• KaChilde@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    52
    ·
    edit-2
    11 hours ago

    “Yeah! The real primary colours are CMY!”

    Also bullshit.

    Our RGB primaries are a simplification that comes from availability of pigments. While blue was originally a very rare and valuable pigment made from precious stones, it was still more available than magenta or cyan, which are made synthetically.

    All of the following is taking paint mixing into mind.

    When looking at a continuous colour wheel:

    You can see where each colour sits on the spectrum. When you consider a RBY palette, we are limited to essentially the colours in this triangle:

    Mixing a vibrant Purple or Green is often difficult with a basic rby colour palette, and a Magenta or Cyan is impossible. We define a primary colour as “foundational colours that cannot be created by mixing other colours”, which means that CMY are real primaries, right? Well, if we look at the CMy palette:

    We DO get a wider range of colours, but you’ll notice that a true purple, green, blue, and red are still outside of our range. You can get a pretty close red with Yellow and Magenta, but it will never be as vibrant as a pure Red pigment. So then Red is a primary?

    When painting, you should use the colours that you need for the work, and mix from there. The ‘primary colours’ are a tool to teach students the theory of colour mixing. It is not a perfect guide, but teaching complex colour theory to novice painters is just intimidation. Most people get an intro to art, learn RBY, and then leave art, don’t think about it again until a TikTok titled “school LIED to you” introduced CMY.

    EDIT: this is from the perspective of an artist. I am not an expert, and certainly got something wrong in here, but the primary argument has always annoyed me

    • squaresinger@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      4 hours ago

      Are you confusing subtractive and additive colors? For subtractive (used for e.g. paints) you use CMY, with white being what you get with no colors and black is a perfect mix of full CMY. With subtractive each color takes light away.

      Additive (used for lights) works the other way round: the base colors are RGB. No light colors is black, all light colors is white. Adding another color in additive adds more light.

      So, sure, if you use additive base colors in a subtractive process, you will get garbage and vice versa.

    • AnarchoEngineer@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      edit-2
      7 hours ago

      The real fascinating thing is that Impossible Colors exist, which means it’s kind of impossible to actually represent all colors or impossible to precisely represent them.

      Imo it seems colors are relative to how our brain and eyes are adapting to their current field of view, meaning the color you experience is not fully dependent on the light an object actually reflects nor the activation of your rods and cones but is dependent on the way your brain processes those signals with each other. Ergo, you can’t actually represent all colors precisely unless you can control every environmental variable like the color of every object in someone’s field of view and where someone’s eyes have been looking previously etc.

  • FishFace@piefed.social
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    12
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    11 hours ago

    But they aren’t. They’re the colours corresponding to the peak frequency responses of the cone cells in your retinas.

  • Štěpán@lemmy.cafe
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    19
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    14 hours ago

    I’ve seen his art exhibition in Prague just two days ago, watched the Twin Peaks movie yesterdey, and definitely going to watch the series soon.

    • defunct_punk@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      12
      ·
      13 hours ago

      Twin Peaks is great. The Return is phenomenal so definitely push through the first season of TP which can be a bit clunky

      • Pep@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        16
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        3 hours ago

        The first season is still excellent 90s TV. The middle of the second season is questionable though

        • dditty@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          7 hours ago

          Yeah when Ben or Jerry goes full civil war miniature reenactment I remember thinking what the hell are we doing here exactly plot-wise

        • defunct_punk@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          10
          ·
          edit-2
          13 hours ago

          Its been a while since I did a full watch through but doesnt the case get solved in the middle of S2? I remember really liking the later half of S2 when the conspiracy stuff and all the different plotlines really got underway but I know this isnt a popular opinion

          All 3 seasons are great though, but man, those first couple of 1 are dense and put me to sleep for years every time I tried starting it. Eventually I just had to sit down at 10AM on a Sunday with a (damn fine) cup of coffee and force myself through them

      • chuckleslord@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        8 hours ago

        Who cares? Can’t put the genie back in the bottle now.

