could you explain colors?

[etilit]

if i asked what a color is could you tell me?

 

[XMan101]

There was an interesting science doentary on the other week. Colour doesn't really exist, it's just the way our sensors interpret things.

It's also associated with language!! From experiments with various peoples the language used can actually influence whether there are even the same variety of colours perceived!

Here's the synopsis of the BBC programme

Roses are red, violets are blue but according to the latest understanding these colours are really an illusion. One that you create yourself.

Horizon reveals a surprising truth about how we all see the world. You may think a rose is red, the sky is blue and the grass is green, but it now seems that the colours you see may not always be the same as the colours I see. Your age, sex and even mood can affect how you experience colours.

Scientists have unlocked the hidden power that colours can have over your life - how red can make you a winner, how blue makes time speed up, and more.

http://anonym.to/?http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b013c8tb#synopsis

 

[Behrluvr]

Color is most definetly not an illusion, it is a real and measurable characteristic of a material. Materials which reflect electromagnetic particles/wave energy in the wavelength of 740 to 380 nanometers is what we call visible light or 'color'.

YOu can use a detector to measure the exact wavelengths represented in the sample, determine the various components and intensities the mix , and measure the exact output compared to color standards.

YOu can simply add up all the frequencies and use math transforms to determine the final output. This is independent of human interpretation. It is hard numbers and measurable.

 

[Tjerk12]

As everything in technics it is all a matter of appointments or rather definitions. We see light when electromagnetic radiation reaches our eyes. We only can see light with wavelengths between 380 nanometer (violet) and 740 nanometer (red). In principle most people see colors rather the same. So in technical way we are able to calibrate a TV or a Monitor, so that the colors are “natural”. We see colors, which are a mixture of Red, Green and Bleu (when you work in Photoshop you see the indication RGB). However printing a photo on paper, in technical way it is a different technique. The paint or the ink is a filter. The daylight passes the filter (paint of ink), reflects on the paper, passes the filter again and what you see is only the wavelength that is not filtered. The degree of reflection determines the brightness of the picture. Glossy paper gives a lot better pictures than a newspaper. More colors together mean a darker impression. This in contrast to a monitor, where the brightness improves. All colors together result on a monitor in a white color. That is the reason that for printing you have to use a YMCK (Yellow, Magenta, Cyan and Kontrast –black-) definition. There are (free on Google) conversion programs to change a RGB picture into a YMCK picture. They work fine as I've noticed experimentally.

 

[tiggertoo]

There was an interesting science doentary on the other week. Colour doesn't really exist, it's just the way our sensors interpret things. http://anonym.to/?http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b013c8tb#synopsis

isn't that really saying that a color exists but looks different to different eyes? one of my buddies works at a tv station and there is definitely a frequency that they can measure for each color and shade. if our sensors (guess you mean the eyes and brain) interpret something, and most of us see the same or nearly the same thing, then the color has to exist, we're not all part of a giant daydream or illusion.

 

[777]

There was an interesting science doentary on the other week. Colour doesn't really exist, it's just the way our sensors interpret things.

It's also associated with language!! From experiments with various peoples the language used can actually influence whether there are even the same variety of colours perceived!

Here's the synopsis of the BBC programme

Roses are red, violets are blue but according to the latest understanding these colours are really an illusion. One that you create yourself.

Horizon reveals a surprising truth about how we all see the world. You may think a rose is red, the sky is blue and the grass is green, but it now seems that the colours you see may not always be the same as the colours I see. Your age, sex and even mood can affect how you experience colours.

Scientists have unlocked the hidden power that colours can have over your life - how red can make you a winner, how blue makes time speed up, and more.

http://anonym.to/?http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b013c8tb#synopsis

Like in rainbows! There's more colours perceived nowadays than there used to be. The more words there is for colours more we see them too

 

[gb2000ie]

Color is most definetly not an illusion, it is a real and measurable characteristic of a material. Materials which reflect electromagnetic particles/wave energy in the wavelength of 740 to 380 nanometers is what we call visible light or 'color'.

YOu can use a detector to measure the exact wavelengths represented in the sample, determine the various components and intensities the mix , and measure the exact output compared to color standards.

YOu can simply add up all the frequencies and use math transforms to determine the final output. This is independent of human interpretation. It is hard numbers and measurable.

Actually - what we see as one colour shifts depending on conditions, we can trick our brains into seeing different wavelengths as being the same colour quit easily. Light is real, wavelengths are real, but the sensation of colour is probably entirely in our heads.

B.

 

[gb2000ie]

Here's just one example of the same wavelengths being interpreted by our brains as different colours: http://anonym.to/?http://www.colourtherapyhealing.com/colour/colour_fun/cube_illusion.php

B.

 

[Behrluvr]

Light is real, wavelengths are real, but the sensation of colour is probably entirely in our heads.

The 'sensation of color' has no meaning. Reflected electromagnetic energy of a given wavelength, frequency and amplitude is what determines color. It is a characteristic of the material world.

