Your eyes suck at blue
nfggames.com
Your eyes suck at blue
1–10 of 44 posts
Re: Your eyes suck at blue
#2I wouldn't have thought so given that blue is the favorite color of most people[1].
Re: Your eyes suck at blue
#3> This is how DVDs work: a high res green image and two low-res images, one for red, one for blue.
Not true. MPEG-2 uses the YCbCr colorspace, consisting of a high resolution Luminance signal (brightness) and a low resolution Chrominance signal (color). So in fact, all color information is subsampled, green is not treated specially.
Re: Your eyes suck at blue
#4I wouldn't have thought so given that blue is the favorite color of most people[1]. [1] http://www.joehallock.com/edu/COM498/preferences.html
Not really. Favourite colours have to do more with social and cultural features than your ability to finely distinguish between different shades of said colour. I strongly believe that the proper phrasing for the results should not be "blue is the favorite color of most people" but rather "blue is the favourite colour of most White North Americans/Western Europeans".
I bet if this was done in China, it would be more heavily weighted towards red, and if done in ancient Phenoncia, it would probably be purple.
Re: Your eyes suck at blue
#5That is pretty neat, although I'm not sure I understand all the outrage. "THE DVD FORUM IS STEALING OUR PIXELS!!"
If your eye doesn't notice the difference, are you being "bilked"?
Re: Your eyes suck at blue
#6I'm wondering how much of this isn't an artifact of that specific picture; how do we know the RGB distribution in the original pic isn't skewed away from blue? That might explain why there's little information in the blue channel, right?
edit: no -> little
Re: Your eyes suck at blue
#7Ugh. We don't have an entirely clear picture of how our eyes physically detect color, much less how we perceive it, but there are serious problems with the argument the author makes here. You cannot simply take a color photograph of a scene, split it in to three channels, then point out that the blue channel is "dark and contains less detail" as evidence of our inability to perceive the color blue. The fact is that the blue channel really is darker because of the actual lack of blue light in the photo.
The trick here is that the areas that have a lot of detail (her face, for example) contain less blue. If you use a color meter to inspect the areas around the girls face, you'll find that there is less blue light present. That makes sense, considering that our skin doesn't contain a lot of blue pigment. This fact is exacerbated by the fact that the author overlaps the channel samples in a way that places emphasis on the areas impacted the most.
Basically, the author fails to understand the additive color model. We don't notice the pixelation of the blue channel in this photo because the result of the alteration is to introduce a low-contrast color in to the photo where the aberration overlaps: yellow. If you look closely, you'll see that the areas where you see cyan and magenta in the red and green channels are replaced by yellow in the corresponding blue channel alteration. The effects are diminished by two factors: there isn't much blue luminance present to influence the other colors, and yellow contrasts poorly with most of the colors in the photo where we notice it (the hood is white).
If you were to take a color-neutral photograph and split out the RGB channels, you'd perceive the same level of detail in all channels.
EDIT: I'd kind of like to take back that last statement about perceiving the same level of detail in all channels. I don't know that you would, but that's not the primary thing that bugs me about the author's argument. My main point is that his argument is flawed, not his assertion. I don't know enough about human color perception to make that argument.
Re: Your eyes suck at blue
#8Ugh. We don't have an entirely clear picture of how our eyes physically detect color, much less how we perceive it, but there are serious problems with the argument the author makes here. You cannot simply take a color photograph of a scene, split it in to three channels, then point out that the blue channel is "dark and contains less detail" as evidence of our inability to perceive the color blue. The fact is that t…
Anyone curious about how I know there is less blue in the photo should open the photograph in an image editor and inspect the histogram for each channel. If you don't understand color histograms, read my dandy article on the topic:
http://upload.bradlanders.com/mycanikon/essays/histograms/ht...
The article focuses on average luminance, but histograms are interpreted the same for all color channels when looked at individually.
Re: Your eyes suck at blue
#9> This is how DVDs work: a high res green image and two low-res images, one for red, one for blue. Not true. MPEG-2 uses the YCbCr colorspace, consisting of a high resolution Luminance signal (brightness) and a low resolution Chrominance signal (color). So in fact, all color information is subsampled, green is not treated specially.
Indeed. The author of this article is pretty badly misinformed.
Re: Your eyes suck at blue
#10Ugh. We don't have an entirely clear picture of how our eyes physically detect color, much less how we perceive it, but there are serious problems with the argument the author makes here. You cannot simply take a color photograph of a scene, split it in to three channels, then point out that the blue channel is "dark and contains less detail" as evidence of our inability to perceive the color blue. The fact is that t…
Lots of text there, and you certainly sound confident, but I tried an experiment, and it confirmed the claims of the article.
I used Paint.NET, loaded in an image, copied it to three layers. Adusted each layer to be a single colour channel, then changed each of the layers to 'Additive' mode.
Pixellating the blue layer - I could perceive at most some 'colour blotching', but no real loss of 'sharpness'
Pixellating the green layer - pixellation was easily visible.
Pixellating the red layer - the effect was somewhere in between.
You should give it a try. Here's my test Paint.NET image file with the layers all set up for you: