[POLL] What colour is Adaman Hauberk?

[Janice]

All I want to know is the exact point where something stops being purple and starts to be blue. I want at least 5 specific scientific sources that prove this exact point, followed by having a panel of doctors explain how 45% of the people on this board have messed up eyes. And then by a group of microsoft technicians explaining how quickly monitors start to experience a color shift. And to top it off a poll of how many people need to go to art school and waste a ton of money to learn of all the different shades of colors instead of just picking from a narrow range of colors cause who the fuck cares about the 20 billion colors there are.

Til that happens, I'm going to say its purple cause thats what it looks like to me when I open the model viewer.

[Miji]

Purple has always had the characteristic of a perceptibly higher R component than G, with a high B component as well. Regardless of the shade of purple, all shades have a higher R than G (beyond just 10 points out of 255). If R is not perceptibly higher than G, it merely becomes a desaturated blue.

Where does the 10 point rule come from? Besides, there is no digital purple, right? How can you be talking about RGB values of it?

[Motokyo]

To borrow from Anja again:

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v2...try/joyjoy.jpg

DO YOU UNDERSTAND WHY PEOPLE SAY ITS BLUE?
DO YOU UNDERSTAND WHY PEOPLE SAY ITS BLUE?
DO YOU UNDERSTAND WHY PEOPLE SAY ITS BLUE?
DO YOU UNDERSTAND WHY PEOPLE SAY ITS BLUE?
DO YOU UNDERSTAND WHY PEOPLE SAY ITS BLUE?

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v86/minosha/plue.jpg
No...

[Naver]

All I want to know is the exact point where something stops being purple and starts to be blue. I want at least 5 specific scientific sources that prove this exact point, followed by having a panel of doctors explain how 45% of the people on this board have messed up eyes. And then by a group of microsoft technicians explaining how quickly monitors start to experience a color shift. And to top it off a poll of how many people need to go to art school and waste a ton of money to learn of all the different shades of colors instead of just picking from a narrow range of colors cause who the fuck cares about the 20 billion colors there are.

Til that happens, I'm going to say its purple cause thats what it looks like to me when I open the model viewer.

That's what it basically comes down to. I see this thing DAILY and I voted purple, because I see purple. But all this craptastic data people keep bringing say it's blue.

You want the real answer: The color is Adaman ^^

[miokomioko]

All I want to know is the exact point where something stops being purple and starts to be blue. I want at least 5 specific scientific sources that prove this exact point, followed by having a panel of doctors explain how 45% of the people on this board have messed up eyes followed my a group of microsoft technicians explaining how quickly monitors start to experience a color shift.

Til that happens, I'm going to say its purple cause thats what it looks like to me when I open the model viewer.

How about the fact that guessing which hand I'm holding something in will generate similar results.

Paired with the assumption that 99%+ of the readers aren't educated in the subject that we now have delved into. (or, with my example, 1% or less people saw me put the item in my hand).

If everyone who opened this thread and read the question, decided to rip out the .dat, open it up in photoshop, take an accurate and average sample of the colored panels on the armor (removed the chain pieces and yellow trim), and read the values and understood what they meant, I'm fairly confident 95%+ would go "oh, well damn, it is blue" while the other 5% would try to be funny and either vote purple for the lulz, or argue that the possibly 5 points of a red shift it has, their eyes are superhuman enough to see it.

[Charitwo]

All I want to know is the exact point where something stops being purple and starts to be blue. I want at least 5 specific scientific sources that prove this exact point, followed by having a panel of doctors explain how 45% of the people on this board have messed up eyes. And then by a group of microsoft technicians explaining how quickly monitors start to experience a color shift. And to top it off a poll of how many people need to go to art school and waste a ton of money to learn of all the different shades of colors instead of just picking from a narrow range of colors cause who the fuck cares about the 20 billion colors there are.

Til that happens, I'm going to say its purple cause thats what it looks like to me when I open the model viewer.

http://i11.photobucket.com/albums/a1...two/lolpup.jpg

[Jer]

Purple has always had the characteristic of a perceptibly higher R component than G, with a high B component as well.

This is what the people who see purple are seeing. There is obviously a higher B component than the other two, and purple people are seeing the difference between R and G because they are not the same with R being higher. If 10 isn't a big enough difference for you to tell (easy enough, open up almost any color manipulating software), then it's hopeless. If it's not already.

[Miji]

All I want to know is the exact point where something stops being purple and starts to be blue. I want at least 5 specific scientific sources that prove this exact point, followed by having a panel of doctors explain how 45% of the people on this board have messed up eyes followed my a group of microsoft technicians explaining how quickly monitors start to experience a color shift.

Til that happens, I'm going to say its purple cause thats what it looks like to me when I open the model viewer.

How about the fact that guessing which hand I'm holding something in will generate similar results.

Paired with the assumption that 99%+ of the readers aren't educated in the subject that we now have delved into. (or, with my example, 1% or less people saw me put the item in my hand).

Your example is more like some people saw what hand you put it in, and you say they're wrong because they aren't educated about the item you hold in your hand.

[miokomioko]

All I want to know is the exact point where something stops being purple and starts to be blue. I want at least 5 specific scientific sources that prove this exact point, followed by having a panel of doctors explain how 45% of the people on this board have messed up eyes followed my a group of microsoft technicians explaining how quickly monitors start to experience a color shift.

Til that happens, I'm going to say its purple cause thats what it looks like to me when I open the model viewer.

How about the fact that guessing which hand I'm holding something in will generate similar results.

Paired with the assumption that 99%+ of the readers aren't educated in the subject that we now have delved into. (or, with my example, 1% or less people saw me put the item in my hand).

Your example is more like some people saw what hand you put it in, and you say they're wrong because they aren't educated about the item you hold in your hand.

No. It's not.

[Khamsin]

Purple has always had the characteristic of a perceptibly higher R component than G, with a high B component as well.

This is what the people who see purple are seeing. There is obviously a higher B component than the other two, and purple people are seeing the difference between R and G because they are not the same with R being higher. If 10 isn't a big enough difference for you to tell (easy enough, open up almost any color manipulating software), then it's hopeless. If it's not already.

10 out of 255 isn't perceptible without a side-by-side comparison, and even then its not very distinguishable.

Compare THIS to THIS

That's the difference 10 makes. If that's the difference between blue and purple, then I don't know what to tell you.

[Flarega]

lol

[miokomioko]

10 out of 255 isn't perceptible without a side-by-side comparison, and even then its not very distinguishable.

Compare THIS to THIS

That's the difference 10 makes. If that's the difference between blue and purple, then I don't know what to tell you.

My favorite post thus far.

[Jer]

The issue is the people who are saying purple is that they are saying they *can*. Jesus Christ. And if you don't consider 10 to be large enough, it goes back to the whole 'What is the magical number?'


3...3...3 in the family. It's the magic number.

[Khamsin]

The issue is the people who are saying purple is that they are saying they *can*. Jesus Christ. And if you don't consider 10 to be large enough, it goes back to the whole 'What is the magical number?'


3...3...3 in the family. It's the magic number.

I can tell a difference of 10 as well, in a side-by-side comparison. In my above example, the one on the right appears ever so slightly darker.

The point isn't that you can't tell, the point is that its so similar, its not enough to change the hue of the color.

The reason it needs to be bigger than 10 is precisely because there is no 'magic number'. If there was a magic number, you wouldn't need a threshold, you could just say that specific ranges of R,G,B values were purple or blue.

The reason you need a difference bigger than 10, one that is easily perceptible and large enough to make a difference in hue is to push it past that fuzzy boundary.

Look at these two colors:

0 0 255
30 0 255

That's a difference of 30, but is it enough to change the hue? Slightly, you don't need to have superhuman eyes to tell a tiny difference, but its not nearly enough to push it past that fuzzy border between one color and the next. Especially when dealing with such broad descriptions of color as "blue" or "purple".

