 |
| Register | Login | |||||
 |
Main
| Memberlist
| Active users
| Calendar
| Chat
| Online users Ranks | FAQ | ACS | Stats | Color Chart | Search | Photo album |
|
| | ||
|
| Register | Login | |||||
|
Main
| Memberlist
| Active users
| Calendar
| Chat
| Online users Ranks | FAQ | ACS | Stats | Color Chart | Search | Photo album |
|
| | ||
| 0 users currently in General Chat. |
| Acmlm's Board - I3 Archive - General Chat - True Color. |
New poll |  |  |
| Pages: 1 2 3 | Add to favorites | Next newer thread | Next older thread |
| User | Post | ||
Snow Tomato Snap Dragon                    Since: 12-31-05 From: NYC Last post: 6489 days Last view: 6475 days |
| ||
| I was told that there's a chemical in the sky that makes it blue.
Guess not? So that makes it AUS: 1 USA: -1 |
|||
|
||bass Administrator   Since: 11-17-05 From: Salem, Connecticut Last post: 6470 days Last view: 6469 days |
| ||
Originally posted by Jin DoganThis is totally and utterly untrue. You are TOTALLY MISINTERPRETING stellar physics here. In other news, the "refresh rate" of the human eye (if you can even call it that) is (very) roughly in the 30 to 40 hz range. Let this go as a message to all you people who bitch about 60hz monitor refreshes and claim you can see it flicker. You can't. It's all in your head. EDIT: BTW: If you wan't to really know why the sky is blue, read up on the refraction of light in the presence of oxygen, nitrogen and humidity. (edited by ||bass on 02-19-06 11:13 PM) |
|||
Sin Dogan   860  Uoodo Original Blend Armored Trooper Votoms Canned Coffee! Since: 11-17-05 Last post: 6473 days Last view: 6472 days |
| ||
| Oops?
I forget, but it's something like there are other colors and some stuff about wavelengths and stuff. Yea. |
|||
|
||bass Administrator Since: 11-17-05 From: Salem, Connecticut Last post: 6470 days Last view: 6469 days |
| ||
| There are not "other colors". What you see is what you get. The visible spectrum is not hiding from you. If that were the case, artificial lighting would be able to reveal some kind of "hidden" colors. It just doesn't work that way.
I honestly have no idea what you seem to be thinking of. The only thing that might be similar to what you are talking about is the fact that different stars give off different light spectrums. (Compare red giant stars to blue dwarf stars.) But that's as far as it goes. The light from the suns is different, ergo things on the planets that orbit them will look different. Presumably if you were near a red dwarf, colors would appear much redder. This goes without saying though. That's fine, but "extra" colors? Whoever told you that is just full of BS. We can already see the whole visible spectrum, there are no dead spots in our vision. We can see them all.... really. |
|||
Tommathy Since: 11-17-05 From: Cloud Nine, Turn Left and I'm There~ Last post: 6469 days Last view: 6468 days |
| ||
| On sensory organs:
There are an infinite number of dominant wavelengths, so one would need an infinite number of receptors. And if there was a completely new sensory organ that perceived light without rods and cones, it would *still* need an infinite number of mechanisms to account for each possibility of light. Also, what do you mean by "...that grass isn't really green and blood isn't really red..."? The *definition* of color is the wavelengths of light that are emitted/reflected from an object. Nothing has some sort of *intrinsic* color out on which we're missing. On language: The human language is the short-hand by which we can meaningfully comprehend the world, not the limitation. Again, even if words are a *coarse* form of parsing information that neglects the infinity of variation of light, the information *lost* by this coarse parsing is insignificant to the information *gained* by our ability to talk about color in discrete amounts. Also, english does have a color for light blue: cerulean, cyan, teal, cornflower, aquamarine, or turquoise. English is one of the most *rich* languages in the world, mostly because the English were notorious pirates and imperialists and stole words from across the globe. On stars: Indeed, there is no star so *specific* in its radiation that it completely leaves out or adds certain wavelengths of electromagnetic radiation. Also, even if there were stars that did that, why in all Creation would humans have devoloped the capacity to sense these extant bits of light? |
|||
BMF54123 Since: 11-18-05 From: MOOGLES Last post: 6469 days Last view: 6468 days |
| ||
Originally posted by ||bassI have to dispute this one. When I use a monitor running at 60Hz, I can quite clearly see the refresh in my peripheral vision, and it gives me a nasty headache. It looks like black bands running down the screen really, really fast. However, once I turn the refresh rate up to 75Hz or higher, the flicker disappears, as do my headaches. I have always been able to tell if someone is running at 60Hz without even opening the monitor menu/display properties, and I doubt this 100% success rate is "all in my head." I honestly believe some people's vision runs at a higher "framerate" than others. A friend of mine can recognize 60Hz just as well as I can (our hearing also seems to be more sensitive than normal, particularly to high-pitched electronic noises, like CRT hum), whereas my mother would be perfectly fine running an ancient monitor at 56Hz. If it's "all in our head," why do monitor manufacturers even allow higher refresh rates? |
|||
|
Tommathy Since: 11-17-05 From: Cloud Nine, Turn Left and I'm There~ Last post: 6469 days Last view: 6468 days |
| ||
| What ||bass is forgetting is that visual (and audio) acuity towards frequencies decreases as one gets older; his listed number is but an average value.
