Such a cool article chock-full of cool facts!

> Nearly every species of scorpion intensely fluoresces under UV light. […] Scorpions have photoreceptors in their tails, separate from their eyes. […] It is hypothesized that a scorpion uses this fluorescence to tell whether any bit of its body is left exposed from its hiding place. Its tail “looks” down at its body, and if it sees its own fluorescence, it knows it is exposed to light, and in danger.

And a special call-out to the “Andean Cock-on-a-Rock” :), see a photo in the article.

While it is true that some saturated blue-green colors will never be reproducible with only 3 primary colors, the CIE 1931 chromaticity diagram used in TFA overemphasizes their importance, because human vision cannot distinguish many colors in that area of the diagram.

In reality, the greatest defect of the sRGB color space, which is still too frequently the default color space, is that it is not able to reproduce many saturated orange/red/purple colors, which are very frequently encountered around us, e.g. in flowers, fruits and clothes.

The missing orange-red-purple corner appears small in the diagram in comparison with the missing blue-green corner, but in reality humans perceive much more different colors in the orange/red/purple corner, so the relation between those areas would be opposite in a uniform color space.

The Display P3 color space is much better than sRGB for reproducing orange/red/purple colors and now it is available even in many cheap monitors. However many monitors that can reproduce Display P3 come configured by default to use just sRGB. Such monitors should always be reconfigured to use Display P3.

Monitors that can reproduce an even greater part of the Rec. 2020 color space are obviously better than those that can do only Display P3, but such monitors with a higher color gamut are usually more expensive. The full Rec. 2020 color space can be reproduced only with laser projectors, because it uses monochromatic primary colors.

I took up acrylics painting a few years back and I've been surprised by how much is lost in photos and videos. The two colors with which I've noticed this the most are ultramarine blue and prussian blue. I don't think it's just the color though, part of it comes down to how light is reflected off the painting and where you're standing, as well as the texture and the brush strokes. I have a few paintings hanging in my room and occasionally I'll look at them for a while and it'll reveal a new perspective to me that I had previously missed, despite being the one who made it.

This post is making me feel a bit inspired to go outside and immerse myself in the forest to take in the greens. Thanks for sharing.

Impressionist paintings used a lot of synthetic ultramarine, they look very different IRL. There is a whole room in the Orsay museum where paintings seem to glow from the inside in the dark.

What I missed in the article: the curves of the three “cone kinds” overlap. What if you could stimulate kinds of cones individually to see entirely new colors? Some people shoot layers at them into eyes. But you can also try this website: https://dynomight.net/colors/ (previously on HN but search fails me).

Really nice article, I'll look closer to green lights next time I see one.

The most striking experience I had was working with a blue laser (430nm). The best way I found to describe its color is that it was screaming "blue" at me. Since then, I'm always disappointed when looking at a screen displaying #0000FF.

ACES AP0 is the only color space I know that is designed to represent all possible visible colors. It's a purely theoretical color space, though. The widest color space designed for actual implementation, Rec. 2020, still can't faithfully show most of the natural greens and cyans, like your green laser pointer.

I once abseiled into a crevasse while in Antarctica. The colours I saw in there were utterly breathtaking and I never knew why. Now I do, and this also tells mewhy the photos don't even remotely do it justice (aside from not being as big and three dimensional!)

Thanks for such a beautiful article about not looking at a screen: I'm off outside... :)

Off topic, but the other articles are well made too. I enjoyed this one: https://moultano.wordpress.com/2025/02/24/you-should-make-cr...

Its unclear to me why the color space is 2-dimensional. Why wouldn't it be a 3-dimensional space, indexed by how much each of the 3-cones is activated ? Not clear to me from the article!

That was incredibly well-explained. Kudos.

I do have a question that the article doesn't seem to attempt to answer, though. The article says (paraphrased in my new understanding) that any spectra which makes the cones in your eyes react the same way will result in seeing the same colour. Do we know of any examples of this?

(Colour-blindness seems like an obvious example; I'm curious though if there are any examples of two common scenarios where it can be demonstrated that there are different spectra in each, and yet most people will see them as the same colour.)

Can these colours be replicated or captured using ink, paint or traditional film photography?

What an truly incredible article, particularly the way the color space diagrams are used to gradually tell the story (and the prose is great too). I actually want to read it again tomorrow morning in more depth.

Tl;dr.... It's LSD.

It is 3 dimensional. That commonly repeated CIE diagram is a 2d slice of the color volume. Since 1931 that diagram is obsolete, misleading, and fails at a lot of modern color science, and has been replaced many times, but is what many people go to. The most recent replacement (well, by CIE), is CIE 2015. Comment on it [1]

Modern color modeling is much richer then 3 parameters, because human vision is much more complex than simply color frequencies. CIE 1931 was low brightness, 2 degree field of vision, center of vision derived. As brightness increases, color perception shifts. Colors are NOT linear; sRGB and CIE 1931 chose such a small section of human vision that they approximate that section with a linear assumption. Modern CIECAM models are not linear, are not 3 parameter, because color is not linear (CIECAM02 is 6 parameter [2], there are several after that one). A century of experiments, wide color gamuts, HDR, have thrown out CIE 1931 as a good model. It’s only momentum now, and slowly higher end things are replacing it.

A good introduction is Color Appearance Models, by Mark Fairchild, also any of his technical papers give a starting point into the science.

[1] https://community.acescentral.com/t/cie-2015-cmfs-what-would...

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CIECAM02

It is, inasmuch as we have 3 types of cone, which is an inherent orthogonality. It is also not, inasmuch as each cone is a wavelength in the same spectrum.

Either way, you can project a volume onto a plane, which is great for communicating visual data on paper or screen.

The interesting question is "why that arc in particular"; my ignorance will shine through if I speculate.

I assume that the projection encodes something about our relative perception of each cone's band, hence the big green corner.

>indexed by how much each of the 3-cones is activated

This will actually differ from person to person. If you look at a pure yellow wavelength light next to a red/green light mixed such that they create the exact same perceived yellow to you, it will look different to another person.

Aside from that, not really sure what a 3d view with the dimensions being r,g,b would actually offer

There are three cones, but there is an additional constraint that we plot the colors at maximum summed luminosity. So for one cone you would just have a point; two would show a line from 0% cone A+100% cone B -> 100% cone A; three is a plane

I guess it is the 2-dimensional section such that it have constant total brightness. You can then multiply later by your desired brightness.