That is certainly one school of thought. I'm absolutely a cynical person. This color I would postulate is a superpower of the human brain. Were it not, evolution would've branched and gone the way of the Neanderthal. Also, by cynical human, I am referring to classical cynicism - that of Diogenes.
Fun fact: Magenta looks similar to violet because our eyes red cones actually are slightly sensitive to violet light and thus violet is also the same as having red and blue light mixed together. This is how LCDs are able to display violet.
It exists, just in your brain. Or you can say it exists as two different wavelengths of light. I think it’s strange to say green exists because there is a wavelength of light. If there were no sentient beings in the universe but that wavelength existed, would the color green still exist? I don’t think so, so I think existence “just in our brains” is not weird at all, because the color green existing without a brain to experience the color makes even less sense.
Dark Ninja Spectral colors exist without a spectator and don’t need a philosophical deconstruction. They are names of specific wave frequencies - nothing more. The non-spectral colors are an invention of our brain to try to classify things around you. They do not exist - they are just two different wave frequencies that happen to be emitted close to an other. A brain seeks for useful chunks of information - if it „sees“ a distinct pattern it uses it to simplify the input. Most of optical illusions work that way.
Magenta is a glitch palette when the brain tries to access the wavelength value that doesn't exist, so it pulls random data that we perceive as magenta. This is the most famous example of a Red and Blue glitch known as Missing Color or "MissingCo." for short.
You beat me to it! If we want take this video further, any color that is not fully saturated is also “made up,” because there is no corresponding single light wave. For example although red is on the spectrum, light red, a.k.a. pink, is not; it requires an infusion of other wavelengths to dilute the red.
@@anonymousscientist7912 Yes, it is different. Mixing paints is actually more complicated, but quite interesting. There's no one simple model that can be used to explain it.
I find this hilarious, magenta / pink is a color! Of course it is, you can see it! But it's red light and blue light mixed together. You can only make it with two wavelengths, the same reason why white isn't in the rainbow. White is a mixture of all colors. And also, every color is something made up, every color is made from your brain!
You should make a video about brown too, since it’s just dark orange but if we have a word for brown in a language we know we’ll see brown as an own colour, not as dark orange. Or make a video about how knowing different languages make us see different colours, such as the Himba language having completely different categories for colours compared to Indo-European languages.
Basically, our brains don't see wavelengths of light. We see combinations of three points, and so our brains don't care if there's wavelengths longer or shorter than red or blue-just that Magenta is the color associated with the long and short cones being stimulated.
If i really think about magenta, it starts to feel like reddish-blue, or blueish-red. There is a similar thing with a blueish-yellow or reddish-green (but they are actually possible only if you cross your eyes on two squares), maybe our brains made up magenta since we can see this color in nature more?
Okey dokey, lets see what we got baking in the oven. Yeah, ya, ya, ya, ya. Not yet a match. Ok well, it looks like we are about one degree Celsius off on that ah magenta color. I guess I am gonna have to quantify the 7F reading on this and that would run it through the surface gravity viscosity. Ah, I could plug it into the Marshall formula, and that would ah, that would give me a more accurate mix design. To me they're just a little bit off, what I can do on that is run a pap smear, ah test and than ah, tone it down a little bit.
I noticed some blue inside the magenta when the flower was displayed but nothing of pure red. I might have only imagined it, but I wonder if our brains create the color magenta as an average value of some kind between red and blue. Something unique to each person as we all see color a little bit different from each other.
So here's a question. If humans see magenta because of a quirk of our brains and light receptors and we know things in the world are what we humans call magenta, what do other creatures see? Do they see magenta or is it one of those things where other creatures see something totally different that confers some survival or evolutionary advantage we can't easily detect because of how our perception works?
So is this why magenta looks so different on the screen from its printed version? And are there people out there whose brains don't combine red and blue, causing them to see magenta the same way we might see two images in one of those lenticular graphic things?
Magenta isn't a color because redish green is usually impercievsble also yellowish blue magenta is impercievsble Because of the "Forbidden Colors" which humans are unable to see 13 different combinations of colors, this our eyes perceive what is true by mixing colors sometimes rather then tinting them
But is magenta pink? Or is pink magenta? I always though that magenta is a kind of pink that is very bright and neony. Is it the other way around? That pink is just a more muted magenta kind of colour?
Not exactly. It's taking the hardware available to it and mapping it. It's not a colour wheel so much as a triangle - The red we see is a solitary activation of the red cones and no others. So it we see 50% red, 50% blue, the triangle would "point" to purple. It doesn't make a wheel by choice, just by the fact that all triangles have circles in them.
If you think about it like "Our brains stop at blue, then add red after", then purple and violet make sense. So if we get a color greater in frequency than blue, then we get blue plus whatever is left over after (mostly red). I presume after violet (i.e. ultraviolet) the wavelengths no longer interact with our cones altogether.
Since the brain has no idea what the world actually looks like it has no idea that colors are only on a single spectrum. So since it sometimes get the red+blue-green signal... It doesn't know that it's supposed to be impossible. So it applies the same logic that works in other situations and gives us magenta, creating a circle out of the line.
@intempify Yellow has a wavelength ~ 590-560 nm and fequency of ~ 510-540 THz. Magenta does not have a corresponding wavelength of frequency associated with it.
Many questions come to mind: So which plants/animals in nature are "magenta" hued, and what are their natural predators/pollinators? Is this non-spectral color illusion widespread, or limited to human perception?
Your point is too human-centric. This is a quirk of humanity and animals will similar eye structure. Mantis Shrimp have 16 different photorecptors in their eyes so, what ever they see it's not going to be magenta but something that is more aligned with what the color actually is. It's not the animals that have this pigment that are "special" or "different. It's that human eye is terrible. It's like you are looking for there to be something special about these creatures because the human eye perceives them so poorly....do you understand what I am saying?
@@anonymousscientist7912 We do perceive magenta. However, magenta is not a real color. It does not exist on the spectrum of light and is considered to be non-spectral light. There is no pigment in nature that produces magenta. Magenta is a color created by our brains because we don't perceive that part of light spectrum very well due to only having 3 color receptors in our eyeballs.
@@JosephDavies How did you emit the human-centric bias by saying "So which plants/animals in nature are "magenta" hued," The answer is none. It doesn't exist. There is no magenta hue, there is no magenta pigment because it's a fiction of your mind. Here's another way of asking your question: "So which creatures in nature are a color that doesn't actually exist?" The answer is none.
I clicked on that video expecting something new, but all I got was a long, drawn out shaggy dog of something I’d learned playing with paints as a child, before my family had even owned a color TV, let alone a computer monitor. The only difference between dark orange and dark any other color is that the English language has a name for it.
@@evilsharkey8954 Yes, and I understood that much as a child. Darken an orange, and you get brown. Reduce the intensity of a red-green light combination, and you get brown. It’s parallel.
I remember when Minute Physics talked about this, years ago now - there is no pink light - so when I saw this video pop up, the first thing that came to mind was minus green.