In a similar vein click! |
|||
|
||bass Administrator Since: 11-17-05 From: Salem, Connecticut Last post: 6470 days Last view: 6469 days |
| ||
| My theory on higher refresh rates is so you can run vsync'd applications with higher fps. Also consider, they allow higher refreshes so they can charge suckers who think it makes a difference extra money. There's a difference between higher then normal vision (which many people have) and DOUBLE normal (which is what it would take to see a 60hz refresh).
I know many of you genuinely think you can see the difference and nothing I say is going to convince you otherwise. I'm done debating this particular point. If you want to think you're special for having somehow impossibly superior vision, go for it. I'm just laying down the facts as they are, it's up to you to belive them. PS: The visual cortex of the brain itself normally operates are frequincies of around 12hz and never operates in ranges high enough to detect a 60hz flicker. Only neocortical brain cells can work that fast (60hz) and even then will not commonly pass the 40hz mark. PPS: While 60hz and 75hz look exactally the same, many screens make this anoying noise when you run them at anything higher than 60hz. |
|||
|
||bass Administrator Since: 11-17-05 From: Salem, Connecticut Last post: 6470 days Last view: 6469 days |
| ||
Originally posted by TommathyNo I wasn't forgetting that. You'll note that I did give a RANGE of frequincies and not a specific one. Way to not read my post. Also, that device would be so incredibly ilegal in the US. You could most definately get sued all the way into bankrupcy for setting up a machine like that in this country. Plus a machine like that would get you sued a second time by the ASPCA for being cruel to animals. (Bet you that thing is torture for dogs.) I'm surprised that it lasted so long at that McDonalds in the UK. Over here, the kids would have shot the thing out after about 3 minutes. |
|||
HyperHacker Star Mario Finally being paid to code in VB! If only I still enjoyed that. <_< Wii #7182 6487 4198 1828 Since: 11-18-05 From: Canada, w00t! My computer's specs, if anyone gives a damn. STOP TRUNCATING THIS >8^( Last post: 6469 days Last view: 6469 days |
| ||
I can't actually see a difference at 60hz, but it makes my eyes hurt after a while.  And I can hear screens at a low refresh much more often than a high one. I can always tell when a TV is on, even if it's showing a black screen, because I can hear the high-pitched whine it makes; most TVs have a low refresh rate. Also, I heard the average person's refresh rate is a mere 24hz. Though if this is true, why don't screens look odd when they're not refreshing at a multiple of 24hz?
I've also thought about people percieving different colours, like that what one person sees as red may not be what someone else sees, but they both call it red. Really, the only way you could know is to tap into someone's brain and actually see what they see, or inject an image directly into their brain. (I've seen this done on TV; a simple image was 'uploaded' into a person's brain. Even though they were blind, they could see the image. But since they were blind, it doesn't really answer the question.) One of the biggest vision-related questions in my mind is what did the first images produced by digital camera look like? Were they way different than expected? Since digital cameras work a lot differently than our own eyes, they may see things differently. (Of course the design would have been quickly 'corrected' to see things as we do.) And I laugh at people using that machine to drive kids away. Great, I'll simply take my business elsewhere. (Even though I'm quite tolerant of high-pitched noises.) |
|||
Koneko Plasma Whisp  Since: 11-17-05 From: Tartarus. We get faster internet than you. Last post: 6469 days Last view: 6469 days |
| ||
| Sonic Teenager Deterrent.
