There's no purple light
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 30 ก.ย. 2024
- Even though you can see purple, there's no purple light. This also explains why we can use a colour wheel when the electromagnetic spectrum is linear.
Patreon- www.patreon.co...
Twitter- / jesseagaryt
Images
Paul Longinidis Purple Flower (CC BY 2.0) flic.kr/p/qG6xJa
Music
Drum Solo Birdman by Michikawa
www.pond5.com/...
Sources
silversneakers...
So, my favorite color doesn't actually exist outside of my brain? Neat
It does exist outside your brain. It exists in my brain, which I know for a fact isn’t inside your brain.
@@felipevasconcelos6736 🤯
Whatever purple is ugly color anyways so happy 😁 hahahahnanababan
Purple has also changed throughout history as far as the hues included in that color range; nowadays, when people say “purple”, they usually mean violet or indigo. Purple, classically speaking, is akin to the color of congealed blood, or of porphyry stone. To the average person today, they’d think that’s maroon or burgundy.
@@felipevasconcelos6736 Assuming that we aren't all just part of CyberianFaux's brain. No way she can know for sure. ;)
By far the best explanation of purple/violett confusion I've ever come across! Thanks!
volkerswille I asked my bio teacher this back in high school, my question was never really answered until now lol
In my language purple and violet means the same, so I'm still confused.
Seedzification in this video, violet is considered to be bluer than purple
@@gonzalezm244 But it still doesn't explain why violet looks purplish
@@DANGJOS Your long wavelength (red) receptor has a small peak in the shortest visible wavelengths and your medium wavelength (green) receptor has a dip: techmind.org/colour/spectra.html
The animation for this episode was fantastic
Totally. So clearly shown.
The sound effects were lit
As a color blind guy, glad I'm not missing out on a REAL color. (cries in a lack of red)
Rainmaker519 red is in your profile picture, did you notice this
are you sure it's not a lack of green?
Fishotic yea it's protanism, red is there but it's weaker. I can see strong red but no purple really.
F
4head
The sound design in these videos is SO GOOD
Friend: can you pass me the purple crayon?
Me: there's no purple..
Friend: ITS RIGHT THERE!!
Me: there is no purple light..
Friend: die
Friend #2: He didn't ask you to pass the purple light...
@@42mateos what we see as we look to a crayon is the light coming from it
Yeah, he still asked for the purple crayon and that has meaning. Language is by consensus. Moreover, the concept of purple was explained in the video. It is a real color despite not having a single corresponding wavelength.
@@42mateos Right. Just as there is no brown (single-frequency) light. They are both "composites".
just pass me the blue and red please .. and gtfo
It takes a brilliant mind to explain things in a way that the subject appears easy. Congrats on your brilliance. And your animation rocks as well.
this place- *spends a year not doing anything*
this place after a year- Hey, why don’t I just say that there’s no purple?
it just never came up.
I have a feeling he played lots of pinball, actually
Finally! Great to see your channel isn't dead (anymore). One of the best science/explanation channels I've ever come across.
Food for thought: If you only had 1 type of color receptor, then you can only see 1 dimension of light. That is, your vision can only see brightness. If you had 2 color receptors, then you can see in 2 dimensions of light, which is brightness and hue. Having 3 allows us to see in 3 dimensions, which we call brightness, hue, and saturation.
Where this really gets interesting to me is with butterflies. The species Graphium sarpedon has 15 different types of photo receptors. Which means it can see in 15 dimensions because it can create so many more combinations of light that arent possible with only 3. The mantis shrip, Order Stomatopoda, is a close second with 12 different types of photo receptors.
For anyone who wants to experience something close to this, try a quick experiment. Take a pair of cheap polarized sunglasses (they have to be polarized), pop out one lens and rotate it 90 degrees. Youll notice that some light appears to shimmer, namely light thats reflected (e.g. off cars). This is because relfected light is polarized, but because your lenses are at 90 deg, only one eye can see it. This causes the light to exist in one eye and creates a dichotomy your brain doesnt know how to show. But by doing this youre simulating a 4D version of vision, with brightness, hue, saturation, and polarization.
I was confused why this only has 6 likes until I saw it was posted 13 hours ago lol
This is really cool
@@TheOtherOne7isBlueMaid glad you enjoyed it :)
That's awesome to know! How about if you put on a pair of 3D glasses? Aren't they polarized in different directions?
