Scientists find woman who sees 99 million more colors than others (2012)
digitaljournal.com
digitaljournal.com
I take issue with that claim that ordinary people can only perceive 1 million colors. That may be accurate but it nevertheless irks me. It serves as justification for the unfortunate situation we have today where although technology has existed for years to provide us with deep color, we are stuck with the 16,777,216 colors provided by 24-bit color.
Despite a large palette, there are several cases where 24-bit color depth yields obvious banding. I've ranted about this previously [1] so I'll leave it at that.
Some that cannot see it might have missed the author's advice at the bottom:
I received some great feedback from readers. Most importantly, it was pointed out that some low-cost LCD monitors down-sample to an even worse color depth such as 18-bit or lower. In fact, some readers were not able to see the difference in the colors above precisely because their monitor removed the difference by down-sampling.
Another problem is ambient light. if you're wearing a red tshirt, and there is a source of light other than your monitor its going to throw out the colour balance.
So humans can see more than 1 million colors.
Edit: maybe this image will make it clear: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/cb/HSL...
http://www.post-gazette.com/stories/news/health/some-women-m...
Btw. only women have this ability. I believe the function of better eyes is to protect from predators or men, by differentiating more types of shades and therefore recognizing motion a lot earlier.
1. http://www.empiricalzeal.com/2012/06/05/the-crayola-fication...
Is this really so confusing? To see 4 primary colors the cones must see different wavelengths. If the person has cones with only very slight differences in the frequency response then there will be no visible effect.
This also shows that people really do perceive colors differently - depending on which specific frequency you inherit you will see colors somewhat (or slightly) differently.
But most people only inherit 3 frequencies. Some rare ones (the tetrachromats) inherit 4.
It seems to me it should be possible to have 6 frequencies, but I'm not certain of the genetics.
For example it might mean that there is less over all resolution (cones might not fit together properly) also the brain might not be using them, as there is no need. (optical nerve atrophy happens when you have a squint. This means that if the squint is not corrected at a young age the nerve will decay to the point where significant resolution is lost in that eye.)
You have to be aware of a skill to really take advantage of it. I work in the VFX industry, which means I can see orthogonal light sources a mile off (two clips shot at different locations could mean that objects are lit from subtly different angles.) Most people don't notice, as its not something they'd ever have to look for in real life.
As for colour, I wasn't that great (I have top 10% visual accuracy, or resolution) I took a hue matching test and came out just below average. After 6 years in VFX I'm top 1%
Seeing subtle changes in colour require a surprisingly large amount of practice.
Source: my father is an OD and my brother has almost no red cones at all.
So there might be many people with the potential for tetrachromancy, who just haven't had it trained-into-them by challenges as they learned vision and color perception.
The researchers might want to take whatever performance tests they use to verify tetrchromancy, and make them into a progressively-harder game for children... to see if with early-enough practice the capability is more widespread.
and
"... the hues familiar to trichromats fracture further into more subtle shades of differences that have not been given names since most of us are trichromats who cannot see these shades and name them."
Wait, we have a million named colors? Or a significant fraction of a million? I'm assuming they aren't referring to naming conventions like #ff6600.