I couldn't help but remark on this. I posted the following comment 418 days ago. I am sure this is a case of simultaneous ideation.
3 points by louprado 418 days ago | parent [-] | on: Life in Technicolor – One month wearing color blin...
While many of us are not "color-blind", we are all color challenged. This is because we only have three cone-types, assuming you aren't a tetrachromat.
I had a thought experiment: Suppose you breakup visible light into six bands. You then create two filters based on these bands. One filter would pass only bands 1, 3, and 5. The other filter would pass bands 2, 4, and 6.
Now suppose you put one filter over your left eye and the other filter over your right. Over time, could you learn to see the world in hexachromatic color ?
By the way, that's exactly how the Dolby 3D system works. You could try this out just with their standard glasses. Maybe you would have to create custom ones with more pronounced frequency differences, though. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dolby_3D
I am colourblind even by mainstream standards (protanomalous) and years ago in art school I was briefly experimenting with showing the left and right eye steroscopic images and film that were calibrated to different colour temperatures. At least for that effect, I did not notice a significant difference.
Of course, colour temperature is very different from truly splitting spectral bands. Should have thought of that!
I wonder if wearing those glasses out and about would give you the kind of enhanced vision described in this article.
All the 3D cinemas I've ever been to use RealD, which uses circular polarity, rather than colour to separate the images for the 2 eyes, so I've never experienced the Dolby glasses
the article's about 2011...
so when is the product actually coming out?
I'm not blind (maybe yet?) but I'd like to have them for some local blind ppl...
As long as you're using 2 filters, you're only adding one dimension to the distinction, so it would remain tetrachromatic. You would be able to distinguish more metamers than the configuration in the article (hence having more utility, probably), but ultimately you're still only gaining the "channel" of your binocular discrepancy as a virtual photopigment.
I'm not sure I follow your argument here... it seems to me that you would be getting three independent signals on each eye, thus the perception would be effectively a 6-dimensional color space.
I guess it comes down to whether you think you can (immediately) process the "red delta", "blue delta", and "green delta" independently. I wasn't stating my assumption that I thought it would be nontrivial for your brain to identify more than the overall distance between the colors. I do agree there are technically 6 information channels; I just wasn't sure if a human could actually use it expediently.
That said, I think I've come around to the idea that we could see multiple signals. I could probably identify "right-brightness" & "left-brightness" as separate from "right-desaturation" & "left-desaturation". But can I also separate those from "right-CCW-hue-rotation"? Can I pair it with "right-greenness/blueness/redness" in a way that I am gaining a full independent channel of information? Maybe it's like 2.2 channels worth. :P
I guess I shouldn't speculate at all; it's easy to be misled in hypotheses about perception.
Isn't there some trick where you don't consume the usual type of vitamin A but instead only consume one of the other three types of vitamin A? The one that's slightly different and somehow you get night vision?
Actually I don't think it was night vision I think maybe it was to see UV light.
Maybe I only dreamed this not read about it I tend to do that sometimes.
On the other hand, the UK government actually hired people who had had cataract operations, and therefore no longer had a UV-filtering lens in their eyes and could see UV light. Their job was to watch the coastline just in case the Germans tried to signal to collaborators on land using UV light.
I already see in slightly two different colors in each eye. One is more of a blueish hue, the other more ruddy. I'm an artist and in color tests, I get the best marks. My friend who's a photographer also has the same condition and excellent color acuity. Anyone else experience this?
I often notice this effect when lying in bed with one eye open, and the other closed on the pillow.
The closed eye will be bluer, the open redder. My own theory (backed up by nothing but a hunch) is that the closed eye adjusts its white-balance to compensate for the red light coming through the eyelid by becoming bluer.
This. You can try it on a bright day easily by alternating your open eye, and closing both with hands over them for a while to reset the phenomena. I discovered it decades ago on an extremely bright day where I couldn't keep both eyes open without discomfort.
I see more red and more blue in one eye as well. You are not alone. I have asked my optometrists about this over the years and they just shrug, like "that is amusing".
I have noticed this effect as well. Always thought about it, but never did anything to find out more about it.
It is noticeable when lying down and looking at a white ceiling and alternatively closing and opening each eye.
I wondered if it is inherent to the eye, or the conditioning of the eyes at that moment in time. For example, will my right eye always see more bluish and the left eye more reddish? Or does this depend on the fact that I am laying down in my bedroom where the light enters from the window that is to the right of me, and desensitized one of my eyes to some wavelengths.
One eye sees more red, the other gives a blue tone to everything. But very slightly, easier to notice when comparing what I see when using one eye at a time for some reddish thing (furniture, mainly). And seems that astigmatism and a toxoplasmosis changed those levels (lessen the effect).
when I was a kid we had one of those big VHS camcorders with a black and white single eye veiew finder. It looked blue through one eye, and grey through the other. I never noticed it anywhere else.
i thought this is common knowledge; there used to be red-blue 3d glasses that worked with specially prepared pictures and a bit of practice and the red-blue color scheme wasn't an accident.
That's really really cool. I thought it might be related to how glasses for colour-blindness work (eg. http://enchroma.com/technology/ - just the first one I found) but apparently they just use lenses with a specific transmissive spectrum to let through mostly lower frequency reds and higher frequency greens to improve differentiation.
I wonder if you could combine the two to give even more spectral resolution?
These filters were already optimized so the sum of their stimuli would match the tristimulus. (So you still perceive the same baseline as normal trichromats but with another asymmetry on top.) By removing a frequency range, you're just losing information and deviating from the standard perception, so I don't think it increase resolution, unless you were proto- or deutero-weak and needed the distinction boost anyway.
They do touch on expanding this by splitting all 3 photopigments, but that would be a much more challenging filter to make.
I was thinking that an active display could add more resolution by adding some time-dependent dimension to colors. Say, "high" reds/blues/greens would pulse quickly and "low" ones would pulse slowly... sort of a fourier transform aspect going on that could get you some scalar gradability rather than a straight up "left blue" vs "right blue" contrast.
Does the result of wearing such a filter match, in differentiable metamers, the type of vision natural human tetrachromats have, or is it different? If a natural tetrachromat wore these glasses, would they then be effectively a pentachromat?
Just so I understood correctly: both eyes would see slightly different images and the brain would merge them to one coherent image with "new" colors? How long does it take for the brain to adapt?
"Subjectively, we observed that, by looking at a particular color through both filters simultaneously (e.g. filter 1 over the left eye, filter 2 over the right), a “meta-color” is observed, which appears to be different from the original perceived color and both individual filtered perceived colors. This meta-color is a manifestation of the “extra” effective cone type created by the pair of filters, and demonstrates the increased information relayed to the visual system resulting from the partitioning of the S cone."
I get that color resolution would be increased, but wouldn't everything viewed get a green/red cast since the amount of blue signal to the eyes is cut in half?
You can even see in their sample images that blues become different shades of teal.
I'm not in the field, but I think the cool thing about this is that it's accomplishable with passive components created with straightforward tech (one filter was off-the-shelf). Most hyperspectral/extraspectral visualization tools require complicated active displays.
That said, it's pretty similar technology to those color-blindness correction glasses [1] -- just filters that accentuate the distinctions between colors you could already see. From a philosophical perspective, it's probably not going to be emergently perceived as a whole new color "dimension", but rather just an augmentation to your preexisting experience.
I do think these kinds of small tools will be a key, but subtle part of AR in the future. I would certainly take a pair myself. I always like wearing polarized sunglasses because you can perceive the extra information of which materials are polarizing or dichroic.
Interesting, I'll have to do some experiments with this. I thought I knew about color from years of working with photoshop and video editing, but working with the pigments and medium of paint is vastly more complex (and satisfying despite the unpredictability). I've wondered about the spectral components I can't see quite a bit, since I like to work outside when the weather is good and some color decisions attract lots of insect interest.
Filter #2 was custom-made. Not sure if that's orderable in small quantities outside of academia. But you could try to find a filter that fit their "naive approach", which would be simple bandstop (aka "reject" or "notch") filter that blocks approx 450-510nm. Just looking around the same retailer, maybe something between these two ([2] & [3]) might suffice for experimenting? Ideally it would fit that range precisely AND have a rather absolute cutoff. I have no idea if that kind of arbitrary range selection is available to one-off buyers, I'm just a fan of color theory. :P
The issue with the naive approach is that it skews the white balance of the results a bit by affecting the M&L cone stimulus as well, but that's a lesser issue for playing around with the idea.
Couldn't you achieve the same thing in VR with a camera as long as the camera was sensitive to the full spectrum and the screen could produce the relevant frequencies? Just show the limited colour scheme to each eye?
I guess having passive tech is better in a lot of (most) applications.
I think this is how some 3D projection systems work. They have 2 frequencies for each color, and the glasses filter out one of each frequency. You could then achieve the same thing semi-passively.
3 points by louprado 418 days ago | parent [-] | on: Life in Technicolor – One month wearing color blin...
While many of us are not "color-blind", we are all color challenged. This is because we only have three cone-types, assuming you aren't a tetrachromat.
I had a thought experiment: Suppose you breakup visible light into six bands. You then create two filters based on these bands. One filter would pass only bands 1, 3, and 5. The other filter would pass bands 2, 4, and 6.
Now suppose you put one filter over your left eye and the other filter over your right. Over time, could you learn to see the world in hexachromatic color ?