Results 1 to 10 of 10
  1. #1
    bob's Avatar
    bob Guest

    Default the way in which colour is seen



    hi there it`s me again and i have another question to ask about the way
    in which we see colour. As you well may know some people are colour
    blind and so i was just wondering how they see colour and whats the
    diffrence between wright and wrong.


  2. #2
    Martin Brown's Avatar
    Martin Brown Guest

    Default the way in which colour is seen

    bob wrote:


    Only one of them has a leading silent W.

    Colour blind people typically have either red-green (most common) or
    blue-yellow discrimination errors. One of the most famous tests being
    the Ishihara colour blindness test - see for example:

    http://www.toledo-bend.com/colorblind/Ishihara.html

    Regards,
    Martin Brown

  3. #3
    Roger Hamlett's Avatar
    Roger Hamlett Guest

    Default the way in which colour is seen


    "bob" <nighthunter312@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message
    news:1129542642.107775.46690@g14g2000cwa.googlegro ups.com...
    The human eye's vision, is based upon four sets of cells in the eye. One
    set (the rods), is the most sensitive, but has a relatively 'broadband'
    response centred on about 540nm. These also have the best response ot to
    380nm at the 'blue' end of the spectrum. These are what are involved in
    'night vision', giving no colour information. These are the commonest
    sensor in the eye. The other three sets, have narrower responses, centred
    on about 445, 535, and 575nm. These all have significant 'overlap'. These
    are concentrated into the central part of the FOV in particular. The
    nervous system behind the eye, processes these signals to give the
    'colour' detail. Now if (for instance), you have a narrow band light at
    560nm, this stimulates both the 'red', and 'green' cell responses, and we
    percieve it as 'yellow'. However a red, and green light mixed together,
    gives exactly the same response, yet has a completely different spectrum!.
    This 'trick', is the basis of all normal colour 'reproduction' methods,
    but shows that our 'perception' of colour, does not really represent what
    is there...
    The processing behind the eye, then plays a whole load more 'tricks'. The
    worst is that the eye will adjust the responses it allocates to the
    signals, based upon the brightest signal from each band, combined
    together, being 'white'. If you walk into a shop with incandescent
    lighting, and look at a piece of white paper, you see it as white, yet if
    you go outside, and look in through the window (if you can see the paper
    in the dim interior), it'll look quite red. Again you are not seeing the
    real colour, but your brain is attempting to make good use of the signal
    available to give a representation of colour, but the result is again that
    you do not really see the colour that is actually 'there'. This is similar
    to the 'white balance' control on a digital camera.
    Even if two people look at an object, and agree that this is 'green', all
    that is implied, is that both are getting the same signals triggered
    inside their brains, that a 'green' part of the spectrum generates for
    each of them. The actual perception does not have to be the same.
    Colour 'blindness', covers various faults with both the sensing chemistry,
    and the processing behind this. If (for instance), a person presented with
    two cards, of matching brightness, with one coloured to just about match
    the centre of the 'red' sensor, and the other coloured to match the centre
    of the 'green' sensor, and cannot distinguish these, you have the classic
    (most common) 'green - red' colour blindness. Failures in the 'blue'
    system, are the rarest form. The commonest types of colour blindness are
    genetic, and because of the way the gene combinations occur, these are
    much more common in men (about 1 in 8 men, against 1 in 200+ women).
    Failures do not have to be 'complete', with some people just lacking
    sensitivity to a particular colour, but still being able to detect it.
    If you are not colour blind, the following site, has example images,
    showing how some forms affect what is 'seen' :
    http://stuweb3.cmp.uea.ac.uk/laj-web...lindness.html#

    Best Wishes



  4. #4
    nytecam's Avatar
    nytecam Guest

    Default the way in which colour is seen


    Colour blind people typically have either red-green (most common) or
    blue-yellow discrimination errors. One of the most famous tests being
    the Ishihara colour blindness test - see for example:

    http://www.toledo-bend.com/colorblind/Ishihara.html

    Regards,
    Martin Brown

    Thanks Martin - a most interesting site and sight which I seem
    luckily, to pass with flying colours;-)

    Nyteca

    --
    nytecam

  5. #5
    Paul Schlyter's Avatar
    Paul Schlyter Guest

    Default the way in which colour is seen

    In article <1129542642.107775.46690@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups. com>,
    bob <nighthunter312@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:


    We don't know .... each of us don't even know how anyone else (color-blind
    or not) perceives color. All we can agree or disagree about is the *names*
    we assign to various colors.


    Neither of them is right or wrong - they just perceive colors differently.

    People with so-called normal color vision (trichromats) naturally see
    a wider range of colors than color-blind people (dichromats or
    monochromats). So we tend to think that trichromats are "right" and
    dichromats/monochromats are "wrong" in their perception of color. So
    we call the di/monochromats "color-blind".

