posted
Unless there's an even more minor field by the same name, visual analytics has nothing to do with analyzing images (well, you could apply it to analyzing images, but no more than anything else).
Visual analytics is about making (usually) interactive visualizations to help people understand large amounts of data.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by fugu13: Unless there's an even more minor field by the same name, visual analytics has nothing to do with analyzing images (well, you could apply it to analyzing images, but no more than anything else).
Visual analytics is about making (usually) interactive visualizations to help people understand large amounts of data.
You are correct. My interest in visual analytics has been because ultimately analysis of hyperspectral images leads you to seek for ways to effectively present those complex data sets to people, and so my research requires some understanding of visual analytics, though as I said I am not a visual analytics researcher.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: When I was in school, it was red, yellow and blue.
Oops! [/QB]
Yup, Here is a link to the wiki article on the RYB (Red, Yellow, and Blue) color system. It appears my primary education predates modern color theory.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Perhaps so. But guess what they're teaching in kindergartens across the nation, right at this very moment?
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
On a related note, over the years I have been in and observed enough arguments between men and women about subtle color differences that I had concluded that all men were color blind.
I even had a theory to explain it. Here it is. The genes for red and green cones are on the X chromosome which is why red green color blindness is dominant in men but not in women. There are two basic types of read green color blindness. In the first type, the person is completely missing either the gene for either red or green cones so they can not see any difference between red and green. (This is called dichromatism) In the more common type of red green color blindness, the person has a defect in either the red or green cone which makes the two cones more similar hence the person is still able to see differences between red and green but those differences are more subtle. (Anomalous Trichromacy) These people often have no idea they are color blind until they take a test specifically designed to detect this problem. (This much is fact, not my theory.)
I'm speculating that this color blindness defect isn't as simple binary good cone/bad cone issue but that there is actually a range of variability in the response curves for red and green cones. Since women have two X chromosomes, they will have two genes for red cones and two genes for greens cones and its unlikely that both genes will be identical so most women will have two different red cones with slightly different response curves and two different green cones with slightly different response curves where as men will have only one type of red cone and one type of green cone. Most men and women will also have two different genes for blue cones since those genes aren't on the X chromosome.
So anyway, I've speculated for years that this is why women were more sensitive to subtle differences in color than men.
Well this thread just inspired me to do a search and see if any one had researched the question and it turns out my speculations were correct. Or at least most of it has been confirmed. Some women at least have 4 or 5 distinctly different cones blue, normal red and colorblind red, normal green and colorblind green where as men have at most three different types of cones. (There is still potential that both men and women have two measurably different types of blue cones which would make up to 4 cones for men and up to 6 for women but I haven't been able to confirm that).
So there you have it: All men are colorblind.
As a side note, this implies that women (like me) who have a Father with anomalous trichromacy, who are not colorblind but carry the gene for colorblindness have enhanced colorvision. Thanks Dad!
[ February 18, 2009, 06:09 PM: Message edited by: The Rabbit ]
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: When I was in school, it was red, yellow and blue.
Oops!
Yup, Here is a link to the wiki article on the RYB (Red, Yellow, and Blue) color system. It appears my primary education predates modern color theory. [/QB]
Me, too. I read through that article, and I still don't get what's wrong with RYB.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:n the RGB color model the colors are added, so that one starts with levels of dark colors, which are added together to produce lighter colors. RYB uses pigments which are not added, so that combining colors using the RYB color system will result in a darker color. Because of this, it is impossible to create magenta, since its value would normally be the combined value of red and blue, but combining them using pigments creates a darker color (namely purple or violet). Similarly, it is impossible to create a true cyan. Therefore, any color between red and blue must be darker than red and blue, and any color between yellow and red or yellow and blue must be darker than yellow.
Ah! That explains my question about purple. Thank you!
(Well, Rabbit explained it earlier. But because of this wikipedia quote, I understand it better.)
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well not all women, but at least some. And no men are tetrachromates.