I’m still confused. When blue and red wavelengths minus green is detected by our cones, we see magenta? Because we only have cones for green, blue, and red? Why don’t we see magenta as blue and red then?
@@anonymousscientist7912 The L M S cones (R G B) overlap, with R and G overlapping substantially. And there are 5 million, so you eye is a 5 megapixel camera. BUT: your optic nerve has only 1.2 million nerve fiber. How do you get 5 million dots down a 1.2 million pipe? There are 14 types of ganglion cells behind the retina that take the signals from the cones, and essentially "compresses the data" to fit down the optic nerve. Yes, nature is the world's first IT specialist doing data compression. LOL. It is then processed by many filtering stages in the brain's visual cortex. Luminance (Light/Dark) is processed separately from chroma (hue/saturation). Motion is processed separately from still. Etc. As to why? Evolutionary needs, like everything else.
@@andrewsomers9042 It's not pixels or resolution we are talking about here, but the color receptors. The amount of cones determine the depth and detail of colour we perceive, not the sharpness of our image.
Magenta was my favorite color as a kid (blue clues) and it was so frustrating when I searched up magenta and all the images are completely different shades. Thank you for this, I feel like everyone’s version of magenta is so different now it makes sense
There’s another aspect that needs to be explained to help understand this. Mixing colors of light does not work the same way as mixing colors of pigment.
@@Azrael_Garou No color is man-made, unless you mean our brains make it up which would only be the colors between blue and red. The rainbow just shows us the hues.
Mixing pigments have nothing to do with this and doesn't need to be explained; you see them because _light_ bounces off of them and enters your eye, so it's still red and blue light, it doesn't matter how the pigment came to be magenta.
Evil Sharkey Cyan’s blue bright plus green bright the same way green and blue paints are cyan placed joined orange is as much yellow and red paints joined as red bright and yellow bright placed joined red is magenta with yellow in paints and bright cyan plus magenta blue within bright things and within paints things as well
An error: he said "rods are sensitive to light intensity and movement and cones see color and fine detail". Incorrect. Rods are active in very low light conditions (scotopic vision), but are overloaded/not part of daylight vision (photopic). Cones are sensitive to high, daylight levels of illumination. And there is a cross over between the two (mesopic). All are sensitive to light intensity, and all have their own unique bandwidth characteristics in terms of frequency response, but only cones are substantially involved in color perception. Both rods and cones are involved in movement perception, but neither "see" movement. Movement is a perception and the result of visual processing in the brain, and not related to the photoreceptors in the way the video implies. At daylight levels, cones "see" light, movement, color and and detail. At starlight levels, rods "see" light, movement, no "color", and in lower detail. (Night vision (rods) does have a blueish, though monochromatic perception for many people). The fovea (central vision) is densely packed with L and M (red/green) cones, so red and green cones are normally associated with fine detail. S cones (blue) are scattered in the periphery, and at a far lower density and thus are not associated with resolving fine detail. Essentially, ALL color is not real, as all color is just a perception of some wavelength or combination of wavelengths as processed by the brain (62% of the brain is involved in visual processing, and 20% is dedicated to visual processing)). Most of the colors we see are metameric, made up of a combination of wavelengths (pure monochromatic spectral colors are seen rarely, but a laser is such an example). An interesting feature here is that it is possible to perceive the exact same color using two different combinations of wavelengths. This is the principle for how color TVs and computer monitors create a large gamut of color perceptions using just three colors.
You can fix it by simply adding the word "more" after "rods are". (But then, you might complain that it implies that rods are sensitive to light, in which case you're free to edit it in your mind to put the more on the cones' part of the sentence.
@@evilsharkey8954 Violet is the "purply blue" at the high end, but "purple" as most artists would all it exists on the spectral locus on the line of purples, which is where magenta resides. They are all non-spectral. Reference the CIE 1931 chromacity chart the "line of purples" is the straight line near the bottom between red and blue.
@@andrewsomers9042 that's what I was thinking as there shouldn't be any difference in the cones used to interpret purple as we see it and magenta. Of course there is ultra violet but that's not what we're talking about here, just visible purples. It really took me by surprise the word wasn't even said in the video.
Andrew Somers thank you. I would like to clarify. So purple has its own wavelength, which is why red+blue-green wavelength causes an imaginary color instead of purple? White is all the wavelengths, so why isn’t is all the colors?
@@anonymousscientist7912 You get something we call "white" by mixing all the visible lights... but that is not all the wavelengths of light, because there are wavelengths of light that are not visible.
Brown is essentially just dark orange; it has the exact same wavelength associated with orange, but given context, such as the backdrop being lighter or darker, the color appears to be brown.
I've thought about this whole "non-spectral light" thing before. I was like, where does magenta come from if it doesn't have a hue wavelength that represents it? Great video! It cleared up the subject.
@@naamadossantossilva4736 Only if you think that what makes a "different" color is people giving it it's own name. There could be a culture out there that calls dark blue or purple "Afmak" and "Reestum" and that doesn't make those any more special.
It comes from two wavelengths, not one... the universe does not impose a limit of one wavelength at a time on us, so yes, you will get confused if you impose one yourself, it's like asking how a ball can be thrown to you in only 2D... it won't make sense because the universe isn't in 2D. Erm... remember "white"? You'll notice the same is true of sound too... a "note" played on an instrument won't tend to be a single frequency, and a "chord" isn't even a single note
DrFranklynAnders> That is exactly what they did in the Nicolas Cage version that just came out The broken part of the movie is when he said "pink glow, actually, I'm not sure it was pink, it's a color I've never seen before". I'm sure he's seen magenta. This is why adapting books to film doesn't always work; the color out of space is literally impossible to film because it's _supposed_ to be a color we've never seen.
Mina Ehab thank you for the insight. I am confused about why that wouldn’t show as red green and blue, or all the colors or black. Can someone please explain?
@@anonymousscientist7912 Because our brains know it isn't green or the green cones would be firing, and it can't be red or the red cones would be firing. Black would mean no light so it's not black. Since our brains know it can't be any of those color they create a color.
fireyf> it can't be red or the red cones would be firing But the red cones _are_ firing, white light has all cones firing. It's not red because the green and blue cones are also firing instead of _only_ the red.
White is just the way our brain interprets ALL colors simultaneously. That's why the sun is white (even tho we sometimes perceive it as yellow [green+red] due to shorter wavelengths - blue - being scattered in the sky: same reason we see the sky blue). Black in the other hand is the absence of light so it's NO colors.
I think you took away the wrong idea from that Technology Connections video. The colour that we named brown very much exists, the point was we can't create s brown light source.
@@GeorgeNoiseless I think you took the wrong message from the technology connections video. Show me Brown in a rainbow and I'll show you Orange in a bright sky. You can create a Brown light source but because it IS the light source its defies dark context.