@@bobcarn yes! Those should work too
The receptor for light and dark is not a colour receptor. There are rod cells and cone cells. Cone cells detect light. Rods tell us if it's dark or bright. Colours on the colour wheel are all the same brightness. They're just different hues.
I hope you won't go back to hibernation again. I really liked this video and I have really enjoyed your previous works. The perspective video was fantastic.
OH MY GOD I HAVE BEEN LOOKING FOR THIS EXPLANATION FOR SO LONG
Worth noting that outside of lasers, we (almost?) never experience light of a single wavelength. That light you see that looks red is far from a pure red.
Now I want a purple laser
@@bapanada9446 Doable if you're willing to have two lasers outputting together (not dissimilar to how LCD monitors produce purple using blue and red).
@@bapanada9446 You could, in theory, have a violet LASER.
@@buddyclem7328 I saw a violet laser once. It was really weird cuz you couldn't focus on the beam; kinda like staring at a black light.
@@NightHawk71000 That sounds even stranger than I imagined! I want to see one.
This is the kind of quality content I signed up for.
This vid taught me more about light than 6 years of physics, by far the best explanation of color perception ever
Edit: I should've said biology instead of physics
it's not really about light in itself though, it's about how our brain perceives light, it's pretty understandable that you were never tought it in 6 years of physics, this is biology.
Maybe it's because they didn't teach about light waves for 6 years?
+RonuPlays 6 years of physics, you say? Sorry to break it to you, bro, but 5 years of elementary school science classes and 1 year of middle school science doesn't count.
I learned about all this in an astronomy class
Probably should have taken 6 years of optics.
Wait, violet and purple are different things?
Yes, in fact, they are. That is why they have different names.
I'm color-impaired, and a scientist, and despite reading a lot about color mixing over the years, have somehow never realized that the color wheel mixes the two ends of the spectrum to create the purples. This clarifies a lot! I still am confused by a lot of colors I see, but this is a really helpful framework. Thanks!
I have extra sharp cones and I see purple in a rainbow in the sky..
This editing style is so *beautiful.* I didn't know I could think that about editing. Ha
o0Avalon0o its expensive software probly
marshall branin k thanks for that
You're back! Thank you, missed the content!
Thanks for emphasizing that "yes, purple exists" because I so often see people calling purple and magenta "fake" colors which is... not recognizing that everything you experience is just an interpretation.
so in fact the limitations of our biology have allowed us to see the world with more diversity and beauty than there really is.
Evolution or design?
It's not more diverse, than it really is. You got one extra color: a purple. What you've lost? Ability to see a real yellow and many other colors. I mean you can't tell the difference between yellow and mixture of red and green. What you see is a mixture of red and green, and you have never seen a yellow! You have never seen many more colors.
@@jarlfenrir how can you know if you can't see it?
@@Zellonous W can't see many things, but we know about them because of science.
@@jarlfenrir certainly, but we're talking about "real yellow". What makes real yellow even yellow if you can't see it? I can see yellow. If I can't see real yellow how is that more real than the yellow I can see? Even if we made something that could see it. How would it show it to us?
Video not 100% accurate concerning retinal signal transmission. Good basic summary though.
Point out a missinformation pls
Do you know where I can find a scientific source for this subject?
Welcome back! You've been missed! Great explanation as always!
Also u know what?
*There's no black light*
Because black is a lack of light. For that matter, there is no "cold" either. It's just a lack of warmth. Same thing applies almost everywhere.
Cham But we defined „cold“ to be the lack of heat.
There's no heavy light, because heavy is not light, but lack of heaviness, but it's light
There's no lettuce light.
*there's no.*
Good start, but you're missing the fact that there *are* purple photons. The theory is that at the blue end of the spectrum, there are photons where the wavelength triggers blue cones, while a *harmonic* of the wavelength (specifically 2x the wavelength) triggers the red cones. You need a real rainbow in a controlled setting to see it, because camera sensors and film don't respond the same way, so pictures usually don't show it.
That then begs the question: What happens when add extra red? Does it become "more purple"? Because that would truly be an unreal color.
Great stuff, I´m glad you´re back
this comment solved my friend's existential crisis, thank you
Wow! When you make a comeback you make a comeback! This is such an intuitive explanation for something that feels intuitive but is not.
Should have mentioned white light (or any _desaturated_ colour for that matter) also "doesn't exist", just like purple.
Agreed!