The bottom line men is this, if you are in an argument with a woman about color, acquiesce. Its very likely that she can seen colors better than you.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
MPH edited his post to make my response look weird. I should have suspected something was up when the I tried to quote him using the " " link and it wouldn't work.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:MPH edited his post to make my response look weird. I should have suspected something was up when the I tried to quote him using the " " link and it wouldn't work.
Sorry about that. I made that post without reading all of your post. Namely, the part where you said exactly what I was saying.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: Me, too. I read through that article, and I still don't get what's wrong with RYB.
Nothing's wrong with it, really; it's just a question of additive colors vs. subtractive colors. For printing, cyan/magenta/yellow is essentially blue/red/yellow, just slightly different shades thereof than one finds in kindergarten construction paper. Posts: 884 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I had a cow-orker one time tell me to plug something into "the grey box." I looked for the damn thing for a half an hour before I gave up and made him come upstairs and point it out.
quote: So there you have it: All men are colorblind.
I said "That's not grey, that's silver."
He objected.
I then went and got everyone in the building (it was a relatively small office) and asked them what colour it was. Every man said "Grey" every woman said "Silver."
It's comforting, after all these years, to have scientific proof that I was right.
Posts: 7085 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I have a terrible memory for colors. I usually can't remember what color someone was wearing, even if it was fairly bright. I am terrible trying to add color to any drawings I do. However, I think I see colors just fine.
Posts: 5957 | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Shmuel: For printing, cyan/magenta/yellow is essentially blue/red/yellow, just slightly different shades thereof than one finds in kindergarten construction paper.
posted
So a mirror is grey? I'd call it colorless.
I remember having an argument with my sister when I was about 8 about the color of one of my textbooks. I still think I was right. But I guess I must have been wrong, huh. Posts: 1810 | Registered: Jan 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by rivka: Perhaps so. But guess what they're teaching in kindergartens across the nation, right at this very moment?
Guess what they taught in the color theory class I took in college?
quote:Originally posted by Shmuel: Nothing's wrong with it, really; it's just a question of additive colors vs. subtractive colors. For printing, cyan/magenta/yellow is essentially blue/red/yellow, just slightly different shades thereof than one finds in kindergarten construction paper.
Not exactly. The difference between RYB and CMY is not additive versus subtractive, but two different subtractive systems, one of which does not work as well. You cannot make good greens with blue plus yellow, and you cannot make good purples with red plus blue. It's akin to trying to make yellow out of orange and green.
I should note, though, that the cyan and magenta that printers use are not the same as the cyan and magenta that you get by mixing blue and green or blue and red light. They're a little closer to red and blue, respectively, which means that they don't produce very vivid purples and greens. Four-color process printing has a much smaller gamut than computer monitors do.
Posts: 9945 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by rivka: Pfft. Who combines construction paper colors?
FINGER PAINTS!
A good point.
quote:Originally posted by Jon Boy: Not exactly. The difference between RYB and CMY is not additive versus subtractive, but two different subtractive systems, one of which does not work as well.
I was referring to RYB/CMY vs. RGB.
With that said, I stand by the contention that M is just a specific shade of R and C is a specific shade of B, making the terms essentially the same for those who don't work in relevant fields... and certainly close enough for primary school. Posts: 884 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Jon Boy: Four-color process printing has a much smaller gamut than computer monitors do.
Ain't that the truth...
In my day job it is common for people to bring us files to be printed that were setup in the RGB colorspace instead of CMYK. It's typically because they just don't know the difference or because they usually make graphics for the web.
Some 4-color process printers are actually 6 or 7 colors with the addition of light cyan, light Magenta, etc. Still your basic subtractive colors, Although I did see a printer advertised as having RGB inks... chyeah... right....Posts: 369 | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Shmuel: With that said, I stand by the contention that M is just a specific shade of R and C is a specific shade of B
Definitely not. (And you know what Rabbit said! ) Magenta is a red/blue, not a red; cyan is a blue/green, not a blue.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Agreed. And it's not just an issue of terms, but of the effect you get when you mix those particular pigments.
