Hacker News Reader

Comment by robbrown451 | Hacker News Reader

Agree that they haven't offered much in terms of how it could make displays more vibrant.

> At the end of the day, colors -- whether in a movie scene or a paint chip -- are ultimately chosen by eye, not by math

Well.... math is involved if you want to do even simple stuff like blending two colors in a paint program. There is subjective stuff, sure, but you aren't going to get very far in computer graphics, display manufacture or camera chip manufacture, if you just conclude that it is 100% subjective and there is no mathematical logic behind it.

View on HN

It inherently doesn't make any sense because the limits, the "bounds of space" of displays is physical. Changing your indexing system doesn't sprout new colors

It very much does, as color is not a physical phenomenon. It's just perception - essentially a bunch of weights in your neural network that makes some internal conceptual sense. You can trivially go outside of those "physical limits" e.g. by exploiting temporal perception quirks to get impossible colors (not represented by any spectral combination in typical conditions).

The same can be said about all human perception in general, not just colors. Artists exploit this for centuries, and are trying to formalize this. Newer color appearance models try to precisely quantify perception effects to make better color appearance possible.

Is there any example of using color chirps(?) in mainstream use? Interesting concept.

This doesn't have any effect on my claim, that displays have a gamut that's bounded by how they physically create lights.

I'm not sure how to explain why further than that, it's not even wrong, something I've definitely seen is the more people know about color, the more complex it seems when usually it's more simple when you start thinking across reference frames / viewing conditions

Source: builds color spaces using color appearance models

It is about rendering colors of the scene within the bounds of physical limits of display device color space.

Rendering to the display device screen uses perceptual intent: a conversion of color space of the display under some assumptions about screen viewing environment etc. [1]

With better models we can improve this conversion. Article mentions that large color differences are not perceived as acute as the current models (Riemman etc) suggested so new model could boost the color difference to achieve that higher acuity.

[1] https://blog.colorgate.com/en/rendering-intent-explained

This does not create more colors or mean displays or fabrics could have more colors or anything like that

Mental model for color space that keeps things on track is it's just like any 3D space. Here, we could say "distance space" like "color space" and two "distance spaces" are miles and kilometers, (two color spaces are RGB and $ONE_FOLLOWING_FROM_PAPER)

If we found the distance equation in distance space differed from expectations, due to interesting things about physical geometry, that wouldn't create new places.

Why? The map is not the territory. The physical space still exists as it did.

Moving from distance to color: the physical display gamut is the territory. The map is the color space.

If we discover our distance metric in the space is flawed, we'd measure distance between colors as different than before. That wouldn't create new colors in color space.

Source: I create color spaces

Reply on news.ycombinator.com