IMO saying that yellow doesn’t exist during the entire process is going a bit far. It exists as a combination of the other values. Or no colors exist during the process, as it’s all just ones and zeroes and then wavelengths, which only get turn into colors in your brain. Depending on how you want to look at it
Humans assign certain names to certain wavelength of the em spectrum
In this case red is often defined as wavelenths between 625 to 700nm, greens are 500 to 565nm, while yellow is defined as 565 to 590nm.
If a human saw em light at 580nm, wed call that yellow
But for an rgb screen, it never produces light at 580nm, only red green and blue lights, but, as a quark of our biology, if humans see red and green light at certain amplitude ratios, most humans will interpret that light in the same way as it does light at 580nm
This to say, yellow light does exist, but screens do not make it, but it does make light that the human can interpret as the color of yellow regardless
(Didnt see the other comment before writting this one, sorry for the duplicate)
No, that is incorrect. Modern displays have subpixels of red, green, and blue and they are only ever producing various brightness levels of those exact colours. In the case of an OLED or LED displays, they would be perfectly monochromatic colours. The colours do not combine as coloured paint would to produce a new colour. That isn’t how they work nor how you view them. We are looking directly at the subpixels and they are activating your rods and cones directly.
Yellow does not exist when a monitor displays a yellow colour. Your brain thinks it does because its red and green cells are being activated. This is also how you can see the colour magenta despite your monitor display red and blue, colours which are on the opposite ends of the visible spectrum. Magenta never exists during the process of displaying magenta on a screen, it only does in your brain.
What I meant is that if you have a photo of a yellow flower, I’d would say that the file contains “yellow color”, even though it only uses RGB values.
The display is “transmitting yellow into your brain” by emitting a combination of wavelengths.
Wavelength that normally represents color yellow is not emitted, but the “color yellow” is sent, in a way
A 16 year old niche display tech that has seen next to no use is not the epic zinger gotcha you think it is.
If I were to cover every single niche display tech that wasn’t strictly RGB then I’d be writing a damn novel. Nearly every device that people interact with will be RGB. That is the common standard.
Subpixels would not be perfectly monochromatic unless they were laser displays. Quantum dot can get kinda close though.
if mixing light additively didn’t create new colors then mixing paints subtractively wouldn’t either. the results of those processes still result in light that can activate our cones with combinations of wavelengths in the exact same way.
I think the semantics of what color light is doesn’t matter which wavelengths are used to produce it, but what it looks like. We don’t say something is yellow because it has wavelengths of light that look yellow on their own, we say something is yellow because it looks yellow. Likewise people use the term white light all the time when there’s no single wavelength that produces white.
Absolutely. There is no single wavelength of light being produced that would look yellow on its own, but yellow is the word we have for when our long and medium cones both get activated, and a display does produce light that does that. Yellow exists in our brains, so I think it’s pretty reasonable to say that either yellow exists somewhere in this process or no colors do.
Well, there is a wavelength that by itself activates both of these cones such that we interpret it as yellow. But a combination of wavelengths also does that
IMO saying that yellow doesn’t exist during the entire process is going a bit far. It exists as a combination of the other values. Or no colors exist during the process, as it’s all just ones and zeroes and then wavelengths, which only get turn into colors in your brain. Depending on how you want to look at it
Humans assign certain names to certain wavelength of the em spectrum
In this case red is often defined as wavelenths between 625 to 700nm, greens are 500 to 565nm, while yellow is defined as 565 to 590nm.
If a human saw em light at 580nm, wed call that yellow
But for an rgb screen, it never produces light at 580nm, only red green and blue lights, but, as a quark of our biology, if humans see red and green light at certain amplitude ratios, most humans will interpret that light in the same way as it does light at 580nm
This to say, yellow light does exist, but screens do not make it, but it does make light that the human can interpret as the color of yellow regardless
(Didnt see the other comment before writting this one, sorry for the duplicate)
No, that is incorrect. Modern displays have subpixels of red, green, and blue and they are only ever producing various brightness levels of those exact colours. In the case of an OLED or LED displays, they would be perfectly monochromatic colours. The colours do not combine as coloured paint would to produce a new colour. That isn’t how they work nor how you view them. We are looking directly at the subpixels and they are activating your rods and cones directly.
Yellow does not exist when a monitor displays a yellow colour. Your brain thinks it does because its red and green cells are being activated. This is also how you can see the colour magenta despite your monitor display red and blue, colours which are on the opposite ends of the visible spectrum. Magenta never exists during the process of displaying magenta on a screen, it only does in your brain.
What I meant is that if you have a photo of a yellow flower, I’d would say that the file contains “yellow color”, even though it only uses RGB values. The display is “transmitting yellow into your brain” by emitting a combination of wavelengths. Wavelength that normally represents color yellow is not emitted, but the “color yellow” is sent, in a way
Sigh…if you are going to lecture people about what is incorrect, at least try and educate yourself.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quattron#%3A~%3Atext%3DQuattron_is_the_brand_name%2Cto_its_advanced_color_technology.%3Fwprov=sfla1
A 16 year old niche display tech that has seen next to no use is not the epic zinger gotcha you think it is.
If I were to cover every single niche display tech that wasn’t strictly RGB then I’d be writing a damn novel. Nearly every device that people interact with will be RGB. That is the common standard.
Exen paint mixing does not result in a new color; it’s the same effect.
A few nitpicks
Subpixels would not be perfectly monochromatic unless they were laser displays. Quantum dot can get kinda close though.
if mixing light additively didn’t create new colors then mixing paints subtractively wouldn’t either. the results of those processes still result in light that can activate our cones with combinations of wavelengths in the exact same way.
I think the semantics of what color light is doesn’t matter which wavelengths are used to produce it, but what it looks like. We don’t say something is yellow because it has wavelengths of light that look yellow on their own, we say something is yellow because it looks yellow. Likewise people use the term white light all the time when there’s no single wavelength that produces white.
Absolutely. There is no single wavelength of light being produced that would look yellow on its own, but yellow is the word we have for when our long and medium cones both get activated, and a display does produce light that does that. Yellow exists in our brains, so I think it’s pretty reasonable to say that either yellow exists somewhere in this process or no colors do.
Well, there is a wavelength that by itself activates both of these cones such that we interpret it as yellow. But a combination of wavelengths also does that