Thread 106215107

This seems like bullshit.

>>106215107 (OP)
What bothers you about it? Do you doubt the basic functioning of rods and cones in your eyes?

>>106215107 (OP)
I took a picture of the sun, and then displayed it on my screen while placing a solar panel in front of it.
The panel generates 350 watts, and powers the computer and monitor, so I have infinite energy now.

>>106215143
You can see all the colors on sRGB, if you want it to be more vibrant you need more backlight

>>106215107 (OP)
How do you feel about CIE-1976?

>>106215248
Hue has nothing to do with saturation or contrast.

>>106215143
not OP, but there is surprisingly little known about how exactly we see colors. For example people having more than 3 cone types is likely far more common than is assumed, and opponent process theory in color vision is bullshit

>>106215107 (OP)
Anything beyond sRGB is a meme.

>>106215107 (OP)
purple is the final filter

>>106216504
Only if you are a poorfag.

>>106216499
>For example people having more than 3 cone types is likely far more common than is assumed,
Women aren't people.

>>106217012
It also applies to men.

>>106215248
sRGB is just the colors they could reliably produce with CRT phosphors at the time. It has nothing to do with the limits of human vision.>>106215248

>>106217057
men aren't people

>>106215107 (OP)
Use the "CIE 1976 Lab", anon, that 1931 shit is outdated for color purists like you.

>>106216150
it solves the problem. because physics.

>>106217057
Male tetrachromates are insanely rare.
Women evolved tetrachromacy because we made a world so safe and easy for them that they can optimise for shit like choosing clothing or curtain colours.

>>106218668
It also applies to shrimp

The sRGB "gamma" curve is NOT the same as a 2.2 exponent. The difference is not subtle either.

>>106215107 (OP)
how long until we get displays that can do the full CIE 1931? What will we need to do that? 5 subpixels?

>>106215107 (OP)
Why can't they just make it exactly match the big curvy part?

>>106220394
>Not going beyond CIE 1931
Up your standards, faggot.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/researchers-discover-new-color-thats-impossible-to-see-without-lasering-your/#:~:text=In%20a%20paper%20published%20in,green%20beyond%20our%20visual%20range.

>>106215107 (OP)

wheres NTSC

>>106220166
but shrimp are people

anons started questioning colors, don't you fucking dare lurk this subj you ignorant fuckers

>>106215107 (OP)
Explain this to me like I am a 9 year old loli

>>106222093

is difficult but obviously tv does not have picture if elecricity or antenna or video recorder / telecine is missing

>>106221148
It's not that shrimple.

>>106221363
Ok, i'll research it now. Thanks for the compliment, (fe)maleanon!

Really want true full color. When are they putting out screens that show all of the colors including those imperceptible.

The only thing I want are true blacks, why the fuck has it ever been acceptable for a fully black image to emit light?
Don't care about HDR or any of that gay shit, just be consistent

>>106215107 (OP)
It is. It's a marketing tool made to distract you from the things they took away from you. They want to sell you all these new gamuts and colors, as long as black isn't one of them.

>>106225471
Even a CRT doesn't really output sRGB

>>106215107 (OP)
No, I bought dci-p3 monitor and tried drawing red lines in krita on 2 computers with regular monitor and p3 and I saw the difference. But there's also a question whether it's supported in your whole stack if you watch a movie or play a game.

I've never needed more than 100% SRGB. Even my Chinese pixio monitor has amazing colors its like 106%. Literally the best display for $80 and it has freesync, 144hz.

I've owned an LG 1440p their displays are dim garbage with bad colors, except their oleds are alright

>>106215107 (OP)
sRGB is like QWERTY. technically there is a better option but the gains are so miniscule and the burden to shift is so high that it's simply not worth it. those alternatives will stay in the realm of niche forever

>>106215107 (OP)
when printing, it will basically be like the reds don't match the dye version

>>106226516
HDR already requires wider gamuts otherwise you'd have desaturated colors and color banding everywhere.

>>106216504
>beyond sRGB
You can saturate your retina to get beyond RGB. There's an online tool that does this.

>>106225752
Hence why going over srgb is a meme. CRTs were fine for decades like that.

>>106227677
They "weren't fine", they needed to be calibrated almost constantly to get even close to sRGB. You'd know this if you weren't a retarded zoomer.

>>106228242
okay cultist

>>106228288
Ah yes, the famous color accuracy cult, sure. kys zoomer.

>>106216504
>meme
More like a scam
the giant curved shape is the visible spectrum. See how tiny sRGB compare to it?

>>106228242
I'm running my CRT with profiling and calibartion from a year ago and it's still totally fine. The gamma curve of a good CRT doesn't drift really at all, ignoring warmup.
I've found LCDs to be less consistent about their overall brightness than CRTs. Only my Eizo is reliable at all and even that has dimmed measurably the past year.

The most mind boggling fact for me is the difference between violet and purple. Why do we start to see red hue when wavelength goes past blue? Red is literally on the other side of spectrum and there is no blue in infrared colors. It's because our red receptors have small bump around violet and that's where this unexpected red is coming from. Not every camera captures it and that's why some violet things might look completely blue to the camera.

>>106229004
There's no such thing as "red" or "blue" receptors, we only see colors when the 3 cones are stimulated in different amounts.
Also most objects in life are NOT emitting spectral colors, you usually only get those from rainbows and lasers

>>106223711
>ACES2065
I hope I won’t have to wait until 2065 for monitors that that show all colors?

>>106229169
I suspect research will go into tackling relying on rgb primaries just so we don't have displays putting out huge swathes of colour we can't see just to get full coverage of what we can.