitly and unambiguously what a person knowledgable on the subject would find obvious. -- Jhertel ( talk) 16:27, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
I wonder how much accurate quantitative research has been done on the subject. I'll list my own experience, just using the image here. In each case, I looked at the starting image for half a minute. I know, n = 1, plural of anecdote isn't data, yadi-yada.
Make of this what you will. I really wonder though, is there enough experimental data for these effects to have this on Wikipedia? And can we really use an image like this? It seems a bit too simplistic to me, because we're all looking at simple uncalibrated consumer displays with all kinds of defects that might cause effects to fail to work or to appear to work even though they didn't. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.61.180.106 ( talk) 21:56, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
Is there a list of impossible colors that can be seen? I've spent a lot of time looking and some of the only examples of impossible colors I've found are the ones shown as example images in this article. Are there any more?
The section "Colors outside physical color space" includes an image titled "Wb_to_colours_when_rotating.svg". I'm familiar with the concept described in the image caption, of perceiving colors in a rotating disk patterned in black and white. I've demonstrated it myself in the past, and I've read that in the 1950s-60s, this was demonstrated on television and viewers saw colors on black-and-white TVs. But the phenomenon seems unrelated to the rest of the section, and in fact there doesn't seem to be any further discussion (much less explanation) of the phenomenon anywhere in the whole article. ajad ( talk) 02:16, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
Jasper Fforde uses colours in these tomes to 'program' abilities (including a resistance to mildew) into the residents of his world, and, in an extreme case uses a particular shade of green (in the green room) to euthanise them. (see Red Side Story published by Hodder in the UK). (8-9)*6*7 * (-1+7-7) = 42 ( talk) 00:29, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
|
![]() | This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
|
|
I believe this plot is misleading in two ways:
First, it claims to be adapted from Stockman et al. Vol. 10, No. 12/December 1993/J. Opt. Soc. Am. A 2491). However, it would appear the adaptation was not sufficiently careful, as it missed the UV behavior, see figure 12 in above reference.
Second, and more importantly, it does not accurately reflect reality, and fails to account for the following phenomena: We know the shortest wavelength on the rainbow appears purple, as does and equal combination of red + blue (RGB 128,0,128). This is inconsistent with the above plot.
Instead, see discussion on StackExchange. The correct plot should be http://i.stack.imgur.com/z3dtf.png, which is referenced to Bowmaker, J.K., & Dartnall, H.J.A. Visual pigments of rods and cones in a human retina. Journal of Physiology, 298, 1980, 501-511 figure 2, as it allows us to understand how an RGB-based screen can generate a color which appears as purple. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shai mach ( talk • contribs) 08:55, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
I'm a vision scientist and felt it was important to correct the content of this article. The way it was worded made it appear as if impossible colors were a well established phenomenon. While there are cases of synesthetes who see 'martian' colors, there is no conclusive evidence that a normal person will see them ... especially in the given paradigm of binocular rivalry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zuchinni one ( talk • contribs) 03:17, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
In the section "Opponent process", this article says "The color opponent process is a color theory that states that the human visual system interprets information about color by processing signals from cones and rods in an antagonistic manner." This is also the lede sentence in the article Opponent process. Should "and rods" be deleted from this sentence? Duoduoduo ( talk) 17:28, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
Yellowish-blue is not an impossible colour - its called "green". Yellowish red is called "orange". Greenish red is not impossible - its called either brown, ochre, khaki, gambodge, umber, tuscan red, or a few other names depending on the relative proportions of red and green. I have normal colour vision (to prevent any objections on those grounds). Barney Bruchstein ( talk) 18:34, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: move the page, per the discussion below. Dekimasu よ! 02:17, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
Impossible colors → Impossible color – There is no reason to pluralize per WP:PLURAL. Using the singular would make the article match other articles about types of color, such as Primary color, Secondary color, and Imaginary color. I cannot perform the move myself because the redirect has a history. ~ Boomur [ ☎] 00:26, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
Opponent process, which is currently the first section after the Introduction, is not mentioned in the Introduction nor for another two sections, until the third section following it: Chimerical colors. At the same time, the phrase "impossible colors" does not occur at all in the "Opponent process" section.