Pegasus: I've heard about that kind of thing a lot. The prepress team at my last job said that the creative department always sent them stuff in RGB, and no matter how many times prepress tried to tell them what the problem was and teach them how to fix it, they never caught on. Posts: 9945 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
We have an outside person create our color ads. But how would I know which colorspace I was using, in, say, Publisher?
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I agree with Rabbit about women and colors. There has to be a reason that my wife has 5 different (to me identical) pairs of red shoes...
Posts: 571 | Registered: Mar 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
What color is it when it's not reflecting anything? Or maybe the better question is, what color does it add to reflections? Most of the difference in color between the original and the reflection is probably going to come from the glass, though.
As for your Publisher question, I don't know because I don't use Publisher. In InDesign CS it's under Edit > Color Settings.
Posts: 9945 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Jon Boy: What color is it when it's not reflecting anything? Or maybe the better question is, what color does it add to reflections? Most of the difference in color between the original and the reflection is probably going to come from the glass, though.
As for your Publisher question, I don't know because I don't use Publisher. In InDesign CS it's under Edit > Color Settings.
It doesn't add color, it subtracts it. You get less back than you shined at it.
Aside from the color of the glass (which is usually minimal).
Posts: 4287 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yeah, but when you mix yellow paint and red paint, you say that you added one to the other, not that you subtracted the complement of one from the other. Posts: 9945 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: The bottom line men is this, if you are in an argument with a woman about color, acquiesce. Its very likely that she can seen colors better than you.
Quoted because some of the men here seem not only to be colorblind but also to be slow learners.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote: Muriel Blandings: I want it to be a soft green, not as blue-green as a robin's egg, but not as yellow-green as daffodil buds. Now, the only sample I could get is a little too yellow, but don't let whoever does it go to the other extreme and get it too blue. It should just be a sort of grayish-yellow-green. Now, the dining room. I'd like yellow. Not just yellow; a very gay yellow. Something bright and sunshine-y. I tell you, Mr. PeDelford, if you'll send one of your men to the grocer for a pound of their best butter, and match that exactly, you can't go wrong! Now, this is the paper we're going to use in the hall. It's flowered, but I don't want the ceiling to match any of the colors of the flowers. There's some little dots in the background, and it's these dots I want you to match. Not the little greenish dot near the hollyhock leaf, but the little bluish dot between the rosebud and the delphinium blossom. Is that clear? Now the kitchen is to be white. Not a cold, antiseptic hospital white. A little warmer, but still, not to suggest any other color but white. Now for the powder room - in here - I want you to match this thread, and don't lose it. It's the only spool I have and I had an awful time finding it! As you can see, it's practically an apple red. Somewhere between a healthy winesap and an unripened Jonathan. Oh, excuse me... Mr. PeDelford: You got that Charlie? Charlie, Painter: Red, green, blue, yellow, white. Mr. PeDelford: Check.
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: The bottom line men is this, if you are in an argument with a woman about color, acquiesce. Its very likely that she can seen colors better than you.
Quoted because some of the men here seem not only to be colorblind but also to be slow learners.
Yeah, and some of us men can discern colors better than many women. Just because men in general may not notice or care about colors as much as women doesn't mean they're colorblind or slow learners.
Posts: 9945 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: The bottom line men is this, if you are in an argument with a woman about color, acquiesce. Its very likely that she can seen colors better than you.
Quoted because some of the men here seem not only to be colorblind but also to be slow learners.
Nope! Not condescending enough. Try it again, but this time, I want to be able to see the contempt physically dripping down my screen (in whatever color you deem most appropriate, of course).
Posts: 16059 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Not that the particular color will make any difference to you, Noemon; you won't be able to tell what it is anyway. We all know that men see in shades of grey, or, if they're lucky, in EGA mode, like old computer monitors.
Posts: 9945 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: The bottom line men is this, if you are in an argument with a woman about color, acquiesce. Its very likely that she can seen colors better than you.
Quoted because some of the men here seem not only to be colorblind but also to be slow learners.
