Topic: I found a color blind simulator
kook !!mCVqftDha started this discussion 11 years ago #42,323
Anonymous B joined in and replied with this 11 years ago, 13 minutes later[^] [v] #562,017
Nice.The Blue-Weak/Tritanomaly looks quite similar to the normal image. Maybe I have that, how would you know?
Anonymous C joined in and replied with this 11 years ago, 10 minutes later, 24 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #562,018
kook !!mCVqftDha (OP) replied with this 11 years ago, 6 minutes later, 30 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #562,019
Anonymous D joined in and replied with this 11 years ago, 23 minutes later, 54 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #562,021
Anonymous B replied with this 11 years ago, 11 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #562,024
@previous (D)Surely you would have to have a very specific colour blindness to see those the same.
I am genuinely interested in how they test for it though. It is probably something boring like doing comparing 10,000 pairs of colours. A quick search of Yahoo! Answers won't tell me how many colours the average person can see.
Anonymous C replied with this 11 years ago, 20 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #562,029
@previous (B)
> A quick search of Yahoo! Answers won't tell me how many colours the average person can see.
So I am looking through an old "Sensation and Perception" textbook and it says that people can generally discern about 150 "steps" between 380 and 700nm of light. (aka the visible spectrum) With variations on saturation and brightness that multiplies out to about 7 million discernible colors.
I think it's interesting to note that computer graphics pretty much stopped adding bits once we got to 24-bit color. (16.7 million colors) It's like everyone just collectively agreed we had enough and going further wasn't a thing anymore.
> A quick search of Yahoo! Answers won't tell me how many colours the average person can see.
So I am looking through an old "Sensation and Perception" textbook and it says that people can generally discern about 150 "steps" between 380 and 700nm of light. (aka the visible spectrum) With variations on saturation and brightness that multiplies out to about 7 million discernible colors.
I think it's interesting to note that computer graphics pretty much stopped adding bits once we got to 24-bit color. (16.7 million colors) It's like everyone just collectively agreed we had enough and going further wasn't a thing anymore.
Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx joined in and replied with this 11 years ago, 1 hour later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #562,043
cool, apparently my eyes work
@562,017 (B)
@562,019 (kook !!mCVqftDha)
Looks like Blue-Weak/Tritanomaly effects only specific colours. It has a very noticeable effect on yellow things, at least.
@562,017 (B)
@562,019 (kook !!mCVqftDha)
Looks like Blue-Weak/Tritanomaly effects only specific colours. It has a very noticeable effect on yellow things, at least.
(Edited 27 seconds later.)
Anonymous C replied with this 11 years ago, 7 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #562,044
@562,017 (B)
@562,019 (kook !!mCVqftDha)
Also, there may some weird issue with the site loading and the filters it is using. I got worried because Red-Blind/Protanopia and Green-Blind/Deuteranopia looked exactly the same. Then I refreshed the page. Then they looked different.
@562,019 (kook !!mCVqftDha)
Also, there may some weird issue with the site loading and the filters it is using. I got worried because Red-Blind/Protanopia and Green-Blind/Deuteranopia looked exactly the same. Then I refreshed the page. Then they looked different.
FuckAlms !vX8K53rFBI joined in and replied with this 11 years ago, 47 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #562,054
Anonymous C replied with this 11 years ago, 24 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #562,069
@previous (FuckAlms !vX8K53rFBI)
Sure, we blew past 24 bits in the 90s but quickly realized the increased color depth wasn't particularly noticeable. There is limited support for 48-bit color among graphics formats, scanners, and image processing programs. Whether you are making a web page or taking pictures with your iPhone, you will generally find 24 bit color to be the norm. The increased file size and processing is usually useless at the consumer end because no one actually sees that many colors.
Sure, we blew past 24 bits in the 90s but quickly realized the increased color depth wasn't particularly noticeable. There is limited support for 48-bit color among graphics formats, scanners, and image processing programs. Whether you are making a web page or taking pictures with your iPhone, you will generally find 24 bit color to be the norm. The increased file size and processing is usually useless at the consumer end because no one actually sees that many colors.
(Edited 58 seconds later.)
FuckAlms !vX8K53rFBI replied with this 11 years ago, 1 hour later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #562,099
@previous (C)
Right, which is why it pisses me off when I come across 48-bit png images in the wild.
Right, which is why it pisses me off when I come across 48-bit png images in the wild.
FuckAlms !vX8K53rFBI double-posted this 11 years ago, 2 weeks later, 2 weeks after the original post[^] [v] #568,743
lo and behold, a 64-bit png from the minecraft wiki, weighing in at 1,532,629 Bytes...well that's some bullshit right there, imgur. >:/
proper image: http://hydra-media.cursecdn.com/minecraft.gamepedia.com/f/fd/Rabbit.png
(Edited 2 minutes later.)
FuckAlms !vX8K53rFBI triple-posted this 11 years ago, 1 hour later, 2 weeks after the original post[^] [v] #568,787
@previous (FuckAlms !vX8K53rFBI)Oh, hey would you look at that, Mr. Rabbit went on the 32-bit diet and now he only weighs 131,650 Bytes. That's 8.59% of his original weight. Lookin' grate Mr. Rabbit!