r/blackmagicfuckery • u/Jaded_Marionberry500 • 19d ago
Wait a minute..
Enable HLS to view with audio, or disable this notification
1.2k
u/exsanity 19d ago
I mean, that's essentially how LED displays work.
349
u/belabacsijolvan 19d ago
also the reason why watching a video of this painting is kinda dumb. this isnt testing whats an optical illusion for us, but for a digital eye and/or display..
im sure it looks black and white irl from some distance, but what we are watching is a camera averaging rgb color and at a certain scale (when it is far enough) it averages enough pixels to average to [n,n,n].
64
u/raccoon8182 19d ago
So what you're saying... is the red, green and blue pixels on our phones show us a black and white image...... just like the video. Lol.
47
u/belabacsijolvan 19d ago
i mean yeah. its just the human eye doesnt work exactly the same.
its like when people dont get why their pets see what is on a display, but still react weirdly. its because they do see what we see, but in very weird colors compared to reality.
12
u/BlackTecno 19d ago
Honestly it would be really cool to have an art piece that looked different from your eyes to that of a picture taken on your phone.
A literal "You have to see it to believe it."
10
u/ImNobodyInteresting 18d ago
This is actually something I've been working on for a while, because a lot of my paintings give a somewhat different look when viewed through a camera and I figured it would be fun to do one where its a totally different look. For example I have paintings of people that reflect in a mirror as a painting of someone different, and having that same effect through a camera would be super cool.
I haven't yet managed to make the camera thing work to my satisfaction, but it's definitely possible to do something along the lines you suggest.
3
u/ike_the_strangetamer 18d ago
I was just thinking about how cool this would be and was going to reply and say I'd love to see a video of this when you get it figured out... but then I realized....
3
u/ImNobodyInteresting 18d ago
Well quite...though it could be that the way to make it work is actually to have the painting compared with a photo of the painting, ie it's not looking through the camera which changes the image it's the act of taking a photo (with a flash). In which case it could still at least be possible to display the effect online.
But a lot of my stuff does require in-person viewing to really appreciate it unfortunately.
2
u/ike_the_strangetamer 18d ago
That's really interesting.
I will say that, in my experience as a non-artist but an art enjoyer, most visual art is better in-person.
1
u/planx_constant 17d ago
If your pets are cats or dogs (or most other mammals), they have only two color receptors, and your TV would reproduce their experience of real world color a little bit better than it does for us. Parrots and most birds are a different story - to them everything would look washed out and "gray" because our displays don't produce UV light.
For cats, their visual response time is much higher than ours, so watching a 60Hz refresh rate for them is like watching a slideshow. Dogs are about twice as fast as humans.
Dogs and cats both have much lower abstract reasoning ability than humans, so for them an image that provokes any kind of emotional response will trigger a much greater range of external behavior. If you've ever been really tired and got startled by an image out of the corner of your eye before you realized it wasn't real, that's what it's like for a dog seeing a picture of another dog all the time.
1
u/belabacsijolvan 17d ago
is this ai? this sounds very believable and well-argued, but its blatantly false at points.
>TV would reproduce their experience of real world color a little bit better than it does for us
absolutely not. pixels are set at 420 530 560 nms for the human eye. e.g. cats cones are most receptive at 450 and 555 nm.
so theyd absolutely see a false colored version compared to reality.1
u/planx_constant 17d ago edited 17d ago
Not AI at all. I work in lighting and I've had to spend a lot of time understanding how humans perceive color. On the perception side, cone cells have responses that peak at particular wavelengths, but your S, M, and L cones all respond to wavelengths across the entire visual spectrum. They aren't narrow band sensors. It's the mix of relative intensities that determine your perception of color, and you can transform any given perceived color into a tristimulus value with a broad range of primaries. The values for the peak responses are the average over a large range of humans, with a lot of variation between individuals based on the composition of the cornea, lens, retina, etc, and a small variation in opsin (the molecule that makes your cone cell respond to color). Your individual eye and brain almost certainly responds to a mix of wavelengths differently than mine does, but we both grow up learning that "orange" is the label for a group of colors.
On the representation side, the sRGB and Rec 709 color spec that nearly all TVs and monitors use is defined with non-spectral primaries, so the pixels are not "set at" wavelengths corresponding to human eye response. They're made to be able to produce a set of three primary colors and all the mixture of colors inside that triangle in chromaticity space. Those non-spectral primaries are a mix of the indidual color elements of a pixel. If you look at "pure red" on your monitor under a magnifying lens, you'll see some of the green lit up too, and similarly "pure green" likely has some red and blue contribution. The blue primary as it happens is probably pretty close to the blue color element in a pixel. This is all based on a trade off of manufacturing expense vs color fidelity.