When I explain this fact to others I often choose pink instead of purple. It's a fun way to delegitimize my least favorite color!
Hey, it's so good to see you in action again. I hope there are more videos to come. I really like your way of presentation and the topics are really interesting!
Strange that there should be purple light in some psychedelic experiences or in dreams - though these are in the mind's eye rather than physical.
For the last god only knows how many years I've been staring at the screens that have only 3 color lights (rgb) but my brain doesn't know that.
The next generation will probably spend more time experiencing sceen lights than any other lights.
I can imagine people in near future that don't leave simulations, and all they see is just 3 waves length light unless we develop new kind of screens that use different ways to show a picture.
O.O
The claim "there is no purple light" is massively misleading. Because by the same logic there is no *white* light.
There is no purple monochromatic light, sure. But *most* colors you see in everyday life are not monochromatic anyways. **Light** is in most cases a mix of a whole continuous range of wavelengths.
Indeed. And to be even more nitpicky: there's no red/green/blue/etc. light either. Because color isn't a physical property of light, it's a perception, created by the brain in response to that light hitting the retinas. Or in Newton's words: "Indeed rays [of light], properly expressed, are not coloured. In them there is nothing else than a certain power or disposition to stir up a sensation of this or that colour".
I'm colourblind and purple looks pretty much the same as blue :(
Colorblindness is just like having two types of photoreceptor cells rather than three. In the case of red-green colorblindness (deuteranopia) there would be one that is most sensitive around yellow and one that is most sensitive around blue.
Why are you sad? You never saw purple in the first place so you don't even know what your missing.
Agreed. Purple is just a reddish shade of blue, not worth getting excited over.
There’s another quirk about purple. Take a photo of a “UV” LED, or just find one online, and take a look at the image in an editor. Look at what colour it’s producing. It has significant values of both blue and red light, and it looks the same as when you see such an LED with your naked eye. Even though LEDs produce a very narrow single band of light, this 405nm stimulates both red and blue photoreceptors of a camera, and of our eye, because both these sensors’ red receptors have a small peak that’s sensitive to blue light as well. Though in the case of a digital camera it’s actually a filter that blocks out most other colours and lets a bit of blur through. So when looking at a very far blue wavelength, we see it as an indigo or purple because our colour sensors aren’t perfectly smooth distributions with a single peak.
I wondered about this exact topic in my previous semester, glad you made a video on it. Keep up the good work!
Fucking extraordinary explanation skills, I have so much respect for people who can convey difficult topics in such an easy to understand way. Well done!
This is sooo good, so marvelously, tastily, so good. This is good because of the animations and the tight script
There is now a poetic sadness washing at my ankles in the evening tide of colorlessness.... to lose my dear purple.. the ennui.... staring into the blank of my illusion and sighing as this fades........ :)
This has been the best visualization of how we see colors that I've yet seen, nice work! Made it so simple to understand
What are you talking about? Most of the Violets looks different than the purples besides two of those squares that are matching. And why are the violets look so different from each other?
380 - 420 nm wavelength light would like to have a talk with you...
You mean violet? It is not purple
@@svankensen And yet, violet is purple in color, and purple is violet in color, and both are found at 380 - 420 nm wavelength of the spectrum... Of course pedantically semantic videos like this one try to insert the limitations of pigments into the visual spectrum, and they are not the same, and that is where the video and you are wrong.
@@nobodyuknow2490 More information about the difference between violet and purple: jakubmarian.com/difference-between-violet-and-purple/
Yeah, he's wrong. There is no PINK light. (magenta)
@@ntdscherer From your own link:
"Purple and violet look similar only to humans
To us, humans, purple looks like a more saturated shade of violet[...]"
Ok, show me the species that isn't human but can conceptualize and discuss the finer points of purple vs. violet, and we will then divest Purple from Violet... Until then, it's semantics and 380-420nm wave length light is PURPLE, the video is wrong, and it's nothing but splitting hairs of semantics to try and suggest that "der iz no such thing!" when it is empirically evident that there is.
There is real physiological reason for why we see purple and violet as much the same color and we have a color circle. It is because the sensitivity of the color receipting cones on the retina don't quite have a sensitivity with three similar "bump" like sensitivity (as in the video) but the red receptors while, most sensitive to long wavelength red are also somewhat sensitive to small wavelength violet, and the blue sensors are already over the top of their sensitivity region, As explained in the video the brain can therefore poorly distinguish violet from a mixture of red and blue light i.e. purple ((the yellow green ones do poorly at both red and blue wavelength, and violet wavelength so don't help much to see the distinction either ). See en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photoreceptor_cell#/media/File:1416_Color_Sensitivity.jpg
what if we're all just colorblind
No matter how you look at it, everyone is colorblind. The electromagnetic spectrum is very big and visible light is only a tiny sliver of it.