I wonder what kind of acronym we could make out of that...? |
|||
|
||bass Administrator Since: 11-17-05 From: Salem, Connecticut Last post: 6470 days Last view: 6469 days |
| ||
| That machine is really stupid. I can't belive something like that is legal in the UK. Talk about a barbaric country. Damn.
Let me propose one example. Sound like that must be TORTURE on a dog. So how is a blind person with an assistance dog supposed to get around near the building? It's putting someone in danger. Think that's bad? How about baby torture? |
|||
Ailure Mr. Shine I just want peace...  Since: 11-17-05 From: Sweden Last post: 6469 days Last view: 6468 days |
| ||
| It affects quite some young adults too probably, and maybe even a few rare middle-age men and women with perfect ears.
It should be outlawed. It's not effective anyway, they used thoose to scare away rats from plantations and it worked at first but the rats got used to it. |
|||
|
Alastor Fearless Moderator Hero  Since: 11-17-05 From: An apartment by DigiPen, Redmond, Washington Last post: 6469 days Last view: 6469 days |
| ||
| I would be amazingly surprised if that article isn't satirical. It just sounds so fake. Especially the acronym. | |||
Kutske Since: 11-19-05 Last post: 6816 days Last view: 6816 days |
| ||
Tommathy: Also, what do you mean by "...that grass isn't really green and blood isn't really red..."? The *definition* of color is the wavelengths of light that are emitted/reflected from an object. Nothing has some sort of *intrinsic* color out on which we're missing. What I mean is, color only exists insofar as visual perception exists. Color is merely the interpretation by our eyes of different wavelengths of light. It's like, a light particle doesn't have some intrinsic trait to it which we can call "color;" what we know as color is just our perception of that light. If humans didn't have eyeballs and we were studying the concept of light, we would never attribute something called "color" to it because color only exists in our perception of light. It's like how we associate fire with heat, when in actuality, it's what's burning that's giving off the heat -- what we know as "fire" is merely visible gas produced by the object which is burning. I dunno, maybe I'm not making sense to you, but I'm making sense to me. Tommathy: Also, english does have a color for light blue: cerulean, cyan, teal, cornflower, aquamarine, or turquoise. Cerulean, cyan and such are all names for specific colors, and the color names themselves are up to interpretation (Crayola's teal is different from a paint manufacturer's teal is different from a cell phone skin's teal is different from teal as defined in html, etc.) What I mean is that we recognize maroon, red and pink as distinct colors while in reality, they're merely variations of red, while at the same time, we don't give unique variation names to shades of green -- apart from, of course, invented colors used by paint/crayon/etc. manufacturers. To English speakers, cyan is light blue but pink isn't light red, and brown isn't dark orange. *shrugs* Makes sense to me. Tommathy: Indeed, there is no star so *specific* in its radiation that it completely leaves out or adds certain wavelengths of electromagnetic radiation. Of course, you can't exactly prove that until a human stands on the surface of another planet in another solar system with his pack of Crayolas and draws a picture, noting discrepencies between what he sees when he draws, and the names of the crayons he's using. HyperMackerel: I can always tell when a TV is on, even if it's showing a black screen, because I can hear the high-pitched whine it makes; most TVs have a low refresh rate. This brings up an interesting point. See, all my life I've noticed that I can tell whether a television is on, even if the screen is blank, the sound is muted, I can't see the light it's casting and I'm in another room. I've always wondered why that is. I can also tell whether a light is on without seeing it, even if I'm totally deprived of sight. Now, while we mostly interpret sound waves with our ears and lightwaves with our eyes, that doesn't mean that sound and lightwaves only affect our eyes and ears. My hypothesis is that the human epidermis can detect sound and lightwaves to some degree, even in the absence of sight or hearing. Of course, I have no scientific knowledge with which to base this hypothesis on, but it makes sense to me. I know, at least, that when I sense that a light is on even though I can't see it, it's because I can feel the light on my skin. Not the heat from the light, I can feel the light itself. But maybe I'm just crazy, because I also claim to be able to predict the weather in my general area for up to the next twelve hours simply by smelling the air outside. HyperMackerel: I've also thought about people percieving different colours, like that what one person sees as red may not be what someone else sees, but they both call it red. Really, the only way you could know is to tap into someone's brain and actually see what they see, or inject an image directly into their brain. Dagnabbit, ya varmint, read this. That's fully and utterly untrue, it's physically impossible. Bass Pipes: That machine is really stupid. I can't belive something like that is legal in the UK. Talk about a barbaric country. Damn. Yeah, those dang Brits are so barbaric, what with their corporal punishment and their glorification of nationalistic-driven war. Oh wait... |
|||
|
Tommathy Since: 11-17-05 From: Cloud Nine, Turn Left and I'm There~ Last post: 6469 days Last view: 6468 days |
| ||
| Well, obviously color, defined as "the interpretation of wavelengths by the eye" can only exist if there are, well, eyes. I'm still not quite so sure why that's profound. It's sort of like saying that speech, defined as "the interpretation of sound by the brain" only exists if we have brains...