A leaf reflects "green" wavelengths of light whether anyone is around to see that leaf or not. Snow reflects all wavelengths of light over the entire Arctic whether any human is there in the Arctic to see it or not, snow remains white. Color is independent of human observation. It is measurable and quantifiable.

 

[gb2000ie]

The 'sensation of color' has no meaning. Reflected electromagnetic energy of a given wavelength, frequency and amplitude is what determines color. It is a characteristic of the material world.

A leaf reflects "green" wavelengths of light whether anyone is around to see that leaf or not. Snow reflects all wavelengths of light over the entire Arctic whether any human is there in the Arctic to see it or not, snow remains white. Color is independent of human observation. It is measurable and quantifiable.

Colour is not wavelength. Light has wavelengths, and our eyes can see only certain wavelengths, but we do not interpret the same wavelength as the same colour universally. The same blade of grass always reflects and absorbs the same wavelengths of light, and yet it does not always look the same colour. I proved this to you catagorically with the optical illusion I linked to. The IDENTICAL wavelength was both yellow and orange.

This proves, without any doubt at all, that there is MORE to colour than JUST the wavenlength of light. It proves catagorically that the colours we see are a product of BOTH our minds, AND the physicial properties of the light hitting our eyes.

I probably shouldn't be surprised that you're ignoring evidence again - you're quite the master at ostriching!

B.

 

[slimjim]

if i asked what a color is could you tell me?

Yes... it is the English word colour spelt incorrectly ;P:rofl:

 

[gb2000ie]

Yes... it is the English word colour spelt incorrectly ;P:rofl:

ROFL - love it - that's what I call thinking outside the box

B.

 

[Behrluvr]

Colour is not wavelength. Light has wavelengths,

Color is a universally accepted nomenclature for defined wavelengths of light. The general terms 'green' , 'red' , 'blue', etc are nebulous terms for bands or mixtures of electromagnetic radiation having specific wavelength, frequency, and amplitude. These characteristics are quantifiable. There is no arguing this point.

Any of these characteristics can be measured by a machine to determine the physical properties of wavelength, amplitude,and frequency. No human judgement is needed. . Its not open to whether a human can "see" the light. The human is irrelevant. A paint matching machine in a hardware store does this routinely. Recognizes the light and defines it according to standards.

We accept without question the concept of length - 1 meter = such and such. We accept without question the concept of weight - 1 ton = such and such. These are quanta which are measured and compared to a reproducible standard. Same principle with color.

 

[XMan101]

Color & colour were both in fact correct. It wasn't until it was written down formally and one side chose a certain dictionary, the others a different one, that it became different. The UK and Ireland adopted one method, and other English speaking countries in various degrees, while the USA kept the words without a U . In my opinion the U is unnecessary, but we're now stuck with it

 

[gb2000ie]

Color is a universally accepted nomenclature for defined wavelengths of light. The general terms 'green' , 'red' , 'blue', etc are nebulous terms for bands or mixtures of electromagnetic radiation having specific wavelength, frequency, and amplitude. These characteristics are quantifiable. There is no arguing this point.

Yes there is, and I did, with a solid example that clearly shows the coupling between colour and wavelength is loose, and that the colour we see is not simply defined by the wavelength of the light.

Any of these characteristics can be measured by a machine to determine the physical properties of wavelength, amplitude,and frequency. No human judgement is needed. . Its not open to whether a human can "see" the light. The human is irrelevant. A paint matching machine in a hardware store does this routinely. Recognizes the light and defines it according to standards.

Wavelength is measurable - it's measured in meters (or fractions there of), frequency is measurable - it's measured in Oscillations per second (i.e. Hertz), but 'yellowness' is not measurable. As my example CLEARLY PROVES, the same wavelength and frequency of light can be more or less yellow depending on the context.

We accept without question the concept of length - 1 meter = such and such. We accept without question the concept of weight - 1 ton = such and such. These are quanta which are measured and compared to a reproducible standard. Same principle with color.

No - because colour is in our heads, while wavelength is the physical property that is measurable. Colour is like happiness. We can measure the width of someone's smile, or their levels of Serotonin, and we can make large bands that say X amount of Serotonin is happy and Y amount is sad, but you can't read a level of Serotonin and then say "this is definitely ecstatic because it's 5 parts per million". The reading you read, and the yellowness I see are not directly connected, they are loosely coupled, just like Serotonin and happiness.

B.

 

[gb2000ie]

Color & colour were both in fact correct. It wasn't until it was written down formally and one side chose a certain dictionary, the others a different one, that it became different. The UK and Ireland adopted one method, and other English speaking countries in various degrees, while the USA kept the words without a U . In my opinion the U is unnecessary, but we're now stuck with it

I think it comes down to pronunciation - I pronounce colour in a way that is not symmetric around the l, so color makes no sense to me, that's not how I say it!

Just like pronunciations drift, so do spellings. It's all part of a language's natural evolution. Isolated communities begin to drift apart.

B.

 

[giu]

Well, it can be explained but the question is in what language or medium?

 

[slimjim]

I don't think that the plot needs explaining...