As a result, the "Opponent process" section appears to have no connection with the article until one reads the third section following it. Instead, this section ought to be integrated better into the article. Daqu ( talk) 19:25, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
People who are missing one or two of the three kinds of cone cells perceive colors that others cannot, since every humanly perceivable color normally stimulates all three types of cones, at least somewhat. I do not know much about this, but I hope someone who does will please add a section about normally "impossible" colors that color-blind people can perceive. Daqu ( talk) 19:29, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
The article currently says:
One type of imaginary color (also referred to as non-physical or unrealizable color) is a point in a color space that corresponds to combinations of cone cell responses in one eye, that cannot be produced by the eye in normal circumstances seeing any possible light spectrum. ...
This suggests that there are more than one type of imaginary color. What are the other types? SharkD Talk 22:51, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
The article mentions at least 6 different concepts that apparently are all impossible colors:
The relationship between these concepts are not clear from the article.
At one point (the first parenthesis in the first paragraph, which is supposed to list synonyms) the article claims that
But in the "Types" section, it claims that
Later it claims that
It mentions only one subtype,
It doesn't mention the other claimed subtypes.
Also, I cannot find the place where the article says that an imaginary color is either a type of or a synonym for impossible color. I might be wrong, as the section about "Real colors", where the concept of imaginary color is introduced, is difficult to understand, but I can't find a direct claim that imaginary color is either a subtype of impossible color or a synonym for it.
The section "Chimeral color" states that
This contradicts the claim from "Types", in which chimerical color is claimed to be one of only two subtypes of impossible color — unless imaginary color is in fact a direct synonym for impossible color.
I am totally confused.
Could someone who has a full understanding of the concepts and their relationships make the relationships totally clear? I cannot do it myself, as I am totally confused about the relationships.
Please remember that we are writing to people with no knowledge of the subject (such as yours truly), so it's important to state explicitly and unambiguously what a person knowledgable on the subject would find obvious. -- Jhertel ( talk) 16:27, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
I wonder how much accurate quantitative research has been done on the subject. I'll list my own experience, just using the image here. In each case, I looked at the starting image for half a minute. I know, n = 1, plural of anecdote isn't data, yadi-yada.
Make of this what you will. I really wonder though, is there enough experimental data for these effects to have this on Wikipedia? And can we really use an image like this? It seems a bit too simplistic to me, because we're all looking at simple uncalibrated consumer displays with all kinds of defects that might cause effects to fail to work or to appear to work even though they didn't. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.61.180.106 ( talk) 21:56, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
Is there a list of impossible colors that can be seen? I've spent a lot of time looking and some of the only examples of impossible colors I've found are the ones shown as example images in this article. Are there any more?
The section "Colors outside physical color space" includes an image titled "Wb_to_colours_when_rotating.svg". I'm familiar with the concept described in the image caption, of perceiving colors in a rotating disk patterned in black and white. I've demonstrated it myself in the past, and I've read that in the 1950s-60s, this was demonstrated on television and viewers saw colors on black-and-white TVs. But the phenomenon seems unrelated to the rest of the section, and in fact there doesn't seem to be any further discussion (much less explanation) of the phenomenon anywhere in the whole article. ajad ( talk) 02:16, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
Jasper Fforde uses colours in these tomes to 'program' abilities (including a resistance to mildew) into the residents of his world, and, in an extreme case uses a particular shade of green (in the green room) to euthanise them. (see Red Side Story published by Hodder in the UK). (8-9)*6*7 * (-1+7-7) = 42 ( talk) 00:29, 19 April 2024 (UTC)