Right, but in your example see someone who could see fewer colors would see a less vivid/ more boring scene. I am saying her palate is TOO vivid to my eyes. Too gaudy. I would think if there were magic hidden colors in her work, they would just look normal/boring and only she would know how awesome they were. Much like the “normal” photo only looks bright to someone without deuteroanopia.
I scored a 3. Because I’m awesome and colors.
You ever see Sent of a woman? You ever see Sent of a woman with 100 times more colors than an average person…
I don’t think you’re thinking of it right. I mean, you’re right in pointing out that the analogy I gave ealier is somewhat reversed when applied to painting, but I don’t think you’re really imagining what it’s like to see that many colors in the way that she does, or how it compares to “normal” vision.
I’m no expert on the subject but here’s how I understand it; you see red, green and blue colors with the long, medium and short rods in your eyes. So when you see the picture above you see some of the reds as deeper and some of them more orangy, some of the greens as more bluish, some more yellowish. All of these are various blends of the three RGB colors that you see. But what she sees is completely different - she has the “Z” cone, which (I think) is shorter than short rods in your vision. So while you might describe all the colors in existance as various RGB levels, for her every color also has a Z. So something like 99FFFF compliments FF8000 in an interesting way, she sees 99FFFF00 and FF800066 which do not go together at all. By the same reasoning, she may see FF800066 and think it looks great with 99009966 because of the way that the Z values harmonize. So the picture you’re seeing isn’t the picture that she’s seeing (well, leaving aside the problem that I imagine LCD screens are optimized for trichromats).
Does that make sense? I’m happy to be corrected if I’m thinking of it wrong.
PS @gwwar: I took that test and got a 4. I think I could have done better if I’d been a little more patient, but it was so tedious! My eyes; 100%. My attention to detail; 96%.
Yes, deformity isn’t the best word. Changed it. Thanks!
This reminds me of when my mom was painting the upstairs, laid out a bunch of might-as-well-be-identical paint chips, and asked for my opinion. (Dad’s color blind.) I asked, “are you telling me there’s a difference?” I remember just selecting one of them so I could get out of it.
I just want to know where I sign up for the eye surgery.
Same here! Ditto. Ditto.
I think I might be a digital trichromatic. I’ve always thought the eight real colours came in the original Crayola pack, and all the rest are made up colours. RBG, three bits, eight colours… makes sense to me.
For someone with color vision deficiency (like me), this woman’s painting goes unappreciated. It’s like watching a high definition television show on a non-HD set. Is there really more color there than (if you’ll excuse me) meets the eye? I wouldn’t know. It’s an interesting painting though.
I’m getting a scores in the 60s. Thought I should swap my cheap monitors for my IPS display in my ipad. Nope didn’t work. 1365–mainly because I couldn’t manipulate the tiles.
Been there, done that.
Random thought. Could this condition be created artificially, e.g. by gene therapy of the retina cells? Is there any research done on such therapies for color-blindness? If yes, what about using the same tech for actual color-resolution augmentation of nominally performing (aka “healthy”) individuals? Would adult brain be plastic enough to be able to process the additional (or, in case of existing, connected, but modded cells, if we e.g. convert (say) a third of red cones to near-infrared, changed) signals in a meaningful way?
Looked it up. Such therapies already exist in monkey-experiment phase:
So it’s amazing how bad I screwed that up, but I still posted the wrong link - turns out that they split the podcast I listened to up into three parts. So here’s the part that talks about Tetrachromatics:
and here is the link to the entire series of three segments on color:
Did I step into a time machine or something? What a stale joke.
If only it was a joke!
Now I feel bad, I scored 15 - says I’m better than most but you got a 2!
4, although I kept having to change my perspective when looking at the (laptop) screen.
Edit: 0 on an IMac. It helped me to check the whole line for imperfections and try switching adjacent tiles to see if it’s more or less of a continuous progression.
Envious. I got 102. Colors? What colors?