Nope! Not condescending enough. Try it again, but this time, I want to be able to see the contempt physically dripping down my screen (in whatever color you deem most appropriate, of course).
I think Rabbit is going for the same brand of cuteness you get from statements about how husbands are counted in the number of "kids" the wife looks after.
Posts: 4287 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: The bottom line men is this, if you are in an argument with a woman about color, acquiesce. Its very likely that she can seen colors better than you.
Quoted because some of the men here seem not only to be colorblind but also to be slow learners.
Yeah, and some of us men can discern colors better than many women. Just because men in general may not notice or care about colors as much as women doesn't mean they're colorblind or slow learners.
Sorry, I meant to be funny not insulting and certainly wasn't referring to you. I found it amusing that even after I'd presented evidence that women may be physiologically capable of discerning differences in color that men are not, some men were continuing to argue that color differences some women perceive as significant really don't exist.
By definition, men have only one X chromosome and women have two. Since the genes for red and green cones are on the X chromosome there is a real physiological difference in color perception between all normal XY males and all XX females. Certainly there is more to color perception than just the cones in the eye so it is debatable how much that physiological difference contributes to peoples ability to 'discern' color. However that physiological difference is a true gender linked difference that isn't really debatable anymore than its debatable whether men have testicles and women have ovaries. It a true binary difference between men and women and not a trait like "nurturing" where there is wide variability within each gender so that some many are much better nurturers than many women.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
You said that women might have more types of cones, but I don't see how this would necessarily change perception. If they have normal red cones and colorblind red cones, what would the colorblind cones add to the perception? It seems likely that adding less red-sensitive cones to more red-sensitive cones wouldn't improve the overall perception; in fact allowing for the same density of cones it seems like it would reduce it on average. (If the science has been done on the differences in perception, rather than on genetic cone differences, you didn't mention it.)
I think the arguments you observe about subtle differences in color perception are more easily accounted for by aesthetic preferences. "I don't see a difference" could easily mean "I don't see an important difference."
But aside from that, I don't think anyone was actually arguing that differences in color perception don't exist. It really would be silly to deny that someone perceives what they say they perceive, without a really good reason. (Like hypochondria [edit: Munchausen syndrome would be a better example] or something.)
I did see one tongue in cheek assertion about cyan and magenta, and some discussion about the color content of grey and silver and mirrors.
Posts: 4287 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by scifibum: You said that women might have more types of cones, but I don't see how this would necessarily change perception. If they have normal red cones and colorblind red cones, what would the colorblind cones add to the perception? It seems likely that adding less red-sensitive cones to more red-sensitive cones wouldn't improve the overall perception; in fact allowing for the same density of cones it seems like it would reduce it on average.
Oh, sure, try bringing logic into this.
Posts: 884 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Actually, Rabbit, it's not so clear-cut as "men have one X chromosome while women have two," because of dosage compensation. Many genes have deleterious effects when expressed at higher levels than "normal." In the case of the X chromosome, "normal" (at least in humans) happens to equal 1 active copy of the chromosome. So each cell in a woman's body actually only has one actively working X chromosome, just like in males. The second X chromosome in women is silenced of gene expression via a process called X-inactivation.
I think you're actually right about there being a physiological basis for women perceiving more gradations of color than men. But it's almost certainly due to a more complex genetic program than simply the number of X chromosomes present. Posts: 1321 | Registered: Sep 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
"There are only three space receptors, the rest of the dimensions are mashups like magenta."
"Huh? (I didn't agree, but I understood the idea before the edit. Now I'm not really sure what you are saying.)"
Well ya got farther than I did Just joking around -- kinda*sortamaybe -- with the conflation of color perception and dimensional mapping.
* However, holography is the "etching" of 3dimensional surface layer wrapped around a 3dimensional-but-otherwise-undescribed volume mapped into another 3-dimensional surface layer -- ie a 3d object mapped (with loss of information about the interior) into another 3d object -- and not a 3-dimensional object being mapped upon a 2-dimensional surface.
Posts: 8501 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Grumble]](graemlins/grumble.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
