>>16716810
Nice model showing the prepondurance of green in our vision.
Of note, the old OS/2 operating system from IBM had a significantly larger chunk of it's 16 million colors set to greens. In the early days of color PCs it made a huge difference on some tasks.
>>16718344
There are as many or as few colors as your equipment can measure. If that's Human Mk. 1 eyeballs, it's about 16 million (32bit) colors. Dogs and other quadripeds see in a two-tone that we interpret as yellow/tan and purples or salmon, but that's only our interpretation as dogs and deer can see further into IR than we can, and deer also see significantly into UV.
>>16718377
Objective, yes, but it's not a single frequency. This is also why there is often controversy around satellite imagery - most satellites use CCDs with filter wheels to do a reverse of
>>16718402, and produce images of a single frequency. These scientific images can be studied in depth for specific materials. They are then recombined into false-color image that always drive conspiracy theorists up a wall.
Another thing that has only been touched on a little ITT is the difference between physical and digital colors. Paints are made from minerals or synthetic colors and binders, there is no such thing as a true red or pure blue paint. It's always based on the starting material. Paint is subtractive color, it gets darker as more colors are added. Digital and old school video are additive displays, going up from black to white.
>>16718548
That's where LAB fails, too, because color is incredibly subjective.
Here's a comprehensive page on the history of color models and a new "VCH" color model for viewing colors relatively in 3d space:
https://meganck.com/2020/06/18/understanding-color/
