snopes.com  

Go Back   snopes.com > Non-UL Chat > The Bad Gastronomer

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #41  
Old 25 September 2014, 08:26 AM
Errata's Avatar
Errata Errata is offline
 
Join Date: 02 August 2005
Location: Santa Barbara, CA
Posts: 13,201
Default

You're talking about technical limitations of modern display devices, which have little to do with anything.

That very gamut page that you linked to treats color as a 3 dimensional space. The gamut chart that you're referring to is a 2 dimensional cross section of a larger 3 dimensional color space. As I mentioned, there are many different ways to map out human perception of color into 3 dimensions. The key thing is that all such representations are 3 dimensional.

Chromaticity, such as that gamut chart, show all possible colors without regard for luminance. Luminance being the Z dimension that is added to the XY coordinates on the gamut chart to get a full range of colors. This is just a transformation applied to the hue-saturation-brightness color system that I referred to. hue-saturation-brightness is superior to RGB, and can represent 100% of the gamut, by definition, since the gamut is defined in those terms in the first place. All these systems are three dimensional, as is the typical human experience of color.

As I mentioned earlier, for dichromats, with only 2 primary colors, hue-saturation-brightness is overkill. They essentially have no such experience as saturation, only hue and brightness. Humans need all 3 dimensions to describe their experience of color.

Last edited by Errata; 25 September 2014 at 08:35 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #42  
Old 25 September 2014, 09:10 AM
ganzfeld's Avatar
ganzfeld ganzfeld is offline
 
Join Date: 05 September 2005
Location: Kyoto, Japan
Posts: 23,789
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Errata View Post
You're talking about technical limitations of modern display devices, which have little to do with anything.
Again, as you can see in the diagrams, there are no three colors in the universe such that they would cover the whole space. So, no, it's not just a limitation of the systems.
Quote:
That very gamut page that you linked to treats color as a 3 dimensional space.
I didn't quibble with your three degrees of freedom because, well, degrees vs dimensions - I don't know if that's right or not so I'm probably wrong. However, I can say with a high degree of confidence that about this you are incorrect. These spaces (for there are many) use imaginary values to create a three-dimensional space, imaginary primaries that do not and could not exist. They are not RGB and have nothing to do with RGB but are called xyz, or Lab or Luv, etc, in which none of those are primaries. So three degrees of freedom, sure, these spaces generally use three (although the fact that we need a different three for any given problem should tell you something) but they aren't about primaries and no three-color output system, no matter how perfect, will ever produce all of those colors, nor can one.
Reply With Quote
  #43  
Old 25 September 2014, 05:11 PM
she-geek's Avatar
she-geek she-geek is offline
 
Join Date: 12 April 2009
Location: Rochester, MN
Posts: 588
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dasla View Post
Did you read them the book.
Actually the kids in question were me, my two brothers, and my sister. And yes, we read the book multiple times. Still didn't make eating unnaturally green food any more appealing.
Reply With Quote
  #44  
Old 25 September 2014, 05:24 PM
Errata's Avatar
Errata Errata is offline
 
Join Date: 02 August 2005
Location: Santa Barbara, CA
Posts: 13,201
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ganzfeld View Post
However, I can say with a high degree of confidence that about this you are incorrect.
I never once said that RGB displays are absolutely perfect. You're trying to shift the discussion into something that it's not. I said the average person isn't going to be able to pick out the difference, while an expert can tell only a small difference. The diagram you showed doesn't accurately reflect just how subtle the difference is. Out on the edges of possible colors our perception isn't that great at picking out those differences without training. The only reason the triangle is so small is because of limitation of modern monitors that their lights are saturated rather than pure color. If you do it with lasers you can get the majority (but not quite 100%) of the gamut, which is beyond most people's ability to pick out the corner cases at the edge of their perception.

I said that human vision is three dimensional. I'm absolutely correct about that, and every source you've linked to just confirms it. Every discussion of color theory treats that as a basic assumption, because it's just a natural fit. RGB are not the absolute best choices of the dimensions to use, and most color theories don't treat them theat way, but they're pretty good approximations in practice.

That 3 dimensional quality is absolutely a direct result of having 3 types of cones in our eyes. A creature with 2 different color receptors is incapable of experiencing a color space that complex. It's entirely possible to have a more complex color space, but in order to do so you need receptors for more than 3 different primary colors. Having 4 types of cones in and of itself doesn't prove that they function to effectively distinguish colors in 4 dimensions, they're simply a basic prerequisite for it, and there is evidence that some creatures can distinguish combinations of light that a trichromat simply would not be able to. For a true, functional tetrachromat, 4 primary colors is the absolute bare minimum to have any sort of decent replication of color images. Like us, no choice of primary colors would be 100% perfect, but it would be worlds better than just 3.

