Simen Kvaal wrote:
> 
> I agree, but there is one fact that has to be made clear, and that is that
> many colors are "standarized". 

Uhm, this is way off topic again, but standardization seems to be on of the
major diseases of these times. Or better: not the standardization itself but the
false belief in it. 
This is a computer based platform: that is on of the places were you can
experience the consequences of Standardization all the time. 

I believe (but are not sure) that the colors
> in "colors.inc" is taken from the international catalog, which states what
> blending of frequencies to use for a specific colour. There are standards to
> what one should call "aquamarine", "azure" and so forth. 

Yes there are. 
Kodak tried to set some standards for instance. 
Of course Apple had to define some standards.
There are probably as many colorstandards as there are, just to name a thing,
computerplatforms. 
Luckily you see standards converging, but you can never be sure.
I thought Netscape's 256 color palette was more or less a standard. Who
guarantuees that Microsoft in an attempt to beat its opponents on all fields
won't come up with another standard for Explorer? Well, luckily the 256-colro
days are almost behind us 8)

"Blue" and "green"
> are more diffuse in the meaning. Many would for example say that the sky is
> blue, but that might not be the correct technical term to use. I am not very
> bewandered with this; i just happen to know the story behind, if you see
> what I mean.
> 
> Just another point. A curious fact that I guess you are aware of: Many
> colors cannot even be displayed on a computer screen, even with 500 billion
> zillion shades of red, green and blue, merely because the human eye can
> percieve many more colors. For example, if you have a yellow marking pen and
> try to recreate the color on the screen, you'll be dissappointed. If you
> scan it you might not even see it!

Aha! Now this interesting, also in regard to the original question!
What would be the opposite of ultra-violet? How would you express such a colour
in a vector? Is perhaps the way to define colours as RGB vectors not as perfecet
as we (computer-users) would like to believe?
> 
> In the future I think we will get new computer screens wich cover more of
> the human eyes capability to see colors. Maybe POV-ray should be able to
> extend the usual color-system. One could add infra-red channels, for
> example. (We cannot see those frequencies, but they might have scientifical
> importance. Who knows.)

How about describing light by its frequency?
Now that would be cool. Once POV-Ray could work with that you could even make
EM-raytracings ;)
> 
> Simen.

Have fun!

Remco

Post a reply to this message