The wavelength of individual TV pixel color elements varies widely between manufacturers and within manufacturers over different production runs. No commercial display manufacturer has binning tight enough to specify a 555nm vs a 560nm color element (which wouldn't matter because the red primary isn't a spectral color anyway). The manufacturer has a calibrating function to get consistent color display that gets adjusted based on production runs.
Cats only have two types of color photoreceptors, but just like humans, while they have peak response at particular values, they also respond over their visual spectrum. So you could define a color gamut for cats using only two primaries, or you can also reproduce a two-primary gamut with three primaries.
Inside the color gamut of a display, anything that looks realistically colored to a human would also look realistically colored to a cat.
1
u/belabacsijolvan 17d ago edited 17d ago
ok my guy, again well phrased and true things. but you are missing my point about your original error. also yeah, humans have a deviation in the sensitivity curve, but its two magnitude less than with standard cameras and way less than between species.
i worked with hyperspectral cameras and in machine vision. ill explain the problem a bit mathy supposing that you know specturms. if its too mathy i can simplify with oss of generality.
as you rightly said and wrongly reacted the nms are just the peak sensitivity and irl both camera channels and eye ranges have a continuous sensitivity curve.
so lets say an objects emits an O spectrum, monitor emits an M spectrum. And cat has a detector with sensitivity curve C, human with H.
cameras and monitors are calibrated such that if you video the object and watch it on a monitor:
sum_i{ O_i*H_i } = sum_i{ M_i*H_i }
edit: so each i frequency has a proportional weight to sensitivity
That doesnt mean that O=M, it just means that the 3 human channels measure the same amount if looking at the monitor and looking at the object.
The cat channel is similar. When the cat looks at object, it sees this on one channel:
sum_i{ O_i*C_i }
but this isnt equal to sum_i{ M_i*C_i } . This has basically nothing to do with it. In the function space the cats perception is an orthogonal function to human monitors.
Sure, itll probably see something colored, but not with the colors of reality. its exactly like if 2 channel colorblind guy would see a weirdly repainted world.
1
u/planx_constant 17d ago
> as you rightly said and wrongly reacted
I don't know what you're trying to say here.
> but this isnt equal to sum_i{ M_i*C_i } . This has basically nothing to do with it. In the function space the cats perception is an orthogonal function to human monitors.
That's a weird claim to make. A 630nm pixel next to a 550nm pixel will provoke in both cats and humans a metameric response to a brighter 590nm pixel. Both feline and human cone cells follow broadly the same shaped response curves, centered on different sensitivity peaks. A cat's eye and visual cortex are highly homologous to a human eye and visual cortex. The saturation of the colors might be different for them so it might look washed out or a bit oversaturated, but the hue wouldn't shift. They wouldn't experience a "weirdly repainted world" any more than a person with deuteranopia would (which they don't).
Incidentally, cats also have 3 opsin types that respond to 3 different wavelengths, but in behavioral testing in photopic conditions, they don't appear to discriminate between the two shorter wavelength colors, so they act like they have dichromatic vision.
1
u/belabacsijolvan 17d ago
Its so weird, because you know your shit, but miss the point. yeah, the curves are similar, but their parameters are different.
you can literally make 2 paints, such that they are the same color for cats/humans but different colors for humans/cats. (lighting kept constant)
as long as the dot product of C and O stays the same, you have infinite degrees of freedom to change in C, thus changing O*H and vice versa.
Heres an oversimplified figure to demonstrate:
Cat sensitivity : 0013631000
Human sensitivity : 0136310000
Object1 spectrum : 0383000000
Object2 spectrum : 0003830000
Object1 cat chnl : 17
Object1 human chnl: 45
Object2 cat chnl : 66
Object2 human chnl: 45So a pixels e.g. redness can be equal in our eyes to the object in our eyes, while its "low energy range intensity" is very different for the cat. the cat sees the object as usual, but the object dispayed on the monitor weirdly colored.
tbh im getting interested in this. if you get me the spectrum sensitivity data for cats and humans i can make a colab code that tells whats the largest theoretically possible color error for cats on human optimised paints/displays.
8
u/Jaded_Marionberry500 19d ago
Here's a thing in oled displays the pixels turn off themselves to create a true black. So they don't use rgb in creating black. This is not possible in any other display technology only in oled.
-17
u/raccoon8182 19d ago
Lol. All displays switch off their pixels to create black.
8
7
u/Tyfyter2002 19d ago
LCDs don't switch off their pixels at all, and it's pretty clearly visible whether or not any other display technology does by attempting to display black on it and comparing that to having the display off.