TLDW; 1. The color purple canno'r be made with a single wavelength of light.
2. Purple and Violet are not the same color.
02:20 so why didn't you put them together?
YOU HAD THEM RIGHT THERE!
i think he was trying to showing yellow in the middle.
@@themexis there was no yellow
@@flamixflame2685 There was, but he said that his flashlights were shitty so they didn't work as well as they should. If you look closely where the two lights cross each other you can see a faint greenish-yellow light.
Our screens dont have yellow pixels so technically I couldnt see any yellow light from your flashlights
You're describing Magenta, not Purple, imo. Purple is a more general term that includes magenta, violet, etc. Violet light causes red receptors in the eye to fire a little bit.
If this was about pink, it'd be correct. Purple, generally speaking, is a broad color term and much of what we consider purple is actually part of the visible spectrum. While the specific "purple" from a given color authority may be outside our visible range, 380nm to 450nm wavelength light is often considered purple and still visible. I have a 405nm laser that is quite purply. Should have made it about pink.
Excellent work. This is very much appreciated.
Wait...you're telling me violet ISN'T purple?? You lost me.
Omg ur back I love ur vids been here since 1000 subs
We can see violet as a hue of purple because there's another smaller peak in detection for the red photoreceptors at a much shorter wavelength, so violet light stimulates blue and red photoreceptors at the same time.
Nicely done!
Stupid title. Humans can call it what they want. It’s all just frequencies to scientists.
reminds me of that Nat geo video "animals can't be blue"
Do suns/stars in other solar systems give off different colors, since their color depends on their age?
Yes
It also depends on the atmosphere of the planet you view the star from.
I knew it. Everyone was lying. Purple doesn’t exist.
"IN YOUR BRAIN"
rofl! killied me!
So that star wars light saber from Samuel L Jackson was a lie huh?
Among the best explanations of this I've met, good job!
There is no blue light let me explain the light blue is cyan the blue that’s dark that’s blue I found out that blue is just black but with color and saturation
This guy: "There is no purple light"
Me: *sees purple colors on things*
Me: okay clickbait
them: makes actually very accurate and well argued point
you: cant admit being wrong about something
@@lt3880 Them: Decides to nonsensically decide that indigo & violet aren't shades of purple, even though they're both called purple by literally every person on the planet
@@lt3880 The title is definitely clickbait. Or demonstrates ignorance of what color actually is. Color is by definition a perception, *not* a physical property of light. Technically, neither objects *nor* light have color. Even Sir Isaac Newton already knew this and wrote "Indeed rays [of light], properly expressed, are not coloured. In them there is nothing else than a certain power or disposition to stir up a sensation of this or that colour."
On the physical side, you have reflection or emission spectra, but not color. Colors are a perception, created by the brain in response to those spectra hitting the retinas, and therefore are subjective and depend on context. Meaning that physically identical spectra can be perceived as different colors. There are many optical "illusions" that demonstrate this, such as the checker shadow illusion, or that infamous black/blue white/gold dress. And conversely, different physical spectra can be perceived as the same color. Yellow is a simple example for that (spectral i.e. single wavelength yellow vs. yellow made from red + green - physically different, but perceptually identical, and therefore the same color).
To say that "there is no purple light" is technically correct, but makes it sound extraordinary, although it isn't, because "there is no red light" either. Because technically, light is colorless. Colloquially, it's of course fine to talk about materials and light as if color were an inherent property of them, because that makes life simpler.
A more accurate way to rephrase the video title would be "purple (magenta) isn't a spectral color (i.e. cannot be evoked with a single wavelength of light)".
It takes all colors to make a rainbow.
Except BLACK.
There's no black in a rainbow.
wow I just had my greatest aha moment on youtube thanks for explaining how colors mix.... for us
There is purple light, you just gotta say "Okay google, set lights to purple"
4 minutes.
Really Well explained, well animated, you don't waste watch time on useless content but you keep focused on the important part and explain it correctly. It was a very good experience, you deserve more :)
This is FANTASTIC. It's simplified of course (the cone cells have sensitivity distributions that are more nuanced than that), but it definitely gets the idea across, and I don't think I've ever seen it explained this clearly. Well done!
