I think your fiancée might be a bit too jealous.
Whine like a baby, now with 500% more drama!
- Thread starter strawman
- Start date
It's pretty bad form to pet strange dogs witohut permission.
It's okay, you can drink Diet Pepsi if you want.
Just redirect that energy, go bang your partner's brains out.
A
Anonymous
Anonymous
Normally, yes. But I'm barely talking to my partner right now because of a massive recent fight. I don't even want to be in the same room as them, let alone rage banging.
Oh, well that's why you're having these feelings. This is all normal mad at partner what if fantasy stuff. Time to love yourself instead.
A
Anonymous
Anonymous
Oh, I've been doing "self care". A. Lot.
The newness, which is the majority of the reason it feels so intense, will wear off. In the meantime, like others have said, allow yourself the occasional self love fantasy, but keep in mind that if you really care about your partner, don't take it to a point that it will negatively affect your feelings or relationship. That threshold is different for everyone, so I can't tell you where the line is. But you know where it is, so keep it within those boundaries.
Yeah, thoughts are harmless, until they cross a line where they aren't. The reason I mentioned redirection of energy is because if I was in a relationship and my girlfriend jumped me because the nextdoor neighbor that looks like Chris Hemsworth was mowing the lawn with his shirt off, I'm not going to be upset about it. I'm going to be sneaking into his yard at night to spread grass feeder, he's gonna have the best lawn on the block.
Last edited:
A
Anonymous
Anonymous
I am such a fucking coward.
I hate that "coulda/woulda/shoulda" feeling I get after I don't take a risk on something (like the stock market... or Bitcoin!) and then watch other people reap amazing benefits because they were willing to take a risk where I wasn't.
But I would hate to go bankrupt even more, sooo...
--Patrick
Our daughter is taller than me. Last night she stood next to me for FaceTime and my father in law asks....Are you actually standing up? Uh yeah. Thanks.
figmentPez
Staff member
RGB and CMY as primary colors is based on human biology and the way human eyes work. Red, Blue and Yellow as primary colors is antiquated and inaccurate, and has no basis in science. It is a social construct and the resulting color theory only applies in regards to that social construct.
Huh. I didn't realize anyone thought RBY was a thing.
figmentPez
Staff member
The triadic color wheel has been around for a loooong time, and there are people who still swear by it as THE model of color theory. RBY are primary; green, orange, and purple are secondary colors.
Even though this theory of color is not accurate in terms of how to mix colors for printing, and doesn't represent how human vision works, and probably doesn't even represent how humans psychologically interact with color (there's disagreement on what the primary psychological colors are), this is still taught in schools. Even in college level art programs. Despite the fact that it doesn't really work that way in the real world.
I'd sooner say that there is no such thing as a primary color, than say that green is never a primary color.
figmentPez
Staff member
I think that's stretching things mighty far. Depending on what definitions you use, color might be considered a psychological construct*, but not a social one. I know there are theories that language impacts our ability to differentiate between colors, but I don't think that's ever been conclusively proven, and it's pretty clear that animals who never communicate about color still differentiate between colors.
*Magenta is a psychological construct. There is no single wavelength of light that is magenta. It only exists as the way the human brain interprets multiple wavelengths of light at the same time.
It's the (imperfect) color model usually taught to children, probably because blue/red roll off a 6yr-old's tongue more easily than cyan/magenta.
When I first learned of the CMY model's existence, I finally understood why all mixing RBY got me was "brown" instead of "black."
This was the second time my mind was blown about color. I'd never really thought about it, but it's true...magenta does not appear on the color spectrum. It's like the 1/x of colors, since if it did exist, it would be the bridge connecting both ends of the visible light spectrum.
Also that's why it makes the best plant grow light, since it's the least green "color" possible.
--Patrick
Last edited:
figmentPez
Staff member
That, and RBY is an older color theory, dating back to the 18th century, at least. I'm not sure how long, but for a century or so RBY was the standard for color theory in Europe, and I think that's never fully gone away as a standard for how color is thought about in art. It's never been fully supplanted by CMYK, or any of the other methods of defining colors (there's also YCrCb, La*b*, CMYKOG, CIE 1931 XYZ, CIELUV, and more.) Oh, and Wikipedia is severely deficient in even mentioning color theories from non-European countries.