    But there's another (very rare) anomaly in color vision: the
    tetrachromats. They don't merely have three fundamental colors in
    their retinae - they have four! And compared to them, we trichromats
    are "color-blind"! The tetrachromats see all colors we see, plus a
    lot of others we are unable to see. No, they don't see any
    wavelengths of light we don't see, but they are able to perceive
    finer differences in the wavelength composition of the light than we
    and therefore they see more colors. But we really don't know how the
    tetrachromats perceive the world since we have no way to communicate
    that information from one individual to another. However we know
    that the tetrachromats can distinguish more colors than the
    trichromats can. And to the tetrachromats, color TV and color
    slides/prints must appear quite inaccurate, since these things use
    only three fundamental colors.


    And it doesn't stop there: some species of tropical fish have no less
    than *five* fundamental colors in their retinae! What colors they
    see we cannot even imagine - compared to them, even the tetrachromats
    are "color-blind" -- and the trichromats are hoplelessly color-blind!


    I hope you understand that there are no "right" or "wrong" about color
    perception - there are merely different ways to perceive color. COlor
    is not an inherent property of the objects e look at, it's a perception
    created in our eye-brain system.



    Finally, there's one kind of "color-blindness" which really is no
    colorblindness, even from the perspective of a trichromat: these
    people are trichromats too but with sensitivity curves of the
    fundamental colors different from normal trichromats. So these
    people are unable to distinguish colors we can distinguish - o.t.o.h.
    we are unable to distinguish colors they can distinguish. So, as
    seen from their perspective, we are somewhat colorblind too....

    --
    ----------------------------------------------------------------
    Paul Schlyter, Grev Turegatan 40, SE-114 38 Stockholm, SWEDEN
    e-mail: pausch at stockholm dot bostream dot se
    WWW: http://stjarnhimlen.se/

  6. #6
    Paul Schlyter's Avatar
    Paul Schlyter Guest

    Default the way in which colour is seen

    In article <rjL4f.3716$R46.1719@newsfe2-gui.ntli.net>,
    Roger Hamlett <rogerspamignored@ttelmah.demon.co.uk> wrote:


    Yellow is actually an interesting case.... artists frequently
    considers four fundamental colors: red, green, blue, yellow.
    Physicists and technicians consider only three: red, green, blue
    (additive) or cyan, magenta, yellow (subtractive). So which ones are
    right?

    In a way, both are right!

    If we (additively) mix green and blue, we see that as green-blue.

    If we (additively) mix red and blue, we see that as "red-blue" or purple.

    But if we (additively) mix red and green, we don't perceive that as
    "red-green", but as a new color: yellow. How come?

    Some of the most basic image processing in the eye is performed in
    the retina, which can be considered part of the brain. The color
    yellow is created in the retina. No, there are no "yellow-sensitive"
    cones. However, adjacent red-sensitive and green-sensitive cones are
    cross connected in such a way that if they are stimulated approximately
    equally, a new color signal, "yellow", is created in our retina, and
    then propagated to the brain.

    That's why both the physicist/technician with their three fundamental
    colors and the artists with their four fundamental colors are right: there
    are three different kinds of cones in the retina: red-, green- and blue-
    sensitive. But there are four different kinds of color signals which
    reach the brain: red, green, blue, yellow.

    Human color vision is a quite complex subject!



    Indeed not .....

    To represent a color, three numbers are needed for normal color vision:
    red, green and blue intensity. For a dichromat, two numbers are needed
    and for a monochromat (total color blindness) one number is needed. For
    a tetrachromat (an extremely rare but nevertheless existent anomalous
    color vision among humans) four numbers are needed, and for pentachromats
    (nonexistent among humans but some species of tropical fish are known
    to have this kind of vision) five numbers are needed.

    What "really is there" is a spectrum. And to accurately represent a
    spectrum a lot of numbers are needed. In principle, an infinite
    amount of numbers are needed, but in practice a finite amount of
    numbers will do well - the more detail the spectrum contains, the more
    numbers are needed. If we need to represent the entire visual range
    from 4000 to 7000 Angstroms, with 1 Angstrom resolution, we need 3000
    numbers. If 100 Angstrom resolution is enough, 30 numbers are
    needed, and if 1000 Angstrom resolution is enough, 3 numbers are
    needed - the last case vaguely mimics the three fundamental colors
    of the eye.





    That's because there is no colour "actually there". Colour is a perception
    in our eyes, not an inherent property of an object. What is "actually there"
    is a spectrum.

    There are many examples of two (or more) objects perceived to have
    exactly the same colour (as far as the human eye can perceive) in one
    kind of illumination (e.g. daylight) but who get colors different
    enough to be easily distinguishable from one another in another kind
    of illumination (e.g. fluorescent light). This is a clear example
    that colors of objects aren't inherent properties of the objects but
    are dependend on how the objects are illuminated. If we take a
    high-resolution spectrum of the light sources and of the reflectances
    of the objects, we can easily determine why the two objects appear to
    have the same color in one illumination but a different color in
    another illumination.