Wow! this is such an awesome explanation. I've heard about this in the past but it never clicked like your visuals did for me. Wonderful.
Indigo and Violet are just shades of purple
Indigo is more blue than purple.
Look it up.
first no pluto and now no purple? science you're doing me wrong
Happy to see more content, let us know what you need to quit whatever else you are working on so you can spend more time doing this. Not sure if you know this yourself Jessie, but you have the highest quality educational videos on TH-cam, so please make more.
1st？
Probably.
Oh gee oh man I wanted to be first
Ah jeez, oh no, I'm sorry bro/brozette .. But It's ok. I've been watching TH-cam since 2006 and I ain't never got 1st on a good, new video like this .. It feels like Leo winning that Oscar for the Revenant though. Wasn't even worth the wait.
Appreciate the video though my TH-camr homie though. I love the electromagnetic spectrum and quantum subatomic particles.
Then why does Wikipedia say violet has a wavelength between 380nm - 450nm ?
Peter Müller Violet and Indigo are not the same as purple. Semantics, but you are technically correct.
Nobody:
Eric Andre: WHAT IF IT WAS PURPLE
Thank you!
Is this why colourblind people see 2 colours the same?
Yes and no... it's complicated. A color-blind person usually has a deficiency where one cone is weaker than it should be making the other two receptors pick up their signals stronger. But it really depends on the type of color-blindness and can even differ on the individual. Take for instance a Red-Green color-blind person... if their "red" cone is deficient then the blue and green cones will be more pronounced. To that individual the colors in the purple/magenta range will seem more blue and less red and the violet range can look totally like blue (think of it like a shift or squish towards blue). This is because the red cone isn't as strong as it should be. Likewise on the red-green side of things colors in the yellow range might look more green and be confusing. One of the common tests for Red-Green colorblindness is red-on-brown or brown-on-red pattern detection. But like I said there are many different types of color-blindness and even differences between each category so it is just how I see the world being red-green colorblind (most common type among men).
I'd give a simpler answer than Darkmethods: yes. That's exactly why colorblind people see two colors the same.
Eg when a person is hit with a yellow light, a red and green cones are giving a signal. But when the red cone is not working, one gets output only from green one - exactly the same situation as he'd be hit with a green light. So a person blind for red, wouldn't be able to tell a difference between green and yellow.
If your red is green do you tend to eat leaves instead of berries?
Great explanation! Can't wait for the next video tomorrow...
There is no purple light. There is the Force.
2:32 : "But it sorta works, you can see it sorta working."
Me: nope, i just see red and green... guess my eyes are broken.
the yellow is the light mixing in the middle you may have red green color blindness legit
@@thunderborn3231 It's faint though. Noticeable, but barely.
thank God I am not the only one - and I am not colourblind!
You guys just aren't used to isolating what you see. The yellow is there. Here, let me help you isolate your vision --> gfycat.com/fluidunlawfulatlasmoth
your eyes are probably ok (but don't quote me on that). he was talking about the mix of green and red where cones intersect. it's hard to call that "yellow", it's more like greenish-redish blob of something
Would a fourth cone make a sphere?
this place: leaves for a year
also this place: **decides to come back and make a video confronting the idea that there is no purple**
I love it
Sucks when purple is your favorite color.
'We don't see it in rainbows'
I'll have you know! "Red and yellow and pink and green.
Purple and orange and blue" the world famous *Sing a Rainbow* song clearly states that purple is in a rainbow so I don't believe you.
but... purple is on the electromagnetic spectrum.... that's what violet is. The color Pink is the color that is not on the electromagnetic spectrum... theres a big difference between pink and purple, and even in your example of differences between purple and violet most of those were pink.
Are you colorblind? You don't seem to notice that it is more blue than your regular pink, that is unsaturated red.
@@tempname8263 no, not colorblind the end of the spectrum is violet aka a different shade of purple, pink is not on the light spectrum. Also instead of trying to change the argument from whether purple is on the light spectrum or not, dont try and win an argument by trying to find a flaw in the person making the argument, that is a philosophical fallacy
culture the photo receptors/neurons of pistol shrimp and then dope a human retina with them. We have three photo receptors, pistol shrimp have 22
get some serious sensory overload going
wait so you're saying purple light sorta does exist, but its never true purple, just red and blue light mixed? ow my brain
You really have an explanatory GIFT!!
