|WikiProject Color||(Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)|
I'm a vision scientist and felt it was important to correct the content of this article. The way it was worded made it appear as if impossible colors were a well established phenomenon. While there are cases of synesthetes who see 'martian' colors, there is no conclusive evidence that a normal person will see them ... especially in the given paradigm of binocular rivalry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zuchinni one (talk • contribs) 03:17, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
- This article sites no sources. It also reads like an argument between editors. I would fix it up but I don't know anything about the subject and I don't know how to put in those cool "citation needed" tags.--18.104.22.168 (talk) 06:18, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
- I'm also a color scientist, and would like to reinforce that this is a controversial page. If it was in Wztezeki and Styles Color Science it would be law, but it is not. 22.214.171.124 (talk) 00:08, 1 March 2011 (UTC)Anon
- I think the editor who put it in (Zuchinni, who started this thread) is used to writing in a more scholarly setting and was reluctant to edit the work of others. Consequently, he/she has phrased it as a counterargument to what is already there. Fwiw, I think Zuchinni is correct. By the way, it is not true that no sources are cited, the one and only sentence I put in has an inline cite and the original article is clearly referenced to the work cited in the ref section (but not inline). SpinningSpark 18:53, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
- I think this link will help with refs. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opponent_process#Reddish_green_and_yellowish_blue --126.96.36.199 (talk) 13:18, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
"Cones and Rods"?
In the section "Opponent process", this article says "The color opponent process is a color theory that states that the human visual system interprets information about color by processing signals from cones and rods in an antagonistic manner." This is also the lede sentence in the article Opponent process. Should "and rods" be deleted from this sentence? Duoduoduo (talk) 17:28, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
- I think not, because the opponent process theory also integrates black and white into the system as colors. —Soap— 18:11, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
In my experience
- I have seen reddish-green, by exposing one eye to red and one eye to green. Similarly with yellowish-blue.
- See this search for statements that various real plant parts are reddish-green.
- At Jodrell Bank several years ago I once saw a reddish-green hedge: as I got closer the reddish-green broke up into green leaves and reddish bark which had been at about the same apparent size as the natural pixel size in my eyes' retinas. Reddish-green from this cause may cause some of the "indescribable autumn russets" which painters have difficulty reproducing. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 10:22, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
- With crossed eyes I only see the two color patches fighting with each other (sometimes I see the blue, sometimes the yellow, but not a third color, the same is true for non-opposing colors.) Calmarius (talk) 15:24, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
- In a stereoscope I once saw a Transformers cartoon image including the glowing energy substance energon, and it showed the energon as yellow to one eye and red to the other eye, causing a peculiar effect. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 23:58, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
Yellowish-blue is not an impossible colour - its called "green". Yellowish red is called "orange". Greenish red is not impossible - its called either brown, ochre, khaki, gambodge, umber, tuscan red, or a few other names depending on the relative proportions of red and green. I have normal colour vision (to prevent any objections on those grounds). Barney Bruchstein (talk) 18:34, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
Imagine a color you can't even imagine.
- Now do that nine more times. That is how the mantis shrimp do. Hellbus (talk) 03:36, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
- actually, this term refers to colors that appear to impossibly blend two "possible" colors. i think your time (and ze frank references) would be better spent at imaginary color, or polarization and ultraviolet, which are the extra types of light the mantis shrimp can see. ~ Boomur [☎] 16:45, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
- Page Imaginary color has been text-merged into page Impossible colors, and page Polarization is a long disambig page. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 09:15, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
- sorry, i was not as thorough as i normally would have been because my reply was something of a joke. at the time of writing my reply, imaginary color was a separate page, and i was referring to Polarization (waves), which is, of course, the type of polarization relevant to the mantis shrimp. ~ Boomur [☎] 16:44, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
- Obviously not enough people have watched the video "True Facts About the Mantis Shrimp." Hellbus (talk) 01:07, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
Request move to Impossible color
"Opponent process" is poorly integrated into article
Opponent process, which is currently the first section after the Introduction, is not mentioned in the Introduction nor for another two sections, until the third section following it: Chimerical colors. At the same time, the phrase "impossible colors" does not occur at all in the "Opponent process" section.
As a result, the "Opponent process" section appears to have no connection with the article until one reads the third section following it. Instead, this section ought to be integrated better into the article.Daqu (talk) 19:25, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
What about the color perception of dichromates and monochromates?
People who are missing one or two of the three kinds of cone cells perceive colors that others cannot, since every humanly perceivable color normally stimulates all three types of cones, at least somewhat. I do not know much about this, but I hope someone who does will please add a section about normally "impossible" colors that color-blind people can perceive.Daqu (talk) 19:29, 30 December 2014 (UTC)