Talk:Impossible color

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Talk:Imaginary color)
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Color (Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is supported by WikiProject Color, a project that provides a central approach to color-related subjects on Wikipedia. Help us improve articles to good and 1.0 standards; visit the wikiproject page for more details.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Color response curve misleading[edit]

I believe this plot is misleading in two ways:

First, it claims to be adapted from Stockman et al. Vol. 10, No. 12/December 1993/J. Opt. Soc. Am. A 2491). However, it would appear the adaptation was not sufficiently careful, as it missed the UV behavior, see figure 12 in above reference.

Second, and more importantly, it does not accurately reflect reality, and fails to account for the following phenomena: We know the shortest wavelength on the rainbow appears purple, as does and equal combination of red + blue (RGB 128,0,128). This is inconsistent with the above plot.

Instead, see discussion on StackExchange. The correct plot should be, which is referenced to Bowmaker, J.K., & Dartnall, H.J.A. Visual pigments of rods and cones in a human retina. Journal of Physiology, 298, 1980, 501-511 figure 2, as it allows us to understand how an RGB-based screen can generate a color which appears as purple. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shai mach (talkcontribs) 08:55, 6 December 2015 (UTC)


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 (talkcontribs) 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.-- (talk) 06:18, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
The tags are easy, just type {{cn}} after the passage you wish to tag. Perhaps user Zuchinni one can provide some references, they seem to be an expert. SpinningSpark 09:26, 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. (talk) 00:08, 1 March 2011 (UTC)Anon
It does seem to need some editing. The last paragraph in the 'Claimed Evidence' section reads as though it's written purely to rubbish the preceding work. And it's uncited. (talk) 15:15, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
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. -- (talk) 13:18, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

"Cones and Rods"?[edit]

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)
But black and white are cone colors: white is an equal mixture of all frequencies with high luminescence, while black is achieved in the limit as the luminescence is lowered. So the issue is: do the sources say anything about rods? Duoduoduo (talk) 18:57, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

In my experience[edit]

  • 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)

More Experience[edit]

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.[edit]

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[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: move the page, per the discussion below. Dekimasuよ! 02:17, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Impossible colorsImpossible color – There is no reason to pluralize per WP:PLURAL. Using the singular would make the article match other articles about types of color, such as Primary color, Secondary color, and Imaginary color. I cannot perform the move myself because the redirect has a history. ~ Boomur [] 00:26, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

  • Support per nom. Dicklyon (talk) 05:48, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Support – Consistency is good. (Though you should note that Imaginary color is just a redirect to the current article.) --V2Blast (talk) 09:36, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Imaginary color was a separate article when the nomination was made, but apparently it was merged into this one shortly afterward. ~ Boomur [] 15:36, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Ah. Makes sense. --V2Blast (talk) 05:16, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Support for consistency. Stickee (talk) 12:58, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

"Opponent process" is poorly integrated into article[edit]

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?[edit]

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)

More than one type of imaginary color?[edit]

The article currently says:

One type of imaginary color (also referred to as non-physical or unrealizable color) is a point in a color space that corresponds to combinations of cone cell responses in one eye, that cannot be produced by the eye in normal circumstances seeing any possible light spectrum. ...

This suggests that there are more than one type of imaginary color. What are the other types? SharkD  Talk  22:51, 28 March 2017 (UTC)