Bump that up to 60, and we get:

0 0 255
60 0 255

We're beginning to get into purple territory, but its still awfully close.

Let's make it 100:

0 0 255
100 0 255

Ok, now I think we're sufficiently purple, but just where did that transition occur? Some might say it was purple by 60, and maybe they're right. But it's certainly not a blinding contrasting difference, and there is no magic number. But a measly 10 points when dealing with this part of the spectrum does nothing to separate colors.

[Skyylya]

All I want to know is the exact point where something stops being purple and starts to be blue. I want at least 5 specific scientific sources that prove this exact point, followed by having a panel of doctors explain how 45% of the people on this board have messed up eyes. And then by a group of microsoft technicians explaining how quickly monitors start to experience a color shift. And to top it off a poll of how many people need to go to art school and waste a ton of money to learn of all the different shades of colors instead of just picking from a narrow range of colors cause who the fuck cares about the 20 billion colors there are.

Til that happens, I'm going to say its purple cause thats what it looks like to me when I open the model viewer.

I've already answered this pages ago.

All of this computer generated RGB scale stuff is rather moot. The ONLY thing that matters is where these fall in wavelengths because that is the only information that gets to the brain. RGB is for computer generated colors only, and is imperfect in doing so. Computers for example can not create a violet color wavelength accurately.

So what they do is use the RGB scale to approximate it, emitting multiple wavelengths at once and in doing so they saturate the wavelength with the Blue so that it is the dominant wavelength. Which is why a good portion of people are seeing it as blue.

"One common application of the RGB color model is the display of colors on a cathode ray tube, liquid crystal display or plasma display, such as a television or a computer’s monitor. Each pixel on the screen can be represented in the computer or interface hardware (for example, a ‘graphics card’) as values for red, green and blue. These values are converted into intensities which are then used for display."

This is essentially what i'm referring to. In the case of the adaburk, the computer or tv screen is emitting both blue and red in order to get the color you see, however there is a higher concentration of the blue, therefore the brain is going to generalize that color throughout.


Indigo as some people saying it is, falls under the Violet wavelength. Thus, even if it is indigo, it is considered a shade of purple (violet).

This is all in nanometers so there is no margin for change. Once it reaches a certain nanometer wavelength that is considered it's color.

Secondly, violet may refer to a bluish purple, that is, a mixture of red and blue (two of the primary colors of light), and not a spectral color: True spectral violet cannot be reproduced on a computer screen because it is outside the gamut of the RGB color model on the CIE chromaticity diagram.

Figured i'd add this in. Because it cannot be accurately reproduced, even though the screen is attempting to, is why there is such a disparity between some people seeing blue and some seeing purple. To be honest it's completely got to do with your own screen, and your own perception of it. You could see the same thing on two different screens and see two different colors.

[Jer]

Text

Are you oblivious to the fact that by pumping blue all the way up to 255, you made it so the amount of red required larger than is necessary? You mention thresholds, so obviously you are aware of what they are. Thresholds are different for each person, and you are trying to tell roughly half of the forum they are not seeing what they are seeing. You cannot see through somebody else's eyes to see if their threshold is lower or higher than yours and it is why this thread will keep growing.

Edit: And before something about it being a lighter hue, it doesn't matter, yadda yadda yadda, there is no piece on the Adaberk that is that bright. Tone it down.

[Ksandra]

Paired with the assumption that 99%+ of the readers aren't educated in the subject that we now have delved into. (or, with my example, 1% or less people saw me put the item in my hand).

This isn't math, it's colors. Everyone learns what colors are in kindergarden. Just because you want to use some computer definition of colors doesn't mean it's the only definition for colors. And it doesn't mean people are uneducated just because they don't use your definition of colors.

I think at this point the debate about purple vs. blue isn't the issue. It's the fact you seem to think people are idiots for not following your standard, when there are more than one standards for colors. In fact considering this:

RGB is for computer generated colors only, and is imperfect in doing so. Computers for example can not create a violet color wavelength accurately.

