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: Henry Davis via colorsync-users <email@hidden>
- Date: Mon, 13 Jan 2020 12:52:18 -0500
This business about other species’ perception of color, this is another fuss.
One can find all sorts of expert ’scholarly’ work about how animals percieve
color. You bring up tetrachromatic, and there are other theories out there
about animal perception. They are thrown around as ‘facts’ when a few decades
ago they would have only been counted as speculations.
The support for such ‘factual’ conclusions is usually given to be found in the
construction of the ’sensor’/eye. Not a single case can be made by anyone’s
fisthand information about the post processing by the brains of these animals.
Who can know what they see or apprehend? Yet, experts affirm their theories
about animal perception.
Since humans communicate with each other about color we can build models and
references and so on. But animals? Yet, experts are quick to supply examples
of how things must appear to non-humans.
This thread has bounced around on the difference between sensor and brain with
regard to color and it’s various limits(gamuts). I appreciate the care in
wording you’ve taken here:
> "If you grant other species to perceive “color” . . .”
When we grant that all of these theories are onto something about the ways
animals percieve color we account for their differences by describing them in
terms of ‘gamuts’.
Surprise: experts determine gamuts based on the sensor alone! They don’t even
seem to be the slightest bit unhappy about it.
Henry Davis
> On Jan 11, 2020, at 7:25 AM, Gerhard Fuernkranz via colorsync-users
> <email@hidden> wrote:
>
>> There is a problem. "There is no *color* a camera [I would say sensor] can't
>> see" implies that cameras see colors. This would imply they see colors, but
>> still (as we have said) put out signals that aren't colors. (Why not?)
>>
>> Cameras sense spectra.
>> To me, to be consistent, you must say that sensors sense ("see") spectra,
>> and when their signals are converted to a numerical color specification, may
>> have certain ranges of color they cannot represent, and/or produce certain
>> numerical values that are not colors (outside the human spectral locus),
>> and/or represent colors that are outside a specific color space.
>
> The question is, do you tie the term "color" exclusively to the *human*
> perception of electromagnetic radiation in a certain wavelength range, or
> would you also grant a more general definition, where the vision of other
> species (e.g. various kinds of animals) can perceive "color", too? (in their
> own ways, of course, since their color perceptions are likely all different
> from ours - some animals have e.g. tetrachromatic vision). Wikipedia seems to
> grant rather a broader interpretation of "color", not strictly limited to the
> human perception.
>
> If you grant other species to perceive "color" as well (according to their
> own notion of color perception), then simply add cameras to the group of
> other species, and cameras can "see colors", too (which are e.g. "RGB colors"
> then, according to the camera's notion of color perception).
_______________________________________________
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