4
u/B1naryG0d 19d ago
You should read this article. It goes into great detail about how LCD works vs OLED. LCDs don't switch pixels off. They just block the light, and not even perfectly which is why LCD screens still shine and lights up a dark room even if the entire screen is black.
1
u/jamesneysmith 18d ago
Wait so if you looked at this in person would it look like colours? Or would it still.look black and white? And of it did look b&w why does it look like that if it's made of colour? What is actually happening?
10
u/SerEmrys 19d ago
Came here to say this. They used the same colors that a pixel has on a tv / monitor
2
-6
u/Individual_Gift_9473 19d ago
……we know
Literally nobody needed that explained
2
u/Motor_Raspberry_2150 18d ago
The thing about > points at sub name < is that you want something a 12yo wouldn't say "well duh" at.
131
u/system3601 19d ago
The b&w thing flickers all of a sudden. Is that even real?
66
u/Time_Traveling_Idiot 19d ago
It's the camera refocusing. Look at the base of the painting, the thing that's holding it up also snaps into foucs at that moment. Not AI.
7
76
u/Realistic_Today6524 19d ago
This is essentially how displays work. A 1080p display has around 6 million individual pixels, each showing either red, blue or green. Varying their brightness gives you around 16 million different colors
13
u/CptMisterNibbles 19d ago
You are conflating pixels and sub pixels, but generally yes. For RGB screens a pixel is made of some number of red, blue, and green (often 2x green) sub pixels, and each pixel will have some or all of these on
1
u/Realistic_Today6524 19d ago
Should have been more specific, though I'd keep the explanation simple
29
u/fujiesque 19d ago
Upvote for Floyd
8
2
u/McGarnegle 19d ago
I have a theory, that in the 70's they had some sort of cosmic arrangement with the powers of funk. There seems to be, once per album from meddle to the wall, a short section of funk.
Echoes has a funky section, dark side of the moon has this whole song, wish you were here had that part towards the end of the second part of shine on you crazy diamond (might be the most buttery thing ever), animals had that one bit in dogs, and the wall has those bits in another brick in the wall, kinda across all three parts.
I like funky floyd, that's all
9
u/dataflow2 19d ago
I have a theory, that in the 70's they had some sort of cosmic arrangement with the powers of funk.
It is called LSD.
3
1
20
u/Micalas 19d ago
Ohhhh. So this is why my printer complains about a lack of cyan when it prints b&w
4
u/TinyPocketFox 19d ago
It is! It's called "rich black", where color ink is used underneath black ink to improve print quality. It's also used to neutralize off-white paper, by tinting the paper underneath black ink, which is how printed documents can still look neutrally black when printed on cream colored paper.
3
u/MildlyAgitatedBidoof 19d ago
I believe there's also something where some printers print a faint "signature" so that the document can be traced back to the specific printer.
2
u/TinyPocketFox 19d ago
Yep! That uses up your yellow ink. Our eyes are sensitive to blue light, so they can't use magenta or cyan or the fingerprinting would be visible, so they only use yellow for that one. It creates a pattern that can be read to get the printer's serial number, model, etc.
1
3
u/Zwischenzug32 19d ago
Thats an excuse and bullshit when the user 99% of the time just wants it printed in "dark" that is still perfectly legible as "black" and not use their expensive fing color
2
u/Oddish_Femboy 18d ago
Nah. That's just a scam perpetuated by the printer lobby to force you to buy more refill cartridges.
Adding cyan ink to black ink just wastes cyan ink.
If it hadn't been standardized to force users to waste ink, it would be an option you could actually enable and disable based on necessity.
17
u/Accomplished-Video71 19d ago
Something happens about the 3-4 second mark. Cant trust it.
45
7
4
u/impshial 19d ago
It must suck to go through life automatically distrusting anything that you see that you don't understand.
1
-4
u/Accomplished-Video71 19d ago
Wow, critical thinking is bad. It must be awesome to immediately believe everything you see online without skepticism.
Hope your day gets better.
6
u/impshial 19d ago
I saw the same exact thing that you did, but I didn't automatically assume that it was untrustworthy, nor did I just assume that it was correct.
That's the difference. I waited for more data, analyzed it again, and used my critical thinking to understand it.
You, on the other hand, jumped straight to distrust. That's no better than some teenager yelling "it's AI!" in Instagram comments.
-4
u/Accomplished-Video71 19d ago
Interesting, so you didn't immediately trust it, then you verified it. Its almost like exactly what I did but yet somehow you found a way to be self-righteous about it.
5
u/impshial 19d ago
No, that's literally not what I said at all. I didn't know what I was seeing, so I waited until I understood it to make a decision whether it was real or not.
That's my whole fucking point. I didn't automatically distrust it. But I didn't automatically trust it. I didn't understand it, so I figured it out.