Of course they're not. We're not pigeons. (that said there is *some* evidence we have a very weak minor electromagnetic sense, they discussed it on tangents some episodes back)
@@jerry3790 it's more about semantics and how people call/name colours. It's more of a language issue. Violet light (which wavelength goes down from blues to ultra-violets) is continuation of blues and are the real "blue" we are talking about when we talk about connecting blue and red light into magenta. The real violet light will only activate blue cones. But as our minds trick themselves connecting violet and red, we get magenta shades in-between, that can be more violet/blue or more red.
actually... this looped stitching restricts our ability to "see" infrared and ultraviolet, and beyond... we basically have no gamut left within our visual perceptive space to conceive of the rest of the EM spectrum. and the visible spectrum is only such a narrow slice of the entire EM spectrum too...
Good thing you didn't just be uncreative and pick the colour between red and blue and pick green... ...I think I finally understand what that notebook was on about!
You are using the subtractive color system used in Arts, the video refers to the additive color system explained by Physics. In the additive color system magenta is not a primary color.
@@TheWatcher802 The additive color system involves neuroscience and biology in general. It's not just physics. There actually seems to be a bit of a debate online about the subtractive color system, as it pertains to pigments in art.
@@DANGJOS Sure, the additive color system is dependent on human eyesight (hence biology) because it is based on the three color receptors that humans have - red, green and blue. That are a myriad more frequencies that correspond to many more colors. I was oversimplifying but I think i made the main point clear, there are two different systems, and one is normally learned in art class and the other in physics class.
Chips companies: "The air in the bag is nitrogen, it keeps them fresh." Printer companies: "The color magenta is real, you can buy it from us in liquid form." I'm onto you :^)
Wow... Im not usually interested in those subjects and I don't really get them, but wow. This video explained it perfectly and I understood what it was trying to say, also its very amazing how our brains can do such a thing.
I will attempt to say this in Spanish through the translator: Estoy mucho más fascinado por el color que contrasta el magenta en el espectro y por la curación relevante del daltonismo en este nuevo espacio que imaginamos. Si no se equivoca, ¿no hay más que unas pocas aves depredadoras y un destello de anfibios exóticos y especies de vida marina que perciben dentro de este espectro de color? Quisiera que mis ojos cambien a este color 💓, incluida la variedad de nitrógeno fenólico ... oh, espera ... ¡hay "fragancia de vainilla y caracoles! 🤩💎 ...💛🎈🍐🏆🌎🙃 ... Si! 😄
so when an object looks a certain color, it's reflecting a higher ratio of that color's frequency than the other frequencies. Magenta flowers are reflecting much more red and blue light than they are reflecting green. What's cool to think about is how the same plant appears green for much of the stem, meaning that that part reflects more green than it does blue or red. If you define color as something that you perceive, then the headline for this video is incorrect. Magenta exists, but has no singular frequency associated with it. Same with grey and white.
My wife is tetrachromatic, so she sees colors that the rest of us don't detect. I took a test with her in real life -- there were a whole bunch of cards that were just orange IMO, with maybe a small amount of difference between the two extreme ones. She saw a dozen different colors, it was very weird. BTW, there is no way to make a test for tetrachromatia online, because our computer screens can only display in red, green, and blue, and it can't make those colors that all of us normals can't see.
@@garycourtenay4719 Given Hank & Alec talk on twitter occasionally, and Hank has shouted out Alec on vlogbrothers, I was surprised there wasn't at least one reference to BROWN.
Black. There’s infrared and ultraviolet some insects can see. If you were able to see the rest everything would look screwed up, broadcast and mobile towers would emit blinding light. Walls, buildings, people would look semitransparent. Crystal would look opaque. The night sky would look more populated with bright weird stuff 🤪
I think the main point here is that colors like magenta can be considered 'composite' colors, as the most basic representation of them requires two different wavelengths of light, while most colors only require one wavelength. White can also be considered a composite color as well.
@@andrewsomers9042 That's not exactly true. You can see this geometrically; look at our color gamut on a CIE 1931 color chart. On this chart, colors combine (additively) linearly. So for example if you pick a random color within the gamut, you can form that color by any combination of 2 colors colinear with it with the two colors on either side; or, you can form it with 3, 4, or more colors that surround that color. The pure spectral colors are an exception; geometrically, they lie on the curved border of the color gamut... so they are not the midpoint of any line you draw. But there is _another_ border of our color gamut besides that curved border... that would be the straight border connecting the two extreme spectral colors. And on that border, there's only one way to form the colors from spectral colors... to mix exactly those two extrema points, in just the right proportions. So none of those colors have metamers; they only have single spectra (comprised of the two extreme spectral colors) that can form them. Metamers are different spectral representations of the same color. It's only the non-border colors that have metamers.
@@yy2bggggs Hi @yy2bggggs You seem to be missing something, because I said exactly what you are saying, and you seem to have misunderstood or did not read my post correctly. First of all I did NOT say ALL colors, did I? NO I did not so don’t put words in my mouth, please. I SPECIFICALLY STATED non-spectral colors, and I said “most” of what we see and NOT all, so your assertion is meritless, but more on your “misperception" later. I see you edited some of your worst errors out of your message after you posted, so I’ll assume you are interested in being corrected. If not, then look up “Dunning Kruger Effect”. First, let’s discuss your deficits on the subject of colorimetry. * Regarding your CIE 1931 comment: It’s not a “color chart” it is called a chromacity diagram. * It’s not called a “curved border” it is called the spectral locus. * The colors directly on the spectral locus are not called “border colors” they are called monochromatic spectral colors. Similarly what you call “non border colors” are non-spectral colors, which is what I said. * The “straight border" near the bottom as you call it also has a name, it is called “the line of purples” of the “purple locus”. * “Geometrically” (LOL) you might notice that the spectral locus between about 700nm and 555nm is a straight line too (at least normally plotted as such, individual variations in perception notwithstanding). * The spectral locus is NOT the “gamut” though it does enclose the gamut, it does not define the gamut. HOW COULD IT? It’s only a 2D drawing. Defining the gamut requires a 3D representation. Btu that’s besides the point. Pure spectral colors are rare, and not normally what we see. A LASER is one of the very few ways to create an absolutely pure spectral color. Even the red or green (and especially the blue) “primaries” in your monitor are not spectrally pure. And to be sure, neither are our cones. And since you brought up geometry, tell me: what is the volume of a line? (just the line, and not the space it may enclose). Not much, right? It’s THIN. Why? BECAUSE IT’S A LINE! The area the spectral locus encloses (LOL, the border line, LOL) has vastly more colors than the spectral locus itself, as you can very plainly see, and the volume of a 3D gamut plot contains vastly more colors than the outer surface. MOST of what we see is light reflected off of surfaces, and those surfaces absorb some wavelengths and reflect other wavelengths of light. With photopic (daylight) vision, the distribution and intensity of reflected wavelengths will stimulate the eye’s cones a particular way and our subsequent neurological processing will eventually give us a sensation or perception of color. It is possible for a different distribution of reflected wavelengths to stimulate the cones in the same manner, resulting in the same color perception. That is metamerism. The vast majority of colors we see are not pure monochromatic spectral colors, some can change appearance drastically depending on the spectrum of the light source. BUT MOREOVER, you are completely ignoring many other aspects of the psychophysics of color perception, which also affect how two colors look. Hint: no, it is NOT well defined in the CIE 1931 XYZ model, which among other things is not perceptually uniform. Good luck on your midterms. Andy
@@andrewsomers9042 "If not, then look up “Dunning Kruger Effect”." Ad hominem/well poisoning. It should be irrelevant what my metacognitive self ranking is. "I SPECIFICALLY STATED non-spectral colors" ...that you did. And I specifically said "not exactly". Your diatribe is hiding the one thing I'm correcting you on... which you didn't comment on. (several pseudo-points about terms) ...those are just words; besides, you're ignoring the geometry. There is our color gamut; it has a border. But that border is made up not just of "spectral colors", but non-spectral colors. "you might notice that the spectral locus between about 700nm and 555nm is a straight line too (at least normally plotted as such" ...my plot shows it as curved, and I didn't Bezier it. You can download the CIE 1931 raw data. Insofar as it is flat in 5nm increments, that makes sense since it's based on 5nm samples. None of that changes the fact that the non-spectral edge of our color gamut is straight. "The spectral locus is NOT the “gamut” though it does enclose the gamut, it does not define the gamut. HOW COULD IT? It’s only a 2D drawing." Irrelevant nit pick Yes, there's another dimension. But this slice shows all spectral ratios; what's missing is relative intensities. None of that's crucial to the point here. The one point you didn't address is the point I called you out on. The non-spectral colors on the border of our color gamut have no metamers. Metamer doesn't mean combination of frequencies; and it doesn't mean non-spectral; metamers are two spectral distributions of the same color. Look up the definition of metamer.