The more I read about the subject, the more I think that the idea of primary colors, and being able to reproduce all colors from just three, is kinda bunk. I mean, RGB and CMY(K) are good enough for a lot of purposes, but neither are perfect, leaving out a lot of colors that the human eye can see, but can't be reproduced in either respective color space.
I'm not finding any easy information on if RGB is limited by the standards associated with it, or if you really can't trick the human eye into seeing all possible colors with just three select wavelengths (or ranges of wavelengths) of light. There even seems to be some disagreement on how much of a role rods play in the perception of color. (And there's even less information on tetrachromacy. Yes, some women have a fourth type of color cone, though it's usually sensitive to wavelengths in between red and green, so it doesn't let them see any new colors. I'm not sure how if it effects how they view RGB monitors, though.)
Could the RGB colorspace be improved by using three lasers that aren't RGB, but slightly different wavelengths? Or would such purity of color even make a difference? Would you still need more than three colors, despite most humans having three types of cones? I need a good documentary on the subject.
It's not really "bunk," though. I mean, unless you're a tetrachromat (or maybe a mantis shrimp). That's exactly how human eyes work, synthesizing color based on the excitation level of three different types of cone cells. I don't remember the exact story, but I seem to remember that being a tetrachromat mainly increases your discrimination of different yellows, I think?
Once I started looking into it, I started wondered what the best tint for sunglasses would be, one which lets through as much natural color perception as possible, but which also blocks the most light. The human response graph suggests to me that a lens which lets through just a narrow band of light from 460nm-480nm (resulting in a lens color something like this, I guess?) would theoretically allow the eye to bring all the cones to bear (even for tetrachromats) while still minimizing the amount of light which actually reaches the eye, especially harmful UV/IR and the lower blues.
--Patrick
figmentPez
Staff member
It's not that simple though. First, my declaration of "bunk" was mainly in reference to pigments, and subtractive color mixing in paints, dyes, etc. CMYK isn't good at creating purples and oranges, among other limitations of various color systems.
Second, as I noted in my post, the Opponent Process theory of how humans interpret color says that rods influence color perception, and I don't even understand enough of the summaries I'm reading to know how that impacts the theoretical limits of RGB color reproduction. Though I do know that all the RGB systems in computers are tremendously lacking in reproducing greens. The greenest green on the best calibrated professional computer monitor isn't anywhere near the green of a 520nm laser, or as green as all the varied plants in nature.
The triangle represents RGB colorspace. The horseshoe is an approximation of what is thought to be average human vision. (None of the colors are accurate, as they're shifted to reflect the concept that's being presented.)
Rods are most sensitive at ~500nm, which could explain it, since your brain doesn't interpret rods as "green" so much as "level of vibrance."
This also probably explains why digital camera sensor arrays usually have 2x the number of "green" filtered cells as they do of R or B:
I remember Kodak trumpeting that they were developing a mosaic that replaced one of the greens with a naked sensor, and until this discussion, I didn't realize that would just essentially mimic rod behavior. And then they decided to make stupid decisions and go bankrupt, sooo...
--Patrick
RBY being primary is what I was taught in elementary school. Like 45 years ago. It may not work for printing, but it seemed to work for crayons
The old laser light shows would synthesize color from 8 wavelengths of multiline Ar/Kr gas lasers. Some of this was done to expand the color space as much as possible and some of it was done to try and compensate for the lower power in some of the wavelengths. The dominant lines were typically 488nm (cyan), 514nm(green), and 647nm(red). To get a bluer blue, a lower power blue 476nm, technically an indigo 465nm, and a violet line at 457nm were used. The red was augmented with the 676nm line and the 568nm line could be brought in for yellow and orange.
Awesome discussion about colour. To add to it: Mix in Gamma Correction in here and you can have some REAL fun: http://www.ericbrasseur.org/gamma.html
That webpage might also be titled "I didn't realize how much my monitor sucked."
That webpage might also be titled "I didn't realize how much my monitor sucked."
There’s also the most recent update to NVIDIA drivers which finally supports Integer Scaling. Intel and AMD will probably be right behind.
—Patrick
—Patrick
I know I'm not supposed to say anything about where I live, but there has been absolutely no respite from the intense heat as of late. Normally we have at least one monsoon storm that brings things down from high temps, but it's been nothing but record-breaking heat for the last week or so. And it's not looking like we'll have any sort of lowering of temps until next week.
hey at least it isnt 103 with 100% absolute humidity. I feel like a crawdad boiling in the pot for dinner!