Says to me that the computer standard you think so highly of is ineffective and in no way should be the end all be all decision, when it's not that there is no purple, just that the computer isn't programmed to have purple.

Saying there is no purple is really limiting yourself as an artist imo. In many ways art is creating an illusion for those who see it, if you can't get past that part as a photographer and will never see purple and only blue, I can imagine you're handicapping yourself. Because guess what even if the pixels are seperated into red and blue, they're there to give that illusion of purple.

Saying someone is uneducation for thinking there's a color purple is stupid as nature doesn't follow RBG rules. And to say that we can't see purple when a computer is trying to create purple with the colors it has is idiotic. It created purple using red and blue, we see purple through that red and blue, so *shock* it can be labelled as purple for those that see it as purple.

[Judai]

The only thing the Blue people are pointing out is that it's not blue. If you actually read what you are saying, it is clearly a purple shade of blue or a blue shade of purple. So you are discrediting yourself by saying it's blue at the end of your little speechs.

Simple as this.

It is not TRUE Blue.
It is not True Purlple.

It is a Purple/Blue shade. Seriously, everything you say only proves your "final" point wrong. You go on and on about how it's not purple and try to prove it, yet using the same logic and reasoning, it's not Blue either.

It's a Blue/Purple Shade, w/e you want to call it. Call it Blue, call it Purple, call it Adaman or Indigo.

You are only wrong if you say the other side is wrong. Cause it's a mix of both colors.

[Khamsin]

The only thing the Blue people are pointing out is that it's not blue. If you actually read what you are saying, it is clearly a purple shade of blue or a blue shade of purple. So you are discrediting yourself by saying it's blue at the end of your little speechs.

Uhh... if we didn't say it was blue at the end of our little speeches, then we wouldn't be the blue people. Saying the blue people are discrediting themselves by saying its blue is like saying anyone who makes any argument for anything discredits themselves simply by stating their conclusion.

There's ways to put together a proper argument, whether or not the person ends up actually being correct or not. In fact, its even possible for someone to be wrong yet have a valid, properly constructed argument. Stating your conclusion at the end of your argument is always part of a proper argument.

What you did, however, was assume something was a fact to begin with, and use that very "fact" to make your argument for you. i.e. its not blue because its purple. QED

I wish I could remember the name of that type of fallacy...

[miokomioko]

I just retested what exact average color the "blue/purple" areas of the Adaman Hauberk .dat skin really was.

I opened up the image.

Selected all the main, large, primary areas of color (not the parts darkened to mimick shadows on itself)

copied them and pasted and scattered them all over the image so the entire thing was composed of just random blocks of that main color.

Gaussian blur at maximum radius. A couple times if you like.

Sample.

Red: 47 Green: 43 Blue: 67

Are we still going to argue that this is "purple?"

To recap the concepts some people aren't grasping... Equal parts Green and Red light will create Yellow light. Yellow is the opposite of Blue, the "complimentary" color, if you will. If you add equal amounts of two complimentary colors, you get a neutral tone with no color saturation at all (grey). If the blue in my sample was somewhere between 43 and 47, Adaburk would be a completely neutral grey, yes even with variations of 4 points. (Believe me or not, you can't perceive the color shift at all unless maybe you had a perfect neutral right up against it in a straight line.)

So, now we can see that IF we had that neutral grey tone of all equal parts red green and blue... and added 20 more points of Blue... what do we have? The sample I got from Adaburk .dat...

If you look at that color value I posted up there, and you're still calling it purple, one of the following things is wrong:

1) You're calling blue "purple" because the "blue" you're used to seeing is, in actuallity, a cyan-blue.

2) Your monitor has a significant red color shift

3) You're incapable of identifying colors when they are reduced in saturation. (or just not trained to)

or

4) There's something wrong with your eyes.

I wish I could remember the name of that type of fallacy...

I think it might be "begging the question" unless there's a more proper name for it?