I couldn't understand the color perception theory in any other manual/video etc. Only with your video this all thing clicked!
This is poorly explained.
There is no such thing as Colour.
Tell that to purple aki, i dare you.
where the fuck did you go for a year?
it SHOULD come up more.
So when you see a purple flower, the flower is in reality multicolor, but your brain just mixes them all ?
Yup you got the jist of it. Essentially the purple flower absorbs light falling in the "green" range while reflecting red and blue light (more red than blue though) which your eye picks up and your brain processes into purple.
So it's just missing textures?
لااله الاالله محمد رسول الله
I love how you used yellow as an example. Because the yellow we see on monitors isn't really yellow at all. They're just red and green pixels that make us think we're seeing yellow light, just like we see yellow when you hold your red and green flashlights close enough together. The basic colours we are taught as children are a lie. Red, Yellow and Blue are NOT the primairy colours.
This is the basic of understanding of colour (or rather, how human-made systems invoke our perception of colour, nature has some intricacies not represented here):
To a software engineer, who uses a light-emitter as their medium (such as your computer screen), Red, Green and Blue are the primairy colours. RGB is the additive colour scheme.
In equal proportions: Red and Green light combines into Yellow light, Red and Blue light combine into (what we perceive as) Magenta light, Green and Blue light combines into Cyan light. All three combined and you get white light!
To an artist, who uses light-absorbers/reflectors as their medium (such as paper and paint), Cyan, Yellow, Magenta (and Key) are the primairy colours. CMYK is the subtractive colour scheme.
Lightsource shines on paper covered in paint. (white) paper reflects all wavelengths. Paints absorb certain wavelengths and reflect others.
Cyan and Magenta combined absorb everything except Blue, Cyan and Yellow combined absorbs everything except Green, Magenta and Yellow combined absorbs everything except Red.
So you'd think all three combined absorbs everything? Nope! It results in a perfect grey! That's why CMYK includes K=Key=Unsaturated (True) Black.
"the yellow we see on monitors isn't really yellow at all" - it IS "real" yellow, it's just not spectral/monochromatic yellow. Like you said, monitors emit light, and light is technically colorless. Color isn't a physical property of light, it is a perception created by the brain in response to that light hitting the retinas. It doesn't matter to the brain what physical spectral power distribution caused a certain color perception - yellow is yellow, whether created by a single wavelength or a mixture of multiple wavelengths. One isn't "more real" than the other. All colors are equally (un)real. To equate color with light of a single wavelength is misunderstanding what color truly is.
Furthermore, it's perfectly fine to pick red, yellow, and blue as primary colors. You can choose any colors you want as primaries. Primary colors define a color gamut, a range of "mixable" colors. If your aim is to maximize that gamut, then certain choices for primary colors are better than others. Or in the words of Wikipedia: "All sets of real and color-space primaries are arbitrary, in the sense that there is no one set of primaries that can be considered the canonical set. Primary pigments or light sources selected for a given application on the basis of subjective preferences as well as practical factors such as cost, stability, availability etc."
@@TheBytegeist So basically you got hung up on the fact I said "real" yellow. It was frankly a bit of a joke. It's the only unrepresented unique hue because they didn't need monochromatic yellow to make it work. Because they can just make your brain see yellow out of green and red. They wouldn't be able to make your brain see green with yellow and blue light. Blue and Yellow are significantly further apart (in wavelength difference) than Green and Red. Using RBY would leave a gap.
Wavelengths for each colour and their place in the spectrum:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Visible_spectrum#Spectral_colors
RGB emited light cones. You can imagine where the Y cone would be.
qph.fs.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-7f95f410ba3d3702cef4d2af08304cc9-c
I'm wondering if you even read everything I wrote. You may note I was talking specifically about applied knowledge of colour. Look you're free to add more information but there's no need to be condescending.
I'd also like to point out that primaries aren't arbitrairy at all. They are very goal oriënted and as I pointed out earlier, their efficiency depends on the medium. RGB and CMYK are the standard in their respective fields because of their broad representation of colours when it comes to their medium. They were conceived because of the function of their respective fields (display screen technology and printed graphics design).
When we work with a physical medium (such as paint and paper) the colour we perceive depends on which wavelengths of light the material reflects and which it absorbs. When we work with a digital medium, it depends on which wavelengths of light are emitted.
