No. The article states “total absence of working cones in their eye retinas, leaving them with only rods”.
I’m trying to say that not being able to see color does not mean black and white or grayscale, it means the brain does not decipher color hue.
My example of the blind spot was to outline that a lack of receptors does not mean black, white, grey, whatever. It means a lack of signals to the brain to process anything. In the case of lacking cones, it means an inability to process color. When it’s described as “grayscale” that’s to help people understand a concept that is difficult for some people to grasp.
Think of it this way. Black is like 0, White is like 1, and Grayscale would be a float (decimal) between 0 and 1, while Colorblind is like NULL.
Null would be completely blind, no visual data at all. Monochromacy is receiving a single visual channel instead of the more common r,g,b. The original Nosferatu had more colour than that and very few people would argue that’s not a black and white movie.
Null would be completely blind, no visual data at all.
Then what is 0 and 1 when you interpret my example like this? I think you missed the point of my example.
The whole point is to say that “no color” does not mean black and white. It just means no color data. Similar to how a person born completely blind does not see all black, they just don’t see anything at all. They don’t receive any visual data and their brain does not process color, light intensity, or any optic information at all.
0 to 1 is monochromacy, a single visual channel, eg only rods and no cones. I thought that was fairly clear. Full colour vision would be closer to 0,0,0 to 1,1,1 (plus low-light rods). Null would be no visual channels at all, ie completely blind. I didn’t miss the point of your example, it’s just a very bad analogy.
Here’s a quick article I found which demonstrates how individual channels are monochromatic and you only get full colour by combining channels, digital image formats were designed for human eyes so this is much more analogous to human vision. With no channels you get nothing at all.
I don’t need an article to describe how colors are reproduced through RGB, not only because I already am familiar with it but because it is irrelevant to the discussion.
The problem is that you’re trying to relate things that are entirely incompatible. You cannot describe the concept of an entire lack of any experience with color by using colors. That’s the exact issue I am trying to point out. The idea of “black and white” or “grayscale” simply requires having experience with color, so that does not apply.
It seems you came here just to piss on my analogy, rather than trying to help and have a discussion.
Are you thinking of cerebral achromatopsia, rather than congenital achromatopsia? As far as I can tell, rod monochromats really do see in grayscale.
No. The article states “total absence of working cones in their eye retinas, leaving them with only rods”.
I’m trying to say that not being able to see color does not mean black and white or grayscale, it means the brain does not decipher color hue.
My example of the blind spot was to outline that a lack of receptors does not mean black, white, grey, whatever. It means a lack of signals to the brain to process anything. In the case of lacking cones, it means an inability to process color. When it’s described as “grayscale” that’s to help people understand a concept that is difficult for some people to grasp.
Think of it this way. Black is like 0, White is like 1, and Grayscale would be a float (decimal) between 0 and 1, while Colorblind is like
NULL.Null would be completely blind, no visual data at all. Monochromacy is receiving a single visual channel instead of the more common r,g,b. The original Nosferatu had more colour than that and very few people would argue that’s not a black and white movie.
Then what is 0 and 1 when you interpret my example like this? I think you missed the point of my example.
The whole point is to say that “no color” does not mean black and white. It just means no color data. Similar to how a person born completely blind does not see all black, they just don’t see anything at all. They don’t receive any visual data and their brain does not process color, light intensity, or any optic information at all.
0 to 1 is monochromacy, a single visual channel, eg only rods and no cones. I thought that was fairly clear. Full colour vision would be closer to 0,0,0 to 1,1,1 (plus low-light rods). Null would be no visual channels at all, ie completely blind. I didn’t miss the point of your example, it’s just a very bad analogy.
Here’s a quick article I found which demonstrates how individual channels are monochromatic and you only get full colour by combining channels, digital image formats were designed for human eyes so this is much more analogous to human vision. With no channels you get nothing at all.
I don’t need an article to describe how colors are reproduced through RGB, not only because I already am familiar with it but because it is irrelevant to the discussion.
The problem is that you’re trying to relate things that are entirely incompatible. You cannot describe the concept of an entire lack of any experience with color by using colors. That’s the exact issue I am trying to point out. The idea of “black and white” or “grayscale” simply requires having experience with color, so that does not apply.
It seems you came here just to piss on my analogy, rather than trying to help and have a discussion.