Re: Humans (and cameras and scanners) do not have a color gamut (?)
Re: Humans (and cameras and scanners) do not have a color gamut (?)
- Subject: Re: Humans (and cameras and scanners) do not have a color gamut (?)
- From: Graeme Gill via colorsync-users <email@hidden>
- Date: Fri, 10 Jan 2020 09:36:00 +1100
Henry Davis via colorsync-users wrote:
> It keeps being suggested that without an observer there is no such thing as
> color - for
> there to be color it must be perceived. That old tree falling in the forest
> . . .
It's the distinction between the physical that is external to a being,
and the interpretation of that external physical thing on their consciousness.
It's easier with light, since there are distinct words.
Physical: Light. Spectrum of light. etc.
Subjective: Color. Vision. etc.
For sound, it is not so easy:
Physical: Sound. Sound waves.
Subjective: Sound. Hearing a sound.
(Hence the joke about trees in forests).
You can of course draw parallel phenomena to color for other "beings",
including other animal, artificial constructs etc., and call it
"color". But it is probably not the same as human color, unless
it has been deliberately constructed to be so.
For the purposes of most of the discussion here, we're talking
about the tri-stumulus perception of light that humans experience
somewhere in the retina of their eyes. Our overall vision is
not so easily characterized as a set of spectral sensitivities,
since it involves a lot of extra neurological processing.
Cheers,
Graeme Gill.
_______________________________________________
Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored.
colorsync-users mailing list (email@hidden)
Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription:
This email sent to email@hidden