Magenta is just the “Error” texture our brains process. It is confirmed, our brains are powered by Garrys Mod.
Our brains did not install counter strike source
And the error pattern in gmod is Black and Magenta
@@crunchu2361 but it is in unity. He probably got the two mixed up
@@julianrobertson1869 the black and magenta squares pattern is actually a pretty standard error texture.
That is certainly one school of thought. I'm absolutely a cynical person.
This color I would postulate is a superpower of the human brain. Were it not, evolution would've branched and gone the way of the Neanderthal.
Also, by cynical human, I am referring to classical cynicism - that of Diogenes.
Fun fact: Magenta looks similar to violet because our eyes red cones actually are slightly sensitive to violet light and thus violet is also the same as having red and blue light mixed together. This is how LCDs are able to display violet.
I was looking for this. It's not pulled out of nowhere.
@Jerry Rupprecht That's actually not true
Magenta looks pinkish-purple to me tho not violet at all
Violet? It looks like hot pink
I never saw it as violet, I thought it was pink
So magenta doesn't exist? It's apparently a glitch in our brains
It exists, just in your brain. Or you can say it exists as two different wavelengths of light. I think it’s strange to say green exists because there is a wavelength of light. If there were no sentient beings in the universe but that wavelength existed, would the color green still exist? I don’t think so, so I think existence “just in our brains” is not weird at all, because the color green existing without a brain to experience the color makes even less sense.
@@darkninja___ if nothing exists to observe the universe, then does the universe even exist?
NATHAN BRANNON I don’t know. It also depends on what you think “existence” means.
Dark Ninja Spectral colors exist without a spectator and don’t need a philosophical deconstruction. They are names of specific wave frequencies - nothing more.
The non-spectral colors are an invention of our brain to try to classify things around you. They do not exist - they are just two different wave frequencies that happen to be emitted close to an other.
A brain seeks for useful chunks of information - if it „sees“ a distinct pattern it uses it to simplify the input. Most of optical illusions work that way.
Don’t worry, it will get patched in the next update
Magenta is a glitch palette when the brain tries to access the wavelength value that doesn't exist, so it pulls random data that we perceive as magenta. This is the most famous example of a Red and Blue glitch known as Missing Color or "MissingCo." for short.
All colours only exist in your head, colours are phenomenon experienced by a brain, wavelengths of light are physical, not to be confused.
You beat me to it!
If we want take this video further, any color that is not fully saturated is also “made up,” because there is no corresponding single light wave. For example although red is on the spectrum, light red, a.k.a. pink, is not; it requires an infusion of other wavelengths to dilute the red.
When i mix red and blue paint and it makes purple, that’s different from mixing red and blue wavelengths right?
REALITY IS AN ILLUSION, THE UNIVERSE IS A HOLOGRAM, BUY GOLD,
BYE!
Yeah.... Magenta isn't exactly super special. There are tons of colors that aren't on the pure color spectrum.
@@anonymousscientist7912 Yes, it is different. Mixing paints is actually more complicated, but quite interesting. There's no one simple model that can be used to explain it.
4yr old me would've thrown an _"is too!"_ tantrum over rebut that my then fave color is allegedly not so🙍♀️
"mysterious color, like nothing seen on Earth"
Nice reference.
SO, ARE YOU SAYING THAT IT'S....
_A mysterious color unlike any seen on Earth?_
MYSTERIOUS COLOR
Etcetera etcetera
Green cone: *doesn't fire off*
Brain: I need ＭＡＧＥＮＴＡ
like Mylanta, but for perspective problems instead of digestive problems
I find this hilarious, magenta / pink is a color! Of course it is, you can see it! But it's red light and blue light mixed together. You can only make it with two wavelengths, the same reason why white isn't in the rainbow. White is a mixture of all colors. And also, every color is something made up, every color is made from your brain!
Yes.
you just psyched us all
I thought Magenta was an Alternate Pink or Something 💓💕💗💝💞💟💌💖👚👜👝🛍👡 !
You should make a video about brown too, since it’s just dark orange but if we have a word for brown in a language we know we’ll see brown as an own colour, not as dark orange. Or make a video about how knowing different languages make us see different colours, such as the Himba language having completely different categories for colours compared to Indo-European languages.
It’s like brown, though brown is orange with context
In conclusion t Mobil doesn’t exist so I will no longer be paying my cellphone bill
And that explains CMYK.
Magenta has to be real! It's the most essential part of Octarine!
And brown is just orange with context.
Basically, our brains don't see wavelengths of light. We see combinations of three points, and so our brains don't care if there's wavelengths longer or shorter than red or blue-just that Magenta is the color associated with the long and short cones being stimulated.
I want to find a magenta looking color now and stare it and see if my brain would change the color for no reason
Every time I hear : imagine a purple light around you ….I have trouble creating the image in my head. Is it me or it happens to most of us?
nah we just forgot to install CS: Source in our eyes
Wow
If i really think about magenta, it starts to feel like reddish-blue, or blueish-red. There is a similar thing with a blueish-yellow or reddish-green (but they are actually possible only if you cross your eyes on two squares), maybe our brains made up magenta since we can see this color in nature more?
Okey dokey, lets see what we got baking in the oven. Yeah, ya, ya, ya, ya. Not yet a match. Ok well, it looks like we are about one degree Celsius off on that ah magenta color. I guess I am gonna have to quantify the 7F reading on this and that would run it through the surface gravity viscosity. Ah, I could plug it into the Marshall formula, and that would ah, that would give me a more accurate mix design. To me they're just a little bit off, what I can do on that is run a pap smear, ah test and than ah, tone it down a little bit.
