@@UsernameXOXO What is a color, according to you? That's what color systems are meant to define. In the NCS, a color is defined by its relationship to its opponent-process color. A typical person/artist would use colors by the way it makes them "feel", but this opens up possibilities to design your compositions by the way in which a color stimulates the senses more than others. There are also harmony relations that's unique compared to the Munsell model because of the relationship between the pairs B/Y R/G, and if interpreted as duality could allow for some interesting and unexpected creative decisions.
@@PrimitiveBaroque wavelength of light already exist in the narrow spectrum we see in. This is a categorization system to make money, not a revolution in technology. "Color communication system" they say. I don't think it is bad, I just don't see a school kid using this. Save it for the professionals to introduce to the public. Furthermore the color picking tech is as old as Euler, and if you have ever seen a strawberry on a sunny day you know about those color relations. The only thing new is that the color blind are at an even greater disadvantage. I know it isn't the same, but in psychoacoustics there is a phenomenon called the tritone paradox. It states that people wkill never agree on anything. Especially no on pitch and directionality.
@@UsernameXOXO Well, it's always good to look for ways to innovate. The assumption is if students aren't given other color models and not being able to critically think about their products, then discourse about color, or other aspects in the discourse of artistic production would be stagnant. Much of artistic development comes from re-thinking or re-framing models - To take a broad case, we take inspiration from the reactionary character against classicism by the modernists in the 1850s; this required re-framing of a familiar aesthetic model. To take the best case, the Impressionists used scientific data on colors and led them to develop one of the first successful modern art movements. For that reason I do think it's helpful for a student to start thinking critically about forming their own artistic interpretations in the discourse of color, just like the modernists have done. There's much in the education about the pragmatic nature of art-making, but very little on how to develop philosophical prowess behind your work. Just about every modern art movement had a strong philosophical foundation which drove their executions. This is significant because all of these art movements had unique styles. While the opponent-process model is rather old, the presentation by the NCS as belonging to a logical classification system holds interest for framing art through a phenomenological lens - interestingly enough, the Impressionists did art in just this same way but using a different model basing itself on simultaneous contrast. The result of art is fundamentally an appearance. Where any competent person can make a scene of a strawberry in a sunny day, it takes some conceptual creativity to make that "strawberry in a sunny day" not appear like your typical scene and still be aesthetically appealing and cognitively interesting. The reality of all this is that not many artists, in fact none that I'm aware of, have documented the use of NCS in this way, but it doesn't mean that that possibility is null. Returning to the reaction against classicism, who would've known unless it's been tried? The same could be done with the NCS.
Hey, for anyone reading this comment, if this system is meant to be purely scientific, compare at 1:23 the jump between G and B90G and the jump between B and B10G or even better between B and R90B, I don’t even have to be scientific in order to tell that rn. And don’t tell me this is an issue from different lightness levels of the hues or the screen’s color gamut because it’s so clear to see and everyone uses the sRGB gamut for almost every screen even if the white point can be different sometimes so there’s no way this NCS representation cannot be presented with sRGB screens because NCS isn’t scientific, it’s 100% commercial. It’s 0% scientific because it heavily relies on the very traditional bias that green is the opponent of red just like in the RYB color wheel. Now I know somebody’s gonna reply to me saying that those are the basics of the opponent color theory and that NCS is based on that black vs white, red vs green, yellow vs blue but that somebody doesn’t realize he has misunderstood how cones really work. Lol, just because the M cone is called the 'green' one doesn’t mean the cone is only for greenish colors, the green color activates the L cone almost as much as the M cone and the same applies for red except that the L cone is more activated. And this would mean both red and green are a lot more yellow than blue because the yellow/blue axis is just S cone vs M + L cones. And therefore the angle formed by red and green on the diagram wouldn’t be 180 degrees but less than 120 degrees. Overall, don't their concepts come from very innovative divergent thinking? Convergent as hell even if their website is very bright. Yeah isn’t all that (a bit) ironic? Now am I saying that NCS is really bad as a color diagram? No, in fact I can only see it has the same use as the RYB color wheel, literally nothing special due to how many people use RYB for almost everything. Also it seems pathetic to see how their website constantly explains how scientific their color representation is, especially when people suddenly find it very frightening like they’ve just found out about the Flat Earth Society. Like what a complete joke when you hear about the very “beautiful” _Natural Color System_ … Ok just use L*C*h* from L*a*b* CIE 1976 to convert the sRGB values and you’ll be able to obtain the best color diagram you’ve ever seen although it wouldn’t be perfect because every sRGB screen is slightly different in a lot of ways and because of the Abney effect (plus because of the convertor as well that can potentially play tricks with its weird complex calculations)
