Welcome • User Guide
ToS • Privacy • Canary
Donate • Bugs • License

©2025 Poal.co

1.0K

(post is archived)

[–] • 2 pts

A paradigm shift away from the 3D mathematical description developed by Schrödinger and others to describe how we see color could result in more vibrant computer displays, TVs, textiles, printed materials, and more.

Yet will still never match CRTs.

[–] • 0 pt

From my limited understanding, this is describing an algorithm for software development. I don't think it has as much to do with the capabilities of the hardware. I could be wrong though, it's not really my forte.

[–] • 2 pts

so.... basically they think that schrodinger was off by a small fraction, not that his model shape was incorrect or that we interpert differences in some colors like red better than we would percieve differences in yellow.

[–] • 0 pt

Yeah as far as I can tell this discovery is mainly one of how much information is actually relevant to human color perception. One use for this would be allowing televisions to move between colors in a way that is more perceptually linear and consistent, or being able to produce colors that are perceptually more vibrant without modifying any hardware.

[–] • 0 pt

they just really really really wanted to claim the old white scientist was wrong

[–] • 2 pts

Don't you just love articles about scientific discoveries that just rephrase the same info for multiple paragraphs and don't actually explain what the exact discovery was or provide an example of it being applied?

[–] • 0 pt

Did you watch the video? That clarifies everything. /s

[–] • 2 pts (edited )

This has been known for decades, if not longer. While Roxana probably did discover something, it must be a very minor detail.

[–] • 2 pts

So color is dead?

[–] • 0 pt

I think it's talking about a pretty weird technical aspect of how we perceive color -

A very big difference in color is perceived as less big than the sum of smaller bits observed and added up to the same actual difference.

Like "color perspective lensing."

And they need new math to put it into a workable model.

[–] • 2 pts

My comment was a too obscure joke about Schrodinger's cat.

[–] • 1 pt

So apparently this is a highly technical subject regarding how to translate visual perception into numerical values for the purpose of coding color. Funny that the article in question does not mention this very simple explanation.

There's a somewhat better explanation of the concept here:

https://programmingdesignsystems.com/color/perceptually-uniform-color-spaces/index.html

I would say that this is just a sensationalist headline. There has been extensive research into the area since it's initial conception in the 1930's. They're bragging about proving somebody wrong when they have advanced tools and almost a century's worth of study to depend on. They should be thanking those that came before them that made the area of study possible instead of letting shitty, videogame-journalist tier writers try to overhype their grant applications.

[–] [deleted] • 1 pt

Anything after 8-bit depth 256 color, I just can't tell the difference. The red parrot photo they use to compare these color depths look exactly the same to me.

[–] • 1 pt

White = English, German, Scottish, maybe Welsh

Black = Everything else, including those retarded Polynesians

[–] • 0 pt

Schrodinger was a fraud. I have it on good authority that all his research papers were written by his cat.