So you're telling me Magenta only exists in Blue's mind from Blue's Clues
Tell that to my geranium.
Why wouldn't my favorite color exist
My lightsaber color would be magenta
*my favourite colour doesn't exist*
All minecraft players be hyped when they mention magenta and Cyan
Echo Gillete also made a great video on this
Its a colour out of space
I always knew Steve, Joe, and Miranda were crazy! Next thing you know, we'll find out Blue is an imaginary color too
Magenta was not "all in my head" she was in the rocky horror picture show and she was fine as hell lol
So if you're staring at the color spectrum all at once, are all of your cones firing at once?
I noticed some blue inside the magenta when the flower was displayed but nothing of pure red. I might have only imagined it, but I wonder if our brains create the color magenta as an average value of some kind between red and blue. Something unique to each person as we all see color a little bit different from each other.
what about pink ?
Interesting that cyan was also mentioned, seeing as cyan and magenta are 2 of the 3 colors used in subtractive color mixing.
Color out of space did their research I guess lol
So. Does that mean we just arent seeing it right? Would other animals that see color see something entirely different?
So if it doesn't exist and our brain is juust processing another color , what color is it really?
This is interesting, but it leaves me wondering: can ghosts not see non-spectral colors?
I think they actually can. Since, you know, they're supernatural.
Are there any other colors like this?
So here's a question. If humans see magenta because of a quirk of our brains and light receptors and we know things in the world are what we humans call magenta, what do other creatures see? Do they see magenta or is it one of those things where other creatures see something totally different that confers some survival or evolutionary advantage we can't easily detect because of how our perception works?
So is this why magenta looks so different on the screen from its printed version? And are there people out there whose brains don't combine red and blue, causing them to see magenta the same way we might see two images in one of those lenticular graphic things?
and brown is dark orange
Does it means I can called Decade pink now?
Magenta is just blueish red
Magenta isn't a color because redish green is usually impercievsble also yellowish blue magenta is impercievsble Because of the "Forbidden Colors" which humans are unable to see 13 different combinations of colors, this our eyes perceive what is true by mixing colors sometimes rather then tinting them
Pink is minus green and brown is dark orange. Light is weird.
Woah,
But is magenta pink? Or is pink magenta? I always though that magenta is a kind of pink that is very bright and neony. Is it the other way around? That pink is just a more muted magenta kind of colour?
It's the same way with violet....
Magenta is a pigment of our imagination?
I volunteer for experiments to add another sensor to my eyeballs!
you don't have the firmware for the extra sensor
@@oldcowbb I think our firmware is more flexible than we give it credit for.
I saw that magenta as purple...what does that mean?
Seems like the brain trying to create a color wheel, instead of the 1 way spectrum it really is. Pretty smart, brain
Not exactly. It's taking the hardware available to it and mapping it. It's not a colour wheel so much as a triangle - The red we see is a solitary activation of the red cones and no others. So it we see 50% red, 50% blue, the triangle would "point" to purple. It doesn't make a wheel by choice, just by the fact that all triangles have circles in them.
If you think about it like "Our brains stop at blue, then add red after", then purple and violet make sense. So if we get a color greater in frequency than blue, then we get blue plus whatever is left over after (mostly red).
I presume after violet (i.e. ultraviolet) the wavelengths no longer interact with our cones altogether.
It’s not just our brains, our red cones are actually sensitive to violet light, so magenta is violet with extra red
Since the brain has no idea what the world actually looks like it has no idea that colors are only on a single spectrum. So since it sometimes get the red+blue-green signal... It doesn't know that it's supposed to be impossible. So it applies the same logic that works in other situations and gives us magenta, creating a circle out of the line.
@intempify Yellow has a wavelength ~ 590-560 nm and fequency of ~ 510-540 THz. Magenta does not have a corresponding wavelength of frequency associated with it.
"if it gets us a nice color like magenta, it cant be all that bad :)"
_h.p. lovecraft has left the chat_
No more like
*H.P. Lovecraft has entered the chat.*
Lovecraft: I'm gonna ruin this man's career.
Hp would hate this whole video and channel
So THAT’S why the Colour out of Space is pink!
@@shweet7891 oh like he hated black people?
@@maxwell8866 He hated everyone.
*Insert "pigment of your imagination" joke here*
**clap....... clap............. clap.........**
Read in Jeopardy tone: "What did Magenta say to the Brown from your AMOLED screen?"
Joseph Morse - I don't like off-color humor. ;)
*applause*
Puns are usually lame but that is brilliant.
Many questions come to mind:
So which plants/animals in nature are "magenta" hued, and what are their natural predators/pollinators? Is this non-spectral color illusion widespread, or limited to human perception?
Your point is too human-centric. This is a quirk of humanity and animals will similar eye structure. Mantis Shrimp have 16 different photorecptors in their eyes so, what ever they see it's not going to be magenta but something that is more aligned with what the color actually is. It's not the animals that have this pigment that are "special" or "different. It's that human eye is terrible.
It's like you are looking for there to be something special about these creatures because the human eye perceives them so poorly....do you understand what I am saying?
Jebuslives i am confused about why we don’t perceive “magenta” for what it is: red and blue wavelengths.
@@anonymousscientist7912 We do perceive magenta. However, magenta is not a real color. It does not exist on the spectrum of light and is considered to be non-spectral light.
There is no pigment in nature that produces magenta. Magenta is a color created by our brains because we don't perceive that part of light spectrum very well due to only having 3 color receptors in our eyeballs.
@@drg8687 The rhetorical device I'm using here is aimed at eliminating that human-centric bias. I believe you have misread my point.
@@JosephDavies How did you emit the human-centric bias by saying
"So which plants/animals in nature are "magenta" hued,"
The answer is none. It doesn't exist. There is no magenta hue, there is no magenta pigment because it's a fiction of your mind.
Here's another way of asking your question:
"So which creatures in nature are a color that doesn't actually exist?" The answer is none.
I went into this video expecting a Technology Connections reference, because... BROWN.
I clicked on that video expecting something new, but all I got was a long, drawn out shaggy dog of something I’d learned playing with paints as a child, before my family had even owned a color TV, let alone a computer monitor. The only difference between dark orange and dark any other color is that the English language has a name for it.
RickySTT, mixing colors of light and mixing colors of pigment follow different rules. The video is about non-spectral colors.
@@evilsharkey8954 Yes, and I understood that much as a child. Darken an orange, and you get brown. Reduce the intensity of a red-green light combination, and you get brown. It’s parallel.
@@RickySTT what do you mix to get magenta?
Hoe Hunter: Nonspectral colors and misfiring neurons, apparently.
I remember when Minute Physics talked about this, years ago now - there is no pink light - so when I saw this video pop up, the first thing that came to mind was minus green.
Me too!!
I’m still confused. When blue and red wavelengths minus green is detected by our cones, we see magenta? Because we only have cones for green, blue, and red? Why don’t we see magenta as blue and red then?