As for the nomenclature of color: " (Crayola's teal is different from a paint manufacturer's teal is different from a cell phone skin's teal is different from teal as defined in html, etc.)" That's true of even red, blue, and green. Not everyone thinks of blue as 0000FF, they recognize a range of light in that spectrum as blue. Also, at some point in the development of language and the history of the English, it must've been important to distinguish between something that is red and something that is pink as opposed to the difference between something that is vertegris and something that is olive. "Of course, you can't exactly prove that until a human stands on the surface of another planet in another solar system with his pack of Crayolas and draws a picture, noting discrepencies between what he sees when he draws, and the names of the crayons he's using." Under what possible conditions would *added* color exist, and why in all Creation would we have the ability to perceive this added content? |
|||
|
||bass Administrator Since: 11-17-05 From: Salem, Connecticut Last post: 6470 days Last view: 6469 days |
| ||
Originally posted by KutskeNO! No no no no no. In proving that, you would disprove 100+ years of accepted science. Optics doesn't work that way. A red giant might make things look more reddish, etc, but that's as far as physics says it can go. In other news, that wiki article says the military uses color blind people as snipers. That RULES. PS: Kutske, nice going TOTALLY MISUNDERSTANDING what Hyperhacker was trying to say about concious perception. That link has absoloutly NOTHING in it to address what he asked. (edited by ||bass on 02-21-06 09:22 AM) |
|||
NSNick Gohma IF ALL ELSE FAILS USE BOOZE  Since: 11-17-05 From: Last post: 6470 days Last view: 6470 days |
| ||
| On the topic of color, I read an article a while back noting that women can see more shades of color than men, perhaps a remnant of our hunter-gatherer days, when they would usually pick berries, where seeing different shades would tell the difference between poisonous and non-poisonous berries.
It was interesting. |
|||
|
||bass Administrator Since: 11-17-05 From: Salem, Connecticut Last post: 6470 days Last view: 6469 days |
| ||
Originally posted by NSNickDo you mean see more shades, or more easily differentiate between different shades? I assume you mean the latter even though you said the former. It's a small almost semantic difference but the latter sounds very plausable while a very literal interpretation of the former would mean quite a bit of accepted biology was wrong. |
|||
Tarale 2710 Affected by 'Princess Bitch-Face Syndrome' ++++!! Persona non grata Since: 11-17-05 From: Adelaide, Australia Last post: 6469 days Last view: 6468 days |
| ||
Originally posted by ||bassOriginally posted by NSNickDo you mean see more shades, or more easily differentiate between different shades? I assume you mean the latter even though you said the former. It's a small almost semantic difference but the latter sounds very plausable while a very literal interpretation of the former would mean quite a bit of accepted biology was wrong. Well, us girls certainly seem to use more names for colors 
I've yet to hear a bloke debate the difference between mauve, lavender and lilac. Most blokes call it "purple" |
| Pages: 1 2 3 | Add to favorites | Next newer thread | Next older thread |
| Acmlm's Board - I3 Archive - General Chat - True Color. |
| |
