On 2011-09-18 02:51, Patrick Elliott wrote:
> Almost impossible to say. None of us have a "name" for colors that
> contain both red and green in them, because, except for some situations
> where you cause over-saturation, and some people "briefly" see a
> confusing color that they normally don't, the processing basically robs
> us of that range of colors. Some people, have four types of receptors,
> so can see more colors, sort of, than we can, but without the "language"
> to go with it, there is no way to process that into something tangible,
> unless, by shear chance, a situation arose where someone "needed" to see
> the differences, which is bloody unlikely. Otherwise, short of testing
> it, there is no way to say precisely, save that it ranges from "not able
> to see that color" to "everything is shifted slightly, so they don't see
> some slice of the color range as clearly. I have no idea if certain
> genetic forms produce a wider, or narrower, range, but that is likely,
> so it could be shifted, or missing things on one end of the spectrum, or
> the other, or both, etc.

It occurs to me, however, a potential way to quantify the data.  We have 
the ability to emit very specific wavelengths of light.  We can, 
therefore, use a definite reference 'red', 'green', and 'blue', and 
calibrate a filtered sensor to each.  This being done, we can use a very 
fine checkerboard pattern of the colours plus white, alternating with a 
pigment made by /mixing/ the colour plus white, thence other 
combinations.  This would produce the baseline.

 From here, it's a matter of detecting at the optic nerve what data gets 
sent on to the brain.

*whips out some nano-wires and a scalpel*

Who's game?  XD

Post a reply to this message