@@anonymousscientist7912 The L M S cones (R G B) overlap, with R and G overlapping substantially. And there are 5 million, so you eye is a 5 megapixel camera.
BUT: your optic nerve has only 1.2 million nerve fiber. How do you get 5 million dots down a 1.2 million pipe?
There are 14 types of ganglion cells behind the retina that take the signals from the cones, and essentially "compresses the data" to fit down the optic nerve. Yes, nature is the world's first IT specialist doing data compression. LOL.
It is then processed by many filtering stages in the brain's visual cortex. Luminance (Light/Dark) is processed separately from chroma (hue/saturation). Motion is processed separately from still. Etc.
As to why? Evolutionary needs, like everything else.
Eyy!! Same!!
@@andrewsomers9042 It's not pixels or resolution we are talking about here, but the color receptors. The amount of cones determine the depth and detail of colour we perceive, not the sharpness of our image.
when you see magenta your brain is just missing the correct sprite...
Default texture
Give it some 7up
shoutouts to game dev memes
But I don't see black with the 'magenta'!
But that’s literally what it is. It produces magenta when the brain cannot reasonably generate the proper color from a given input
This subject feeds my soul...
Did you do a video on this? Watching this one reminded me of you, love your work ^^ you've carved a niche that is super fun to engage with!
lol
Magenta was my favorite color as a kid (blue clues) and it was so frustrating when I searched up magenta and all the images are completely different shades. Thank you for this, I feel like everyone’s version of magenta is so different now it makes sense
magenta is my favorite color
So would you say that magenta is just a..... *pigment* of our imagination?
@@hellokatyfac3yes, thank you
What's in your heaaaa-aaaaad, in your heaaa-eee-aaaa-aaaaad
Magenta, magenta, magenta-ha a-ha a-ha
There’s another aspect that needs to be explained to help understand this. Mixing colors of light does not work the same way as mixing colors of pigment.
That still doesn't change the fact that colors past the rainbow and spectrum are all man-made.
@@Azrael_Garou No color is man-made, unless you mean our brains make it up which would only be the colors between blue and red.
The rainbow just shows us the hues.
Mixing pigments have nothing to do with this and doesn't need to be explained; you see them because _light_ bounces off of them and enters your eye, so it's still red and blue light, it doesn't matter how the pigment came to be magenta.
@@Azrael_Garou that was a stupid comment
Evil Sharkey Cyan’s blue bright plus green bright the same way green and blue paints are cyan placed joined orange is as much yellow and red paints joined as red bright and yellow bright placed joined red is magenta with yellow in paints and bright cyan plus magenta blue within bright things and within paints things as well
An error: he said "rods are sensitive to light intensity and movement and cones see color and fine detail".
Incorrect. Rods are active in very low light conditions (scotopic vision), but are overloaded/not part of daylight vision (photopic). Cones are sensitive to high, daylight levels of illumination. And there is a cross over between the two (mesopic). All are sensitive to light intensity, and all have their own unique bandwidth characteristics in terms of frequency response, but only cones are substantially involved in color perception.
Both rods and cones are involved in movement perception, but neither "see" movement. Movement is a perception and the result of visual processing in the brain, and not related to the photoreceptors in the way the video implies. At daylight levels, cones "see" light, movement, color and and detail. At starlight levels, rods "see" light, movement, no "color", and in lower detail. (Night vision (rods) does have a blueish, though monochromatic perception for many people).
The fovea (central vision) is densely packed with L and M (red/green) cones, so red and green cones are normally associated with fine detail. S cones (blue) are scattered in the periphery, and at a far lower density and thus are not associated with resolving fine detail.
Essentially, ALL color is not real, as all color is just a perception of some wavelength or combination of wavelengths as processed by the brain (62% of the brain is involved in visual processing, and 20% is dedicated to visual processing)). Most of the colors we see are metameric, made up of a combination of wavelengths (pure monochromatic spectral colors are seen rarely, but a laser is such an example).
An interesting feature here is that it is possible to perceive the exact same color using two different combinations of wavelengths. This is the principle for how color TVs and computer monitors create a large gamut of color perceptions using just three colors.
Wow! This is so cool! Thank you!
this guy just one-upped hank
@@alveolate not hard
Based on your pfp I trust you're an expert
You can fix it by simply adding the word "more" after "rods are". (But then, you might complain that it implies that rods are sensitive to light, in which case you're free to edit it in your mind to put the more on the cones' part of the sentence.
But wait! Don't go, you didn't say ANYTHING about PURPLE!
BladesWillxBleed, true purple is a spectral color. Violet shades can be described by their wavelengths.
@@evilsharkey8954 Violet is the "purply blue" at the high end, but "purple" as most artists would all it exists on the spectral locus on the line of purples, which is where magenta resides. They are all non-spectral. Reference the CIE 1931 chromacity chart the "line of purples" is the straight line near the bottom between red and blue.
@@andrewsomers9042 that's what I was thinking as there shouldn't be any difference in the cones used to interpret purple as we see it and magenta. Of course there is ultra violet but that's not what we're talking about here, just visible purples. It really took me by surprise the word wasn't even said in the video.
Andrew Somers thank you. I would like to clarify. So purple has its own wavelength, which is why red+blue-green wavelength causes an imaginary color instead of purple? White is all the wavelengths, so why isn’t is all the colors?
@@anonymousscientist7912 You get something we call "white" by mixing all the visible lights... but that is not all the wavelengths of light, because there are wavelengths of light that are not visible.
What about brown? Where's my brown wavelength? I demand a brown video (please)!
Isn't brown just orange with context? 🤔
Brown is essentially just dark orange; it has the exact same wavelength associated with orange, but given context, such as the backdrop being lighter or darker, the color appears to be brown.
@@bella9282 so my poop is orange?
@@TheWatcher802 lmao
@@TheWatcher802 As far as I know you don't poop light, so no.
I've thought about this whole "non-spectral light" thing before. I was like, where does magenta come from if it doesn't have a hue wavelength that represents it? Great video! It cleared up the subject.
You should look up brown,it's even weirder.
@@naamadossantossilva4736 Brown is pretty much just dark yellow/orange.
@@Rodrigo_Vega And that's why it's strange.When you darken x,it's dark x,not a new color.
@@naamadossantossilva4736 Only if you think that what makes a "different" color is people giving it it's own name. There could be a culture out there that calls dark blue or purple "Afmak" and "Reestum" and that doesn't make those any more special.
It comes from two wavelengths, not one... the universe does not impose a limit of one wavelength at a time on us, so yes, you will get confused if you impose one yourself, it's like asking how a ball can be thrown to you in only 2D... it won't make sense because the universe isn't in 2D. Erm... remember "white"? You'll notice the same is true of sound too... a "note" played on an instrument won't tend to be a single frequency, and a "chord" isn't even a single note
IM IN CLASS I DONT NEED AN EXISTENTIAL CRISIS
You should be studying though
@@lucasrhan I'm out of class now lol
@@Starfighter_Cookies really? I thought you'd be stuck there forever
@@sebastianelytron8450 haha very funny. We got a funny man over here
So when sci-fi movies depict H.P. Lovecraft's Color out of Space as a magenta glow, they're probably right.