If I were to name the primairies for colour in the biological sense, I'd say they are Red, Green, Blue and Yellow (and White and Black). Which would bring us to the Natural Color System. Which is about how the human brain interprets light of different wavelengths.
But that's seperate from the applied science of why we don't use a yellow lightsource to make pixels on the screen yellow (like we do with the other 3 unique hues), or why we don't use RBY as the standard for paint/ink mixing. You can still make a lot of combinations using RBY, after all, they're 3 of the 4 unique color hues. but CMYK can make more combinations, which is why it's the norm in modern printing. Which were the principles I was talking about.
@@NLTops "It's the only unrepresented unique hue because they didn't need monochromatic yellow to make it work." - Not completely true. Cyan and orange are also "unique hues" that can be spectral or not.
I'm wondering if you read - and understood - everything I wrote. First, RBY is a subtractive color model, and it's totally possible to mix green with it, as every child with a watercolor set could show you.
And yes, primaries ARE arbitrary. For additive color, RGB leaves "gaps", too. It's impossible to show true cyan and violet with it. Using "RGV" as primaries could yield a larger gamut than RGB. But there are practical factors and technical limitations for why we don't use it. Furthermore, RGB isn't the same as RGB - while both our monitors probably use primaries that can be described as falling into the color *categories* "red", "green", and "blue", they can very well be different "shades". The common sRGB gamut for example uses completely different primaries than the Rec. 2020 gamut. And have you ever come across a Sharp Quattron display? Uses four primaries, RYGB. We could also use five and more. Again: All sets of real and color-space primaries are arbitrary, in the sense that there is no one set of primaries that can be considered the canonical set. Primary pigments or light sources are selected for a given application on the basis of subjective preferences as well as practical factors such as cost, stability, availability etc.
@@TheBytegeist Haha. You're quite incorrigible huh? I mean your personality. Still trying to one-up me. What are you, a mix between a professor and a caveman? What's this desire to show dominance?
Yes. RYB is a subtractive color model. Meaning it does allow you to mix green when using a physical medium (paint/ink). A subtractive model doesn't work well on an additive medium like a monitor. *If you read closely* I referred to green, yellow and blue light in that paragraph. Was I talking about an additive or a subtractive medium?
It's a little funny to see you talk about "true" violet and cyan now. Kinda gives me flashbacks of something you criticized earlier. And again, you're seeking faults in what I said, despite what I said not being false. Yes, RGV would allow for a broader representation of violet, but also less of blue and cyan. (ROYGCBV). but this doesn't change the fact that RGB allows for a broader representation than RYB. So why don't we use RGV? We both know the answer to that. Violet is the most "expensive" light to produce monochromatically, and I don't have to tell you how we produce the violet hue in RGB. Therefor RGB is used in monitors, and not RYB or RGV. Using an additive model is more cost-effective when it comes to display technology, in part because it allows for non-monochromatic representation of colors. Backlit LED monitors were an attempt at using a subtractive model and they used a lot more electricity. It reduced the energy cost of the light sources but it cost more to modulate which wavelength passed through the cells(pixels) of the screen, a step not necessary for RGB LED screens.
Also, I never claimed that every RGB monitor uses the same "shade" of their respective hues. Red, Orange, Yellow, Green, Cyan, Blue and Violet are hues/categories/wavelength ranges/pure spectral colours. Of course there's variance, display screen technology has been advancing for decades. If you were a display screen developer, wouldn't you try light sources of every wavelength and test the range of colours you can make with each subset? To test the energy consumption of each subset? That's the interesting thing about applied science! RGB isn't arbitrairy. It's a result of experimentation.
I like the Sharp Quattron reference. It ties in nicely with the Natural Color System I mentioned earlier. It's an interesting development. It slightly increases the range of displayable colours (slightly, because of yellow's proximity to both red and green, both of which are over twice its' size as wavelength ranges). But the main reasoning behind the technology is that it more closely mimicks the way our brain interprets colour.
So again we reach the point where you've added a lot of snippets of information but the way you're delivering it appears more like an attempt to "correct" me rather than simply contributing to it because you're also interested in the topic. I'm sure if you work on your social skills you'd be wonderful to have a discussion with. There's absolutely no need for brain-measuring contests.
wtf ur alive yes pls more
I was like "thanks TH-cam recommendation that was amazing, I'll subscribe to that guy" then realized I somehow was already
purple haze all in my brain