Timeline for Would aliens with different visual perception be able to read our screens?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
14 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mar 22, 2021 at 1:51 | comment | added | forest | @AlexP Interesting. Thank you for enlightening me! | |
| Mar 22, 2021 at 1:48 | comment | added | AlexP | @forest: Just for example... Nicole A. Fider & Natalia L. Komarova, "Differences in color categorization manifested by males and females: a quantitative World Color Survey study", in Palgrave Communications volume 5, 2019. Or search for color discrimination men women. (I'm not saying that there is an inherent biological difference; in fact, I'm quite certain there isn't any. But in most times and places women were and are socially expected since infancy to be good at color matching and tend to have a larger vocabulary related to colors.) | |
| Mar 22, 2021 at 1:41 | comment | added | forest | @AlexP That's true. Do you have any references that support there being a functional difference in color discrimination between most men and women, without falling back on the occasional tetrachromacy? | |
| Mar 22, 2021 at 1:40 | comment | added | AlexP | @forest: Socio-cultural training also plays a role in color discrimination. | |
| Jun 7, 2017 at 16:24 | comment | added | AlexP | @BrianWoodbury: Begin with Barry Maund's article "Color" in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy and with the article on color in Wikipedia. Then follow the links and bibliographies. | |
| Jun 7, 2017 at 14:54 | comment | added | Brian Woodbury | This opens up a huge volume of questions on perception and optics. You seemed well versed on the topic, are there any books on the subject that you could recommend? | |
| Jun 6, 2017 at 20:42 | history | edited | AlexP | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
Text lisibility
|
| Jun 6, 2017 at 20:32 | comment | added | user | That's much better! | |
| Jun 6, 2017 at 20:32 | history | edited | AlexP | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
Wide gamut monitors
|
| Jun 6, 2017 at 20:28 | comment | added | user | Oh yes, this is a huge subject (and far, far, far too large for the comment space). I just wanted to point out that sRGB is not the end-all be-all even of computer monitors, which your answer made it sound like, and that wider gamut hardware is available in the real world, today, if you want it and are willing to pay the bit (you see what I did here, don't you?) of price premium. Of course I ran out of space in the margin, so the wonderful proof will have to be left as an exercise for the reader... | |
| Jun 6, 2017 at 20:24 | history | edited | AlexP | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
Grammar
|
| Jun 6, 2017 at 20:20 | comment | added | AlexP | @MichaelKjörling: You are of course right, AdobeRGB has a much wider gamut than sRGB; so wide that it absolutely requires more than 8 bits per component. 10-bit color depth does not extend the gamut, it just makes available finer distinctions. (Due to the built-in gamma corrections of sRGB, which was designed so that it would match old CRT color screens, banding may be visible when using 8 bits per pixel.) On the other hand, a monitor which is able to show an extended color gamut cannot do anything with image files which are already encoded in sRGB. I could have expanded the answer tenfold... | |
| Jun 6, 2017 at 20:15 | comment | added | user | Note that modern monitors are available which have a wider gamut than sRGB. It's not uncommon to find monitors that natively use Adobe RGB in the professional space (heck, my mid-range digital camera from 2008 can be set to write out JPEGs using Adobe RGB if desired, the alternative being sRGB and of course raw/monochromatic sensor data dumps), and there are monitors available that use 10-bit color depths per subpixel instead of the more common 8-bit depths; and of course, even monitors that advertise 3 times 8-bit sRGB might in practice be more like 3 x 6-7 bit sRGB. | |
| Jun 6, 2017 at 20:03 | history | answered | AlexP | CC BY-SA 3.0 |