Space is beige though.
@@567secret Is that a reference to something?
That is exactly what they did in the Nicolas Cage version that just came out,
Infinity is a actually a bit blue
DrFranklynAnders> That is exactly what they did in the Nicolas Cage version that just came out
The broken part of the movie is when he said "pink glow, actually, I'm not sure it was pink, it's a color I've never seen before". I'm sure he's seen magenta. This is why adapting books to film doesn't always work; the color out of space is literally impossible to film because it's _supposed_ to be a color we've never seen.
I see or hear the colour Magenta
I'm instantly reminded about *The color Out Of Spaces*
Great video, but I want to throw that this applies to "white" as well, with difference that all 3 cones fire instead of just 2
Mina Ehab thank you for the insight. I am confused about why that wouldn’t show as red green and blue, or all the colors or black. Can someone please explain?
@@anonymousscientist7912 Because our brains know it isn't green or the green cones would be firing, and it can't be red or the red cones would be firing. Black would mean no light so it's not black. Since our brains know it can't be any of those color they create a color.
fireyf> it can't be red or the red cones would be firing
But the red cones _are_ firing, white light has all cones firing. It's not red because the green and blue cones are also firing instead of _only_ the red.
White is just the way our brain interprets ALL colors simultaneously. That's why the sun is white (even tho we sometimes perceive it as yellow [green+red] due to shorter wavelengths - blue - being scattered in the sky: same reason we see the sky blue). Black in the other hand is the absence of light so it's NO colors.
@@TheWatcher802 yes, it is the way it interprets all colors that aren't monochromatic. Which is to say, essentially everything we see.
"It can't be all that bad."
Tell that to Nicholas Cage.
This makes me upset, Hank. Last time I was this upset was when they bullied Pluto.
The sameway BROWN doesn't exist: it's dark orange in context.
It's Doic? Lyndsay Doic? I am happier with the made up color, please do not take this from me.
Then it does exist, we just put a different name on it. You can apply that same argument to black, white and gray, gray is just dark white
I think you took away the wrong idea from that Technology Connections video. The colour that we named brown very much exists, the point was we can't create s brown light source.
Not even dark Orange just Orange in context
@@GeorgeNoiseless I think you took the wrong message from the technology connections video. Show me Brown in a rainbow and I'll show you Orange in a bright sky. You can create a Brown light source but because it IS the light source its defies dark context.
I thought the title said "magnets are all in your head"
OH GOD GET THE MAGNETS OUT OF MY HEAD!!!
You're first
FUCKIN MAGNETS HOW DO THEY WORK
Of course they're not. We're not pigeons. (that said there is *some* evidence we have a very weak minor electromagnetic sense, they discussed it on tangents some episodes back)
@Adequate Bros. I think I was second?
So our brains actually stitched the far left and far right of the wavelengths we can see...
Isn't this 200 IQ or what!
Violet is also a mix of red and blue to our eyes and it’s on the colour spectrum. Our eyes red cones actually are sensitive to violet light as well
@@jerry3790 it's more about semantics and how people call/name colours. It's more of a language issue.
Violet light (which wavelength goes down from blues to ultra-violets) is continuation of blues and are the real "blue" we are talking about when we talk about connecting blue and red light into magenta. The real violet light will only activate blue cones.
But as our minds trick themselves connecting violet and red, we get magenta shades in-between, that can be more violet/blue or more red.
actually... this looped stitching restricts our ability to "see" infrared and ultraviolet, and beyond... we basically have no gamut left within our visual perceptive space to conceive of the rest of the EM spectrum. and the visible spectrum is only such a narrow slice of the entire EM spectrum too...
There's no such thing as IQ either. The colors beyond the rainbow spectrum and the concept of IQ are all societal constructs.
@@mjm3091 wait is ultra-violet next to violet on the color spectrum? That's why it's called that!
When you so creative that you create a whole new color😂
Good thing you didn't just be uncreative and pick the colour between red and blue and pick green...
...I think I finally understand what that notebook was on about!
What’s special about magenta is that it’s the true primary “red” pigment (you can make red using magenta and yellow). That’s noteworthy imo.
Exactly corect!!!
You are using the subtractive color system used in Arts, the video refers to the additive color system explained by Physics. In the additive color system magenta is not a primary color.
@@TheWatcher802 The additive color system involves neuroscience and biology in general. It's not just physics. There actually seems to be a bit of a debate online about the subtractive color system, as it pertains to pigments in art.
@@DANGJOS Sure, the additive color system is dependent on human eyesight (hence biology) because it is based on the three color receptors that humans have - red, green and blue. That are a myriad more frequencies that correspond to many more colors. I was oversimplifying but I think i made the main point clear, there are two different systems, and one is normally learned in art class and the other in physics class.
@@TheWatcher802 Although I sort of understand why, I feel like both systems should be taught in both art and physics.
Chips companies: "The air in the bag is nitrogen, it keeps them fresh."
Printer companies: "The color magenta is real, you can buy it from us in liquid form."
I'm onto you :^)
Me: saw magenta
Brain: I just mix Blue and Red dummy
DAMNIT BRAIN! This relationship can't be built on a bed of lies!
Wow... Im not usually interested in those subjects and I don't really get them, but wow. This video explained it perfectly and I understood what it was trying to say, also its very amazing how our brains can do such a thing.
SciShow Psych: “Magenta does exist!”
Blues Clues: ....
drew pedersen Blue actually happens to be a girl while Magenta is a boy
There are some people who have four types of cones, these are sometimes called "Yellow cones". I wonder what type of wavelengths they pick up?
I will attempt to say this in Spanish through the translator:
Estoy mucho más fascinado por el color que contrasta el magenta en el espectro y por la curación relevante del daltonismo en este nuevo espacio que imaginamos.
Si no se equivoca, ¿no hay más que unas pocas aves depredadoras y un destello de anfibios exóticos y especies de vida marina que perciben dentro de este espectro de color?
Quisiera que mis ojos cambien a este color 💓, incluida la variedad de nitrógeno fenólico ... oh, espera ... ¡hay "fragancia de vainilla y caracoles! 🤩💎 ...💛🎈🍐🏆🌎🙃 ... Si! 😄
why didn't you attempt to say it in english without the translator?
When my mom says something that sounds very wrong, I'll tell her I'll believe it when SciShow makes a video about it.
Since I am looking at this via a screen, I only see three colours either way!
J.K Rowling on magenta: "Of course it is happening inside your head, Hank, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?"
"I made it, and is a trans biracial pansexual color but it doesn't look like, or act or is recognized directly or other wise, trust me"
"It can't be all that bad." I've seen "Color Out of Space", it CAN BE ALL THAT BAD!
Wait I’m confused so how do magenta flowers work? It’s not like a screen that has little pixels so how does it combine red and blue?
so when an object looks a certain color, it's reflecting a higher ratio of that color's frequency than the other frequencies.