The NCS Color System is a MODEL for how to describe colors in perceptually meaningful ways - this is its primary purpose. This is why it has a notation scheme such as "S 1040-R50B" for humans to clearly communicate more or less what they are mentally representing. This goes against some of the fanciful naming schemes by Pantone, e.g. "PMS 185C", which only makes sense to its maker's standardized, "canonical" library. So, in my opinion, it is a superior color matching system compared to Pantone. LAB is based on the opponent-process model and it is an algebraic formulation of it. It does not mean that NCS is incompatible with it, in fact, it complements sRGB and others, because NCS describes the phenomenological conception of color, and outside of that range we cannot even perceive it, such as "hyper-white" or "hyper-black" colors only existing mathematically. The NCS system as a model would therefore not necessarily be an exact replica of what physically goes on in our retina -> rods/cones -> interpreted/RGB composited through the brain. So while it provides a meaningful descriptive way to talk about colors, I don't understand why it MUST be able to describe these processes. It does not negate the idea that the NCS has been supported by color theorists to produce the range of what can be said about colors, through studies across different parts of the world, to come to its hues and nuances. The nuance of a hue is meant to represent meaningful differentiations of color that can be perceptually observed. There's a reason why it is the adopted color system in Sweden. You can start by looking into this: www.researchgate.net/publication/319557921_NCS_natural_color_system-From_concept_to_research_and_applications_Part_I Overall, I think your view over-simplifies the NCS Color System.
This is amazing. I don't understand why this isn't taught at schools.
Why would it? This system is for color matching and has very little to do with what colors actually are. It's entirely subjective and metaphysical.
@@UsernameXOXO What is a color, according to you? That's what color systems are meant to define. In the NCS, a color is defined by its relationship to its opponent-process color. A typical person/artist would use colors by the way it makes them "feel", but this opens up possibilities to design your compositions by the way in which a color stimulates the senses more than others. There are also harmony relations that's unique compared to the Munsell model because of the relationship between the pairs B/Y R/G, and if interpreted as duality could allow for some interesting and unexpected creative decisions.
@@PrimitiveBaroque wavelength of light already exist in the narrow spectrum we see in. This is a categorization system to make money, not a revolution in technology. "Color communication system" they say.
I don't think it is bad, I just don't see a school kid using this. Save it for the professionals to introduce to the public.
Furthermore the color picking tech is as old as Euler, and if you have ever seen a strawberry on a sunny day you know about those color relations.
The only thing new is that the color blind are at an even greater disadvantage.
I know it isn't the same, but in psychoacoustics there is a phenomenon called the tritone paradox. It states that people wkill never agree on anything. Especially no on pitch and directionality.
@@PrimitiveBaroque happy new year!
@@UsernameXOXO Well, it's always good to look for ways to innovate. The assumption is if students aren't given other color models and not being able to critically think about their products, then discourse about color, or other aspects in the discourse of artistic production would be stagnant.
Much of artistic development comes from re-thinking or re-framing models - To take a broad case, we take inspiration from the reactionary character against classicism by the modernists in the 1850s; this required re-framing of a familiar aesthetic model. To take the best case, the Impressionists used scientific data on colors and led them to develop one of the first successful modern art movements.
For that reason I do think it's helpful for a student to start thinking critically about forming their own artistic interpretations in the discourse of color, just like the modernists have done. There's much in the education about the pragmatic nature of art-making, but very little on how to develop philosophical prowess behind your work. Just about every modern art movement had a strong philosophical foundation which drove their executions. This is significant because all of these art movements had unique styles.
