Stop Colour Theory(partone.github.io)
partone.github.io
Stop Colour Theory
https://partone.github.io/StopColourTheory/StopColourTheory.html
35 comments
This has to be a joke. If not, the writer seems to be confused by the difference between additive & subtractive color systems.
I admit to not really having any idea what they are getting at in their proposed replacement system and don't see any way it could be helpful in predicting how colors mix in either paint or monitors.
I admit to not really having any idea what they are getting at in their proposed replacement system and don't see any way it could be helpful in predicting how colors mix in either paint or monitors.
Right, you say additive and subtractive, I think of it as emmissive colors vs reflective colors. That point seems to get ignored.
Some of this is interesting-- like every color is a frequency. But human vision systems are probably not innately tuned to perceive every frequency along a chunk of spectrum with an equal weight. Training and cognition probably influence our acuity in certain parts of the range.
Some of this is interesting-- like every color is a frequency. But human vision systems are probably not innately tuned to perceive every frequency along a chunk of spectrum with an equal weight. Training and cognition probably influence our acuity in certain parts of the range.
> like every color is a frequency
Hot pink isn't a frequency. It does not appear in the visible light spectrum. You can only produce it by combining multiple "impure" frequencies. You generally produce it by combining a spike of low-frequency red with a spike of high-frequency violet.
Human eyes try to "triangulate" a complex spectral analysis into an absolute position in a colour space, that colour space is the surface of a sphere or torus or something, and hot pink is "between" red and violet. Three-coordinate colour space is very much an artifact of humans, and how human eyes/brains work.
Hot pink isn't a frequency. It does not appear in the visible light spectrum. You can only produce it by combining multiple "impure" frequencies. You generally produce it by combining a spike of low-frequency red with a spike of high-frequency violet.
Human eyes try to "triangulate" a complex spectral analysis into an absolute position in a colour space, that colour space is the surface of a sphere or torus or something, and hot pink is "between" red and violet. Three-coordinate colour space is very much an artifact of humans, and how human eyes/brains work.
A sub-manifold of the Real Projective Plane RP2
It's not just cognition but physical limitations of our eye.
Through the effect of cognition and training are wastly underestimated in my experience, like look into what the color brown is.
Through the effect of cognition and training are wastly underestimated in my experience, like look into what the color brown is.
Precisely. That’s also why our screens use RGB emittors: that’s the frequencies our eyes have sensors for.
Pictures shown on a human screen must look really weird for a species with different color vision than us...
Pictures shown on a human screen must look really weird for a species with different color vision than us...
> Violet occupies the highest frequency of the visible light spectrum with a whopping frequency of 668-789THz6. With such a tremendous frequency, you would expect violet to be everywhere - but in reality, it's not found in the natural world with great prevalence. Lavender, eggplant, grape flavoured NerdsTM, and amethysts are among the few naturally occuring violet things.
This is a parody, isn't it? Because "frequency of a wave" has nothing to do with how common it is in nature. It's about how often a wave would switch between high and low, if you measured its amplitude at a fixed point.
Also, grape flavoured NERDS don't occur in nature.
This is a parody, isn't it? Because "frequency of a wave" has nothing to do with how common it is in nature. It's about how often a wave would switch between high and low, if you measured its amplitude at a fixed point.
Also, grape flavoured NERDS don't occur in nature.
Little purple crunchy fellas? Yeah I've seen them out hiking in Oregon
Bummed because his Pop Rocks buddy suicided in the rain.
I wasn't sure whether I was reading parody or mild Time Cube insanity until I got to this bit.
This is satire, but will only come off that way for readers with a knowledge of color theory.
I only have a very limited knowledge of color theory and while it was clear that it's messed up it isn't clear to be satire.
Honestly it sounds a lot like something people also into alternative facts would flock to and believe, especially if you mix in the conspiracy theory that color theory was intentionally made to manipulate you.
Honestly it sounds a lot like something people also into alternative facts would flock to and believe, especially if you mix in the conspiracy theory that color theory was intentionally made to manipulate you.
I do want to seriously address one of the points on this page. Water is, in fact, blue. It sometimes appears green because of algae and other organisms in it. Here is a better explanation than I could have come up with:
> The water is in fact not colorless; even pure water is not colorless, but has a slight blue tint to it, best seen when looking through a long column of water. The blueness in water is not caused by the scattering of light, which is responsible for the sky being blue. Rather, water blueness comes from the water molecules absorbing the red end of the spectrum of visible light. To be even more detailed, the absorption of light in water is due to the way the atoms vibrate and absorb different wavelengths of light. [0]
Likewise, while nitrogen is colorless, oxygen is actually blue as well, which, in turn, means that air is actually slightly blue (this is not the cause of the blue sky -- see [1]).
---
[0]: https://www.usgs.gov/special-topic/water-science-school/scie...
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rayleigh_scattering
> The water is in fact not colorless; even pure water is not colorless, but has a slight blue tint to it, best seen when looking through a long column of water. The blueness in water is not caused by the scattering of light, which is responsible for the sky being blue. Rather, water blueness comes from the water molecules absorbing the red end of the spectrum of visible light. To be even more detailed, the absorption of light in water is due to the way the atoms vibrate and absorb different wavelengths of light. [0]
Likewise, while nitrogen is colorless, oxygen is actually blue as well, which, in turn, means that air is actually slightly blue (this is not the cause of the blue sky -- see [1]).
---
[0]: https://www.usgs.gov/special-topic/water-science-school/scie...
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rayleigh_scattering
I got about three paragraphs into an explanation of additive/subtractive color, rayleigh scattering, pigments and iridescence, before I realized this has to be satire.
> Furthermore, organisations such as the International Commission on Illumination have made it their goal to keep Colour Theory at the forefront of colour science.
The illuminati!
The illuminati!
How did I read that sentence and 1) not question whether this was a real organization and 2) not catch that reference?
Big thanks for pointing this out.
Big thanks for pointing this out.
I'm about 70% certain that this is satire.
I'm not convinced. Those “facts” the article speaks about seem to me a matter of highly idiosyncratic belief. Or it's actually satire and I don't get it.
What is the goal? Will any of these make colours easier to use or understand?
I suspect the goal is to make fun of conspiracy theorists, since the issues they discuss are non-issues to anyone who paid attention in grade-school physics (or even art class). I imagine there are plenty of conspiracy theorists who will fall for it, since they are deeply biased to give in to their paranoia about figures of authority.
Loving this idea! I hope to see it implemented in monitors soon
This society seems to be on to something.
There might be a "to" too many in your statement. The answer probably is laughing gas, if not crack cocaine.
>a "to" too many
...seem be on to something?
funny one ... "seem to be on something"
I hope this gets traction!
Ahm in fact no. They are interdependent. Or else we would not have brown. Brown is a color which can not exist by itself.
Also additive and subtractive color theory are not opposing but two complementing part of a larger more complex color theory consulting of the additivity of light mixing the substraction of light abortion and the way our human mind further messed with how we see the work (e.g. brown).
A person saying that additive and substantive theory are two separate opposing theories implies this person doesn't understand colors or physics. In the end colors are the combination of the way light physically interacts with the world and the human mind.
Through on sad truth is that many education systems teach a lot of wrong things like wrong color circles. Or they more the fact that thinks like a color circle are just a convenient partial representation of the truth...