Magenta flowers are reflecting much more red and blue light than they are reflecting green. What's cool to think about is how the same plant appears green for much of the stem, meaning that that part reflects more green than it does blue or red.
If you define color as something that you perceive, then the headline for this video is incorrect. Magenta exists, but has no singular frequency associated with it. Same with grey and white.
@@BothellPlaysMusic Exactly! Glad someone else got it right. This video is misleading.
@@DANGJOS ...I mean it made me click
My wife is tetrachromatic, so she sees colors that the rest of us don't detect. I took a test with her in real life -- there were a whole bunch of cards that were just orange IMO, with maybe a small amount of difference between the two extreme ones. She saw a dozen different colors, it was very weird. BTW, there is no way to make a test for tetrachromatia online, because our computer screens can only display in red, green, and blue, and it can't make those colors that all of us normals can't see.
What about brown? There is no brown light, too...
Technology connections did a good video on brown last week!
Okay, so as weird as this sounds, brown is actually just dark orange.
@@garycourtenay4719 Given Hank & Alec talk on twitter occasionally, and Hank has shouted out Alec on vlogbrothers, I was surprised there wasn't at least one reference to BROWN.
1:24 If my eyes can only see within those ranges, then what am I looking at outside of those ranges on that chart?
Checkmate atheists
@@jennali9800 what?
Black. There’s infrared and ultraviolet some insects can see. If you were able to see the rest everything would look screwed up, broadcast and mobile towers would emit blinding light. Walls, buildings, people would look semitransparent. Crystal would look opaque. The night sky would look more populated with bright weird stuff 🤪
@@mmmmmmolly it's a meme
My eyes aren’t really blue... it *almost* makes me sad.
if you first define the word blue as something that applies to everything that looks blue, then yes, they probably are blue
All colors are in my head. The red part of the spectrum isn't actually red, it's how the brain interprets that information.
Yes!
I think the main point here is that colors like magenta can be considered 'composite' colors, as the most basic representation of them requires two different wavelengths of light, while most colors only require one wavelength. White can also be considered a composite color as well.
@@andrewsomers9042 That's not exactly true. You can see this geometrically; look at our color gamut on a CIE 1931 color chart.
On this chart, colors combine (additively) linearly. So for example if you pick a random color within the gamut, you can form that color by any combination of 2 colors colinear with it with the two colors on either side; or, you can form it with 3, 4, or more colors that surround that color. The pure spectral colors are an exception; geometrically, they lie on the curved border of the color gamut... so they are not the midpoint of any line you draw. But there is _another_ border of our color gamut besides that curved border... that would be the straight border connecting the two extreme spectral colors. And on that border, there's only one way to form the colors from spectral colors... to mix exactly those two extrema points, in just the right proportions. So none of those colors have metamers; they only have single spectra (comprised of the two extreme spectral colors) that can form them.
Metamers are different spectral representations of the same color. It's only the non-border colors that have metamers.
@@yy2bggggs Hi @yy2bggggs
You seem to be missing something, because I said exactly what you are saying, and you seem to have misunderstood or did not read my post correctly. First of all I did NOT say ALL colors, did I? NO I did not so don’t put words in my mouth, please.
I SPECIFICALLY STATED non-spectral colors, and I said “most” of what we see and NOT all, so your assertion is meritless, but more on your “misperception" later.
I see you edited some of your worst errors out of your message after you posted, so I’ll assume you are interested in being corrected. If not, then look up “Dunning Kruger Effect”.
First, let’s discuss your deficits on the subject of colorimetry.
* Regarding your CIE 1931 comment: It’s not a “color chart” it is called a chromacity diagram.
* It’s not called a “curved border” it is called the spectral locus.
* The colors directly on the spectral locus are not called “border colors” they are called monochromatic spectral colors. Similarly what you call “non border colors” are non-spectral colors, which is what I said.
* The “straight border" near the bottom as you call it also has a name, it is called “the line of purples” of the “purple locus”.
* “Geometrically” (LOL) you might notice that the spectral locus between about 700nm and 555nm is a straight line too (at least normally plotted as such, individual variations in perception notwithstanding).
* The spectral locus is NOT the “gamut” though it does enclose the gamut, it does not define the gamut. HOW COULD IT? It’s only a 2D drawing. Defining the gamut requires a 3D representation. Btu that’s besides the point.
Pure spectral colors are rare, and not normally what we see. A LASER is one of the very few ways to create an absolutely pure spectral color. Even the red or green (and especially the blue) “primaries” in your monitor are not spectrally pure. And to be sure, neither are our cones.
And since you brought up geometry, tell me: what is the volume of a line? (just the line, and not the space it may enclose). Not much, right? It’s THIN. Why?
BECAUSE IT’S A LINE!
The area the spectral locus encloses (LOL, the border line, LOL) has vastly more colors than the spectral locus itself, as you can very plainly see, and the volume of a 3D gamut plot contains vastly more colors than the outer surface.
MOST of what we see is light reflected off of surfaces, and those surfaces absorb some wavelengths and reflect other wavelengths of light. With photopic (daylight) vision, the distribution and intensity of reflected wavelengths will stimulate the eye’s cones a particular way and our subsequent neurological processing will eventually give us a sensation or perception of color. It is possible for a different distribution of reflected wavelengths to stimulate the cones in the same manner, resulting in the same color perception. That is metamerism.
The vast majority of colors we see are not pure monochromatic spectral colors, some can change appearance drastically depending on the spectrum of the light source.
BUT MOREOVER, you are completely ignoring many other aspects of the psychophysics of color perception, which also affect how two colors look. Hint: no, it is NOT well defined in the CIE 1931 XYZ model, which among other things is not perceptually uniform.
Good luck on your midterms.
Andy
@@andrewsomers9042 "If not, then look up “Dunning Kruger Effect”."
Ad hominem/well poisoning. It should be irrelevant what my metacognitive self ranking is.
"I SPECIFICALLY STATED non-spectral colors" ...that you did. And I specifically said "not exactly". Your diatribe is hiding the one thing I'm correcting you on... which you didn't comment on.
(several pseudo-points about terms) ...those are just words; besides, you're ignoring the geometry. There is our color gamut; it has a border. But that border is made up not just of "spectral colors", but non-spectral colors.
"you might notice that the spectral locus between about 700nm and 555nm is a straight line too (at least normally plotted as such" ...my plot shows it as curved, and I didn't Bezier it. You can download the CIE 1931 raw data. Insofar as it is flat in 5nm increments, that makes sense since it's based on 5nm samples. None of that changes the fact that the non-spectral edge of our color gamut is straight.
"The spectral locus is NOT the “gamut” though it does enclose the gamut, it does not define the gamut. HOW COULD IT? It’s only a 2D drawing." Irrelevant nit pick Yes, there's another dimension. But this slice shows all spectral ratios; what's missing is relative intensities. None of that's crucial to the point here.
The one point you didn't address is the point I called you out on. The non-spectral colors on the border of our color gamut have no metamers. Metamer doesn't mean combination of frequencies; and it doesn't mean non-spectral; metamers are two spectral distributions of the same color. Look up the definition of metamer.