While the opponent-process model is rather old, the presentation by the NCS as belonging to a logical classification system holds interest for framing art through a phenomenological lens - interestingly enough, the Impressionists did art in just this same way but using a different model basing itself on simultaneous contrast.
The result of art is fundamentally an appearance. Where any competent person can make a scene of a strawberry in a sunny day, it takes some conceptual creativity to make that "strawberry in a sunny day" not appear like your typical scene and still be aesthetically appealing and cognitively interesting.
The reality of all this is that not many artists, in fact none that I'm aware of, have documented the use of NCS in this way, but it doesn't mean that that possibility is null. Returning to the reaction against classicism, who would've known unless it's been tried? The same could be done with the NCS.
Hey, for anyone reading this comment, if this system is meant to be purely scientific, compare at 1:23 the jump between G and B90G and the jump between B and B10G or even better between B and R90B, I don’t even have to be scientific in order to tell that rn. And don’t tell me this is an issue from different lightness levels of the hues or the screen’s color gamut because it’s so clear to see and everyone uses the sRGB gamut for almost every screen even if the white point can be different sometimes so there’s no way this NCS representation cannot be presented with sRGB screens because NCS isn’t scientific, it’s 100% commercial. It’s 0% scientific because it heavily relies on the very traditional bias that green is the opponent of red just like in the RYB color wheel. Now I know somebody’s gonna reply to me saying that those are the basics of the opponent color theory and that NCS is based on that black vs white, red vs green, yellow vs blue but that somebody doesn’t realize he has misunderstood how cones really work. Lol, just because the M cone is called the 'green' one doesn’t mean the cone is only for greenish colors, the green color activates the L cone almost as much as the M cone and the same applies for red except that the L cone is more activated. And this would mean both red and green are a lot more yellow than blue because the yellow/blue axis is just S cone vs M + L cones. And therefore the angle formed by red and green on the diagram wouldn’t be 180 degrees but less than 120 degrees. Overall, don't their concepts come from very innovative divergent thinking? Convergent as hell even if their website is very bright. Yeah isn’t all that (a bit) ironic? Now am I saying that NCS is really bad as a color diagram? No, in fact I can only see it has the same use as the RYB color wheel, literally nothing special due to how many people use RYB for almost everything. Also it seems pathetic to see how their website constantly explains how scientific their color representation is, especially when people suddenly find it very frightening like they’ve just found out about the Flat Earth Society. Like what a complete joke when you hear about the very “beautiful” _Natural Color System_ … Ok just use L*C*h* from L*a*b* CIE 1976 to convert the sRGB values and you’ll be able to obtain the best color diagram you’ve ever seen although it wouldn’t be perfect because every sRGB screen is slightly different in a lot of ways and because of the Abney effect (plus because of the convertor as well that can potentially play tricks with its weird complex calculations)
The NCS Color System is a MODEL for how to describe colors in perceptually meaningful ways - this is its primary purpose. This is why it has a notation scheme such as "S 1040-R50B" for humans to clearly communicate more or less what they are mentally representing. This goes against some of the fanciful naming schemes by Pantone, e.g. "PMS 185C", which only makes sense to its maker's standardized, "canonical" library. So, in my opinion, it is a superior color matching system compared to Pantone.
LAB is based on the opponent-process model and it is an algebraic formulation of it. It does not mean that NCS is incompatible with it, in fact, it complements sRGB and others, because NCS describes the phenomenological conception of color, and outside of that range we cannot even perceive it, such as "hyper-white" or "hyper-black" colors only existing mathematically.
The NCS system as a model would therefore not necessarily be an exact replica of what physically goes on in our retina -> rods/cones -> interpreted/RGB composited through the brain. So while it provides a meaningful descriptive way to talk about colors, I don't understand why it MUST be able to describe these processes. It does not negate the idea that the NCS has been supported by color theorists to produce the range of what can be said about colors, through studies across different parts of the world, to come to its hues and nuances. The nuance of a hue is meant to represent meaningful differentiations of color that can be perceptually observed. There's a reason why it is the adopted color system in Sweden.
You can start by looking into this: www.researchgate.net/publication/319557921_NCS_natural_color_system-From_concept_to_research_and_applications_Part_I
Overall, I think your view over-simplifies the NCS Color System.