        Sometimes I’m glad I can’t be spoiled. I’m literally always along for the ride

        • zarkanian@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          8 hours ago

          Well, not for you, but for somebody else reading this. I think people assume that because the movie happens first chronologically that they should see it first. (When it was actually created after the series as a prequel.)

          • Jarix@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            6 hours ago

            I prefer chronological order from the perspective of the contents of the media. But in torn because I also want them in the order the author/writers came up with them.

            That being said for large bodies of works with multiple writers, like the battletech universe, i enjoy not having spoilers more

  • 🇰 🌀 🇱 🇦 🇳 🇦 🇰 🇮 @pawb.social
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    8
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    13 hours ago

    A lot of formulaic stuff in media is bullshit. So much shit is done for no other reason than because it worked once before. Primary colors are one of them. Story structure; forget the actual name of it but every story doesn’t need to be arranged in that particular order of start, build up, conflict, resolution (Pulp Fiction is a great example of something that ignores this rule). And more.

    • raef@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      10 hours ago

      It’s the inverted checkmark, but Pulp Fiction is rearranged so that all the different stories fit onto the inverted checkmark at the same time

    • FishFace@piefed.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      11 hours ago

      Primary colours are not made up, they are the approximate peak response frequencies of the cone cells in your retinas.

    • khannie@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      10 hours ago

      I think this has lost some truth with the advent of very high definition oled phone screens in fairness. I’m a quality whore and having my phone very close to my face is a decent experience for most movies.

      Obviously for stuff like Interstellar or Dune I’m going big.

      • passenger@sopuli.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        5 hours ago

        To me it sounds horrible, unergonomical, full of distractions if in the public…

        But yeah it’s mostly funny how he hates it.

        Do what u want!

    • ShaunaTheDead@fedia.io
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      25
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      13 hours ago

      Right, CMY for ink, RGB for light though.

      this image is pretty helpful. With light you’re starting with white (the center of the left diagram) and subtracting colours to get your ideal colour. With ink, you’re adding colour to get your ideal colour, and adding all of your colours will get you to black.

      • edinbruh@feddit.it
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        15
        ·
        edit-2
        13 hours ago

        Your intuition is on the right track, but it works “the other way around”.

        RGB are additive primary colours, because the colour you see when you look at something that emits light is the actual colour of the light. And so when you mix two coloured lights, the colours add up (additive colours). And adding every colour gives you white.

        CMY are instead subtractive colour, because when you look at something that does not emit light, the colour you see is just the light that bounces off of it, while some colours get absorbed. So when you mix paints, the resulting paint absorbs more colours, and you only see what’s left, so the colours subtract down (subtractive colours). And subtracting everything gives you black.

        P.s. mathematically, any three independent colours could be used as primary. Independent means that you can’t get any of the three by mixing the other two (i.e. blue, red, and purple are not independent). But those two triplets are the most obvious choices. You might recall that as a kid, they taught you that primary colours were Red, Blue and Yellow instead of CMY, and yet mixing worked fine.

    • fonix232@fedia.io
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      13 hours ago

      Uhm… No.

      It depends on you doing additive or subtractive colour mixing.

      Additive mixing (e.g. light, in the form of colour LEDs or similar colour sources) must utilise RGB, due to how physics works.

      Subtractive mixing (such as, printing, painting, etc.) on the other hand is better off with CMY+K for higher precision, again, for physics reasons.

      altr

      • ozymandias@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        7 hours ago

        ummm… yeah i know.
        primary colors are from subtractive mixing, ie mixing paint… like i said.
        and it originated from back when they couldn’t make a good cyan or magenta, so the color wheel had blue and red instead.
        you’re supposed to be able to mix the primary colors to get any other color, but that’s bullshit unless you want it to look like a medieval painting.
        additive color came a few centuries later with electricity and artificial lighting and is not relevant.

  • B-TR3E@feddit.org
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    11 hours ago

    Well, Plato had some unique ideas about colors, too. He was a genius nevertheless…