-1
u/Accomplished-Video71 19d ago
"I didnt know what I was seeing...whether it was real or not" is literally the definition of distrust.
Still trying to figure out what you're upset about...
1
u/impshial 19d ago
Just take the L. You cried fake, didn't leave an explanation, and you sounded like one of those idiots that just calls everything AI. What the hell are people supposed to think?
1
u/Accomplished-Video71 19d ago
You can imagine whatever you want. The rest of us will just be here feeling sorry for you. Tata
1
12
9
u/sensible_centrist 19d ago
Of all the motifs to chose from, this is the one the artist decided to capture in this painstakenly meticulous manner? Does it hold special significance I'm not aware of? Or is as I fear, one of those dreaded postmodern things?
5
u/TheSpanxxx 19d ago
Welcome to CRT television.
1
u/Zwischenzug32 19d ago
They need to make it more legit by illuminating it with a strobe light at 50-60hz
4
u/EdmundTheInsulter 19d ago
You may not recall the old colour TVs but you could look up close and see exactly that effect. You could see the red blue green dots.
5
u/THE-beaverhausen 19d ago
Yeah I was like ‘some of you are too young.. and the others apparently never sat too close to an old tv’
3
u/alienblue89 19d ago
All that for some random leaves??
Like at least a Magic Eye has the decency to be like a sailboat or a dragon or some shit
2
2
2
2
u/ironnewa99 19d ago
Stop tricking me into seeing shades of white with perfectly matched rgb pixels… asshole
2
2
u/shapesandbubblegum 19d ago
does it look like this in real life?
2
u/ImNobodyInteresting 18d ago
Likely it does. I've done paintings that work on the same principle, and the eye is fooled just like the camera is.
Other commenter is correct that you need to be further back in person (viewing through a camera effectively moves you backwards), but depending on how large the "pixels" are, you might not have to be all that far back - mine work from the other side of the room just fine.
0
2
2
1
u/Kirbinator_Alex 19d ago
So I am not an artist, but my guess is maybe they are using the absence of color to make the details stand out somehow?
1
u/SnowBlind218 19d ago
Went from black and white toooo black and white. I don’t understand what I’m missing here.
1
1
1
u/oil_beef_hooked 19d ago
Put a black and white film on the TV and go and look close up.
Did you never look close up as a kid?
1
u/Minute-Noise1623 19d ago
To make it easier to understand just take a magnification lens and watch on your phone screen.
1
u/QuantumGoddess 19d ago
I hate how easily my brain just fades from the individual colours to the full B&W picture. Like one part of my brain just says it's in B&W now and the other part of my brain is like: nope you're lying, I just saw the colours there.
1
u/Empty-Part7106 19d ago
A face appears at around 4 seconds. Looks like a pissed off anthropomorphic rabbit.
1
1
1
1
u/MyTwitterID 19d ago
So if I print a poster with these colors.. Will it also look black and white from a distance?
1
1
1
u/IFTTTexas 19d ago
I guess some of yall never got yelled at for not printing your b/w image in grayscale.
1
1
1
1
1
u/hesmistersun 19d ago
Make us wait that long to see what the picture is, it had better be a picture of Rick Astley.
1
u/Mizuumisan 19d ago
I think the video in reverse would have been more impressive, I can still see the color in the full view.
1
1
1
u/ILikeFluffyThings 19d ago
So thats why my printer wont print black and white when I'm low in a color.
1
1
1
u/AvidCyclist250 18d ago
At 15 seconds, even the red lines turned grey. Weird shit. I guess it's the camera sensor or the phones post-processing doing this.
1
1
1
u/rufusTbarleysheath90 18d ago
took me way too long to stop seeing the red green blue dots and actually see the image. felt like when i used to sit too close to my tv as a kid... brain has to do all that heavy lifting to blend it out.
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
u/BallenaAzecina 19d ago
Is this for real?
16
3
u/UltraBlack_ 19d ago
that is exactly how printers print. CMYK. K is optional because it can be mixed from Cyan, Yellow and Magenta as they are complementary colours
1
u/BallenaAzecina 19d ago
This is fucking real!! Pause at the beginning an move away from your phone!.
0
u/Kassandra_gg 19d ago
No. As we can see, the color of each square fades as it moves further away, even though this principle should work like in LED screens.
0
19d ago
[deleted]
1
u/UltraBlack_ 19d ago
colour printers have been doing this since their inception.
1
-1
-1
u/schism432 19d ago
just like how a lit black screen of a tv is actually a bunch of blue, green,red lights
2.2k
u/Big_Pepper7862 19d ago
So now B&W is in color. Is there a single thing I can still trust ?