Last edited by Errata; 25 September 2014 at 05:46 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #45  
Old 25 September 2014, 09:32 PM
ganzfeld's Avatar
ganzfeld ganzfeld is offline
 
Join Date: 05 September 2005
Location: Kyoto, Japan
Posts: 23,789
Default

Like I said, it is quite often described with three numbers. If that's what you mean by "three dimensional" then fine. It has absolutely nothing to do with the three values used in display sources, that's all. (Those edges aren't edge cases. Those places represent the most chromatic colors we can see. Almost anyone - including most color blind people - would be able to see the difference immediately. I don't care if you disagree with that; it's been more than 85 years since that was known so it's not a controversial topic in color. Whether or not three numbers is enough to accurately describe the system is, however.)
Reply With Quote
  #46  
Old 25 September 2014, 10:19 PM
rosa who else's Avatar
rosa who else rosa who else is offline
 
Join Date: 13 October 2005
Location: San Francisco, CA
Posts: 461
Default

Hope I'm not duplicating, but according to Rocketnews24, even the locals in Japan don't think much of it.

[URL="http://en.rocketnews24.com/2014/09/23/burger-king-japans-black-burgers-look-unbelievably-gross-in-real-life/"URL]

I'm cursed: my link won't set up. So paste it in and see what happens.
Reply With Quote
  #47  
Old 25 September 2014, 10:26 PM
Errata's Avatar
Errata Errata is offline
 
Join Date: 02 August 2005
Location: Santa Barbara, CA
Posts: 13,201
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ganzfeld View Post
Like I said, it is quite often described with three numbers. If that's what you mean by "three dimensional" then fine.
That's what everyone means by dimensions, so no scare quotes required. "the dimension of a space or object is informally defined as the minimum number of coordinates needed to specify any point within it." All workable models of human color space require at least 3 coordinates. Whether those coordinates are hue-saturation-brightness or some other trio, 3 is always the minimum for a natural representation.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ganzfeld View Post
Those edges aren't edge cases. Those places represent the most chromatic colors we can see. Almost anyone - including most color blind people - would be able to see the difference immediately.
Those are edge cases. A wide gamut rgb display can display around 80% of the full possible space. 85 years ago they didn't have displays like that, so I really doubt you can point to a body of evidence that is quite so compelling as you seem to think.

The main difference is a shade of cyan that is ever so slightly less saturated. I really do not agree that the average person would be quite so quick to identify subtle differences in the saturation of their cyans.

Now a photographer, interior designer, or other visual artist, yes, absolutely. They are physically capable of observing the difference and have the training to be able to observe the difference. But to a non-expert a high gamut display is an extremely faithful reproduction of color.

If you wanted to improve the wide gamut RGB even further, you could add a 4th primary color, yellow, and shift that green over to be slightly more toward blue. Even though the gap near cyan looks bigger, yellow is more noticeable. Most people wouldn't be able to spot an immediate difference though.

Last edited by Errata; 25 September 2014 at 10:32 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #48  
Old 26 September 2014, 01:34 AM
Sister Ray's Avatar
Sister Ray Sister Ray is offline
 
Join Date: 03 July 2000
Location: Columbus, Ohio
Posts: 5,034
Shifty Eyes

The two fruit pictures ganzfield posted look fine to me, even delicious. The others less so. The bread and the ice cream are really the only ones I'd refuse to eat outright, though. They just look unnatural to me.

Sister "the last one looks like seafood, but I can't be sure" Ray
Reply With Quote
  #49  
Old 26 September 2014, 02:07 AM
ganzfeld's Avatar
ganzfeld ganzfeld is offline
 
Join Date: 05 September 2005
Location: Kyoto, Japan
Posts: 23,789
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Errata View Post
I really do not agree that the average person would be quite so quick to identify subtle differences in the saturation of their cyans.
We're talking about models of vision so the question isn't whether at a glance they'd be able to tell the difference but whether or not they'd be able to tell the difference by compariing them side by side and the answer is most definitely yes. No matter what 'special' primaries you choose - laser or otherwise - the worst cases (the most chromatic colors outside of that gamut) will be at least five to ten times the just noticeable difference. It would stand out like the light of day.
Quote:
If you wanted to improve the wide gamut RGB even further, you could add a 4th primary color, yellow, and shift that green over to be slightly more toward blue. Even though the gap near cyan looks bigger, yellow is more noticeable. Most people wouldn't be able to spot an immediate difference though.
But we're not talking about how "good" RGB is as an output system. We're talking about whether it's a good model of the human vision system. That's all I'm saying: Don't confuse output device models and systems with the human vision system. They are not in any way analogous. If someone asks you whether the human vision system is "three dimensional" you should stick to your argument about degrees of freedom, actual representative models (i.e. without 'primaries') and all that and avoid the notion that RGB is one of those three-dimensional systems. It isn't. (Nor would it be even if there were perfect primaries.)

Last edited by ganzfeld; 26 September 2014 at 02:12 AM.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Burger King in Australia snopes Business 7 31 December 2013 07:21 AM
Burger King Introducing a Lower-Fat French Fry snopes The Bad Gastronomer 2 25 September 2013 12:31 PM
Burger King to Serve Up French Fry Burger snopes The Bad Gastronomer 16 25 September 2013 11:53 AM
Detroit Burger King Squishy0405 Fauxtography 14 02 March 2010 09:19 PM
Burger King seven-incher ad Mateus Fauxtography 32 02 July 2009 10:45 AM


All times are GMT. The time now is 05:18 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.