Random middle of the night musing

mjmcneese2 said:
What if we all see colors differently...I mean like WAY differently. What if what I see the sky as blue, you see as orange, but you've always known it as blue so you don't know the difference no matter what registers in your brain.

I need to lie down.
Click to expand...
i think it is easy to find out. there are cool, and warm colours. is the sky warm???
and another answer. on the highway, the orange-men are in orange, because, it is a way different colour, than the others on the road. so if you see orange as blue, you are in a big trouble.
 
surf said:
i think it is easy to find out. there are cool, and warm colours. is the sky warm???
and another answer. on the highway, the orange-men are in orange, because, it is a way different colour, than the others on the road. so if you see orange as blue, you are in a big trouble.
Click to expand...

Take a still 35mm shot of some road workers. Look at the negative and tell me they won't stand out.

I've actually got some neg's of hunters wearing hunter orange. The bluish-color of the orange in the negative stands out just like the developed shot...just in negative colors.

Now, here's a thought. If someone sees 'negatives,' then the sun would appear black as night, but you still couldn't stare at it.
 
but they are in orange, because it stands out! if they do not stand out you won't recognise them so quickly. but that is noticable
 
I think it is easy to find out. there are cool, and warm colours. is the sky warm??? and another answer. on the highway, the orange-men are in orange, because, it is a way different colour, than the others on the road. so if you see orange as blue, you are in a big trouble.
Click to expand...

The problem with this arguement is that color isn't really definable. 'Orange' and 'blue' are psycho-emotional responses to specific aspects of light. Specific wavelengths of light will almost always (well not really.. but this is a different issue) produce the same visual response. The problem is that there is no way to determine how our brains are interpreting the response provided by our visual system. Color is an entirely psychological phenomenon. Light isn't really colored - we just interpret it that way due to the specifics of our visual system.
 
I think a lot of people are missing the point.

What Matt is saying is not that different people may see colors incorrectly, but that what's "correct" for one person might be different for someone else.

What he means is that you and I both see blue. We have no disagreement about that. We have no disagreement about any other color, either. We look at a color charts and we see and identify everything correctly.

But, if I could somehow get into your brain and see things the way you see them, it could be that when we're both looking at blue, you're seeing it as what I would call red. Same for every other color -- you see it differently in your mind.

This probably doesn't happen. But it can't be proven either way.
 
I remember back in the late '80s some one said that a harmonic frequency from cell phones (3 watt analog phones) could interfere with the optic nerve. So, 800mHz/2=400mHz/2+200mHz and so on. But as you dived your frequency you reduce your power. What this says about the human eyes fps, I don't know. Just more of my useless knowledge :-/

Hunter
 
David Jimerson said:
I've read that the "refresh rate" of the eye is equivalent to about 70 fps, which is why 60 fps footage looks more real than 24 fps.
Click to expand...

This accounts for the flicker of the 60Hz ballast of a fluorescent light that you perceive in your peripheral vision. The periphery of the retina is where your light and motion sensitive (also b/w) rod cells are concentrated.

That's why HDTV (along with resolution) looks so damn cool and realistic since it is near the ultimate "frame rate" or our visual cortex.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top