Do you ever stop and think about all the colors that have been

>>56029844
Men can't differentiate between 90% of these colors anyway.

>>56029844
No one can see past 36 bit color space anyways. 24bit is fine enough, back in my day colors were 4, 8 or 16 bit.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6HZHo07_V6Y

>>56029993
delete this immediately you fucking sexist pig


SAGE

>>56030048
Is this in Chinese? This is an English website.

>>56030038
This.
>>56029844
>Imagine how much farther we could be if we could see past the only shades that we've been taught exist.
As a home stager, I'd like to point out that we'd be no further. Us being able to see more colours would make absolutely no difference. We have instruments that can detect far more than our eyes could ever hope to.

>>56029844
What are you on about you absolute retard? Colours don't exist outside of computer screens? Step away from the computer and go outside.

>>56030038
>36 bit color space anyways

Color space isn't defined by bit depth you imbecile.

>>56030116
It's all in your mind anon.

>>56030116
If you take a photo of something, its colors are restricted to only what a computer can show. Its true color is lost forever, and replaced with something within a computer's color range. No one will ever see that color again.

>>56029993
They still exist though.

>>56029844
>Do you ever stop and think about all the colors that have been lost in history forever because computers can only display a certain amount of colors?
no

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UFTfJnkYS8A

>>56029844
We already have a solution to this, people just generally don't have monitors the can display more than 8^24 colors without dithering.

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

When we digitize an image, we are not required to store it in the 8-bit RGB color palette. We can choose whatever we want, then convert later for display. We have still lost a bunch of information in RAW -> jpg and whatnot, but we use better practices for art archival and whatnot.

In fact, we've developed some pretty elaborate systems for digitizing art, which use a hemisphere of cameras and lights, with each camera recording an image from a different angle when each light is flashed. In this way, we can represent the subsurface scattering and other properties of the material we're observing. This can sometimes reveal details hidden to the naked eye.

We even have the technology to do even better than that, and capture the full spectrum of light coming from an object, using a spectrometer scanned across a scene. Ie, we split light from a single source into a spectrum using a prism, then use luminosity sensors to capture the light in extreme detail. I don't think we generally use this process for digitizing art, but we could, and likely will in the future.

Tldr: it isn't as bad as you think, and it will get better.

>>56030139
We can produce colors that don't even exist in nature.

>>56029844
No because i'm an arts student and i know more than the RGB colors of a screen.
>tfw you'll never see or use International Klein Blue

>>56029993
I'm pretty sure men can differentiate (in the sense that if you showed the colors side by side, they'd notice they're different) as well as women. I think women just identify more colors as unique, rather than shades of the same named color.

I'm not 100% sure, though. I'll need to look it up.

>>56029844
>Do you ever stop and think about all the colors that have been lost in history forever because our eyes can only differentiate about 10 million colors
There, fixed that for you

>>56030184
>(((arts student)))

Paintfags know more than you.

File: 402835.image0.jpg (61KB, 350x375px) Image search: [Google]

61KB, 350x375px

>>56029844
The number of colors is not the problem. 24bit covers the sRGB space well, and increasing it wouldn't do anything.

Most visible colors are not representable in sRGB though.

Red, green and blue are not actually "the" primary colors. They have nothing to do with nature or optics.

They were chosen by a committee in the 1930s as a tradeoff between wide color representation and the cost of making the displays. The particular shade of blue was chosen over violet because violet was too difficult and expensive at the time.

>>56030038
No friend, everyone can see past 24, 32 and 36 bit color spaces. That's why no one ever confuses a monitor for a window.

No one can see the the difference between 24 and 36bit sRGB though.

as a colourblind person, i don't give a fuck.

unless someone makes a chart where "different" colours aren't different enough. then i get pissy.

>>56030117
Well color depth. You understand what I mean, no need to be a cunt.

