Did you know that the Cubic represention of color that computers use is inherently flawed?
Did you know that cucumbers are melons and that all fruits are vegetables, just like root, tubers, and leaves?
Did you know that a lot of things we take advantage of in our conscious experience can vary wildly like a lack of different types of bonding modes, the ability to and qualia of distinguishing senses, and the little tools like facial recognition and speech synthesis can malfunction?
It may be inherently flawed, but we can’t just arbitrarily emit wavelengths of light with current technology. Realistically I doubt we ever could, we would need to alter the emission energies of materials on the fly, which would be akin to actual magic. It is frankly amazing it works as well as it does notwithstanding.
I don’t think that’s what they mean. Because our cones send a signal for only 3 colors of light with overlap. We detect 3 and our brain interpolates the rest.
I don’t know if this is what the parent poster was talking about, but color pickers in many programs present you with a cubic representation of their available color space. The default Windows color picker does nowadays as does Corel. Maybe Adobe too, but I haven’t used any Adobe software in years so I don’t know how they do it now.
Since computer monitors suck at truly displaying three dimensional information [citationneeded], you’re presented with a rectangular slice of a cube. Here’s the Corel color picker, for instance:
The X axis is saturation, the Y axis is intensity, and the “depth” or Z axis is hue, which is controlled with the little slider on the bottom. As you move the slider up and down your “viewpoint” of the slice moves up and down through the depth of the cube, essentially representing it in 256 little vertical slices (or however many based on your bits-per-pixel).
Despite being the graphics nerd that I am, I can’t tell you off the top of my head how this cubic representation is flawed, although computer monitor color rendition itself is inherently flawed because most color spaces probably can’t actually fully represent all the colors that normal human vision is capable of differentiating, but what the hell do I know. Browns and oranges are famously difficult to reproduce with only red, green, and blue, the usual three additive colors available to you. The cube map itself, at least, gives you a spatial method by which to select any of the 16581375 possible RGB values actually possible an 8 bit per pixel format, even if the methodology for presenting them all to the user might not quite make intuitive sense.
You can also do cubic map of only hues, with each axis in the cube corresponding to red, green, or blue, like this one courtesy of Wikipedia:
![Special interest [Sarah Anderson]](https://lemmy.world/pictrs/image/98b34dbe-6445-40aa-9955-e8cf2de5f373.jpeg){kind=link}
I’ve got a whole repitoire.
Did you know that the Cubic represention of color that computers use is inherently flawed?
Did you know that cucumbers are melons and that all fruits are vegetables, just like root, tubers, and leaves?
Did you know that a lot of things we take advantage of in our conscious experience can vary wildly like a lack of different types of bonding modes, the ability to and qualia of distinguishing senses, and the little tools like facial recognition and speech synthesis can malfunction?
Botanical vs culinary
Vegetables are a social construct.
It may be inherently flawed, but we can’t just arbitrarily emit wavelengths of light with current technology. Realistically I doubt we ever could, we would need to alter the emission energies of materials on the fly, which would be akin to actual magic. It is frankly amazing it works as well as it does notwithstanding.
I don’t think that’s what they mean. Because our cones send a signal for only 3 colors of light with overlap. We detect 3 and our brain interpolates the rest.
Cubic color? What do you mean? I’ve always seen color spaces represented as triangles filling the curve.
I don’t know if this is what the parent poster was talking about, but color pickers in many programs present you with a cubic representation of their available color space. The default Windows color picker does nowadays as does Corel. Maybe Adobe too, but I haven’t used any Adobe software in years so I don’t know how they do it now.
Since computer monitors suck at truly displaying three dimensional information [citation needed], you’re presented with a rectangular slice of a cube. Here’s the Corel color picker, for instance:
The X axis is saturation, the Y axis is intensity, and the “depth” or Z axis is hue, which is controlled with the little slider on the bottom. As you move the slider up and down your “viewpoint” of the slice moves up and down through the depth of the cube, essentially representing it in 256 little vertical slices (or however many based on your bits-per-pixel).
Despite being the graphics nerd that I am, I can’t tell you off the top of my head how this cubic representation is flawed, although computer monitor color rendition itself is inherently flawed because most color spaces probably can’t actually fully represent all the colors that normal human vision is capable of differentiating, but what the hell do I know. Browns and oranges are famously difficult to reproduce with only red, green, and blue, the usual three additive colors available to you. The cube map itself, at least, gives you a spatial method by which to select any of the 16581375 possible RGB values actually possible an 8 bit per pixel format, even if the methodology for presenting them all to the user might not quite make intuitive sense.
You can also do cubic map of only hues, with each axis in the cube corresponding to red, green, or blue, like this one courtesy of Wikipedia:
Some of those things you just said made no sense to me and I want to know more about all of them.