Comments by "EebstertheGreat" (@EebstertheGreat) on "The Weird World in RGB" video.

  1. Maybe you could make a video on color gamuts, and the reason why a real four-color screen (not Sharp's gimmicky and dishonest Quattron) might really enable it to display a wider range of colors.
    9
  2. You claim many times that we can make "any color" or "all colors" using just three primary colors, but this is absolutely not true. If we could directly stimulate each type of cone cell exclusively, we could create any color (even "impossible colors"), but every wavelength will stimulate all three cones to some extent. The subset of colors that can be reproduced by a screen is its color gamut, and no gamut is anything like complete. The gamut of your RGB screen is different from that of your CMYK printer, and neither comes close to including all visible colors. It is in fact impossible to reproduce the complete range of visible colors using three wavelengths, or any finite number of wavelengths. Or to put it another way, color perception is three-dimensional in some sense, but because the absorption curves for the cones are nonlinear, there isn't actually a finite basis consisting of 3D vectors.
    2
  3.  @TechnologyConnections  No, I mean that even many common, natural colors that we see every day cannot be reproduced by an RGB screen. As an example, it is impossible to produce violet light from a screen, only purple. True spectral violet does not stimulate the medium cone at all, and looks like pure blue, or depending on how you think about calibration, even less green than pure blue. This is interpreted similarly to a mixture of spectral red and blue, which will only stimulate the medium cone slightly, but it is not the same. Look at the sRGB color space and tell me that is every color.
    2
  4. If you look at a spectrum on an RGB monitor, you will not see violet. That's the whole point. You will see a color that you might think resembles violet until you get an actual blacklight or violet pigment to compare it to. Similarly, if you take a photo of a rainbow, you can capture a purple, but not actual violet (even with chemical processes). I think you are greatly exaggerating how wide the gamut of an LED screen really is. This isn't a technicality. It's a widespread and fundamental misunderstanding of how color works. And it suggests that things like wide-gamut HDR must be pure marketing gimmicks (the way Quattro really was), when in fact they make a huge difference in the viewing experience. Yes, the very largest RGB spaces like AdobeRGB do have a pretty wide gamut and can come reasonably close to any color. But the actual screens most people deal with all the time do not come close.
    2
  5. I agree that most people won't care much. But it's a component of improving display technology. It's in the same way that most people don't really care about the difference between 1080p and 2160p even on large screens, but some people do. Of course, there is a lot more to improving color representation than just expanding the gamut, but that is a thing. IDK if adding a fourth phosphor will end up being a useful technological improvement, but surely it will eventually be a consideration as screens become more optimized and harder to tell apart.
    1
  6. Black lights usually emit light that is mostly ultraviolet, though also some visible light at the violet end of the spectrum. There's not much more to say about it, because we can't see UV light. They can be fun with some things that fluoresce though, like bleach, because they will appear to glow of their own accord under a black light (you can't see the UV light hitting them, but you can see the white or purplish light they emit).
    1