>>56030213
back to /pol/ with you.
>inb4 crying

>>56030227
>That's why no one ever confuses a monitor for a window.

Bitdepth has hardly anything to do with that. It's all about the dynamic range. A 300 nit monitor can't compete with a 10,000-25,000 lux range Sun blast through the window.

>>56030286
Having a larger color space would only help for colorblind viewers.

If monitors could display a larger color space, we could represent further-apart colors than can currently be displayed.

Plus, even if you are colorblind (as long as you aren't a monochromat), using a bigger color space will still allow monitors to represent more colors you can see in nature.

>>56030227
>That's why no one ever confuses a monitor for a window.
Not him but https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cer8I4cX-vs
Also, I think it has more to do with the total lack of 3D.

>>56030364
yeah, no. i don't think you understand that colourblindness affects certain hues, so you can stretch the colour space all you want and i still won't see that particular hue. what actually does help the colourblind is if everyone working with colours would follow accessibility guidelines such as using the W3 validator.

>>56030619
If you are red-green colorblind, does it impact the sensitivity curve of your blue cones? If not, then a larger color space will still help.

My understanding is that most colorblindness is due to cones being oversensitive into each others' proper frequency ranges, so that you can't distinguish the colors.

>>56030227
>>56030337
>That's why no one ever confuses a monitor for a window.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=Cer8I4cX-vs

If it was me it would have never worked. The radiation levels for that meteor, give the size and speed, are all wrong. And the impact size and blast pattern doesn't fit with it either. Literally first thing I thought back when I saw this was "there is not enough violet for something of this magnitude".

>>56030740
in short, will i see more colours? yes, of course. will this help me avoid running into someone else's stupid colour design decisions? nope.

>>56030139
Unless you just look at whatever the picture was of

How does taken a picture of a tree take color away from that tree?

>>56031028
The spectral information of a tree emitted by a monitor won't be exact as the spectral information of the tree in the scene it was photographed at.

File: c2af9294d7b005116323d30c5b189c45.jpg (98KB, 600x450px) Image search: [Google]

98KB, 600x450px

>>56031028
"Taking color is kind of my thing. So back off! Unless you plan to work for me and got a good plan on how to stop Rainbow Brite from restoring color."

>>56030038

Wrong

Concetta Antico - Tetrachromacy

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

ok so light has like 2 dimensions, intensity and wavelength

could we create new color dimensions by introducing another dimension? What could that third dimension be?

>>56031028
Cameras are not perfect pass throughs for colour. Any medium is lossy.
My 6D, while outstanding colour performance and some of the best dynamic range on the market is still lossy.
There will always be colour loss.
We can't even see with our own eyes the available colours.
Humans are lossy machines in and of themselves.

File: colro.gif (3KB, 500x500px) Image search: [Google]

3KB, 500x500px

>>56030227
Color in the physical sense has infinite dimensions.

On the other hand, without help we can only distinguish a very narrow band of colors. Our receptors project the infinite-dimensional color space into a three dimensional color space. So what before was a spectral function, say Phi(f) is boiled down to a tuple (r, g, b), whereas r, g, b ~ an Integral over all visible colors of the spectral function multiplied by a response function specific to each receptor. The set of possible combination of (r, g, b) is not unlimited. It's actually very constrained, i.e. (roughly speaking) the color (0, 1, 0) (a perfect green) or (1, 0, 1) (a perfect magenta) does not exist. The reason is that the response functions are never zero. So if you look even at the purest green, your red receptors will still respond, so will your blue ones.

You can find a best basis for that vector space, and as it turns out this best basis would be monochromatic red, green and blue. Those colors are not arbitrary (they would be if negative light was possible. But it's not, so there is one best basis).

Fun fact: You can actually see colors that don't physically exist. Pic related. Stare at the green/magenta picture for those 10 seconds. When it switches to the other color the color you see will be more saturated than any physical color.

>>56029993

>>56030191
Pretty sure this is accurate