    One extreme example: bring a vividly colored object, having vivid
    red, green, yellow, blue - all the "colors of the rainbow", into a
    room or other location illuminated *only* by low pressure sodium
    lights. Make sure no other light source illuminates that place.
    Look at the vividly colored object there -- the first time you do
    this, it's quite amazing to see that all the colors vanish and seem
    to be replaced by shades of gray. Bring a flashlight too: now light
    the flashlight and see the colors "magically" reappear.



    Not even that is impled -- all that's implied is that these two people
    have agreed to label what they see as "green".


    No - it can be widely different. We have no way to communicate this
    information reliably from one individual to another. All we can do
    is to ask the person to give a name for the color he sees. Or we can
    show him two or more colors and ask him if he sees any difference -
    the latter method is commonly used to judge whether a person is
    color-blind or not.


    --
    ----------------------------------------------------------------
    Paul Schlyter, Grev Turegatan 40, SE-114 38 Stockholm, SWEDEN
    e-mail: pausch at stockholm dot bostream dot se
    WWW: http://stjarnhimlen.se/

  7. #7
    Cousin Ricky's Avatar
    Cousin Ricky Guest

    Default the way in which colour is seen

    Paul Schlyter wrote:

    I sometimes wonder if i have an unusual sensitivity curve under
    low-light conditions. At night, i often perceive objects as blue where
    written references or other observers describe the object as white or
    green. The Orion Nebula, for example, appears turquoise to me, and
    mercury vapor lamps at a distance appear blue-white.

    The canonical "white" star, Vega, appears a strong blue to me, although
    i personally think that it's the person who divised the B-V system who
    had the anomalous color vision!


    Clear skies!

    --
    ------------------- Richard Callwood III --------------------
    ~ U.S. Virgin Islands ~ USDA zone 11 ~ 18.3N, 64.9W ~
    ~ eastern Massachusetts ~ USDA zone 6 (1992-95) ~
    --------------- http://cac.uvi.edu/staff/rc3/ ---------------


  8. #8
    Martin Brown's Avatar
    Martin Brown Guest

    Default the way in which colour is seen

    Cousin Ricky wrote:

    I agree. For me the OIII nebula emission (possibly mixed with some
    H-beta) is right on the edge of the dark green/turquoise dividing line.
    I tend to see it as turquoise though a few bright planetaries look apple
    green to me.

    I just see Vega as painfully bright with no obvious colour.

    Regards,
    Martin Brown

  9. #9
    Paul Schlyter's Avatar
    Paul Schlyter Guest

    Default the way in which colour is seen

    In article <dj28en$m4u$1@newsg3.svr.pol.co.uk>,
    Martin Brown <|||newspam|||@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote:

    Not even white? :-)



    --
    ----------------------------------------------------------------
    Paul Schlyter, Grev Turegatan 40, SE-114 38 Stockholm, SWEDEN
    e-mail: pausch at stockholm dot bostream dot se
    WWW: http://stjarnhimlen.se/

  10. #10
    Paul Schlyter's Avatar
    Paul Schlyter Guest

    Default the way in which colour is seen

    In article <1129591632.805993.7590@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.c om>,
    Cousin Ricky <rickyusvi@yahoo.com> wrote:


    You could very well have blue-sensitive cones which are more
    sensitive to low light levels than most people. We have individual
    variations in most of our physical properties, and most likely also
    in our color vision.

    If you have, or some time will get, access to a spectrometer or
    a monochromator, you could check out the wavelength limits of your
    vision and compare with the normal wavelength limits - particularly
    the blue end of the spectrum ought to be interesting to you.


    One special case of more blue-sensitive vision than normal occurs
    among people who've had their eye lens removed in cataract surgery.
    The eye lens (particularly the yellowish aging eye lens) is the prime
    absorber in our eye at the blue end of the visible spectrum. Some of
    these people have been able to see a bit into the near ultra-violet.
    So what's the color of near ultraviolet light? They report the color
    as being indistinguishable from very deep blue.


    --
    ----------------------------------------------------------------
    Paul Schlyter, Grev Turegatan 40, SE-114 38 Stockholm, SWEDEN
    e-mail: pausch at stockholm dot bostream dot se
    WWW: http://stjarnhimlen.se/

 

 

Similar Threads

  1. Milky Way in colour
    By A.S.I.G.N. Observatory in forum Astrophotography Forum
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 06-16-2009, 04:34 PM
  2. Colour Moon
    By jochta in forum UK Astronomy Forum
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 05-24-2007, 11:17 PM
  3. planetary colour
    By Mark Parrish in forum UK Astronomy Forum
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 12-20-2003, 04:46 PM
  4. Got my 1st scope,what to look at+will there be colour?
    By kevj in forum UK Astronomy Forum
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 11-02-2003, 03:54 PM
  5. Colour of Mars
    By Chotechai in forum Amateur Astronomy Forum
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 07-30-2003, 06:34 AM

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Powered by vBulletin« Version 4.2.0
Powered by vBulletin«
All times are GMT. The time now is 04:37 AM.