Check your Colour Vision.

Started by cyphyr, September 23, 2013, 03:56:56 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

cyphyr

Fun little online game. Check your colour vision here.
Your monitor may have an impact on results.
A low score is better. I got 0. !
www.richardfraservfx.com
https://www.facebook.com/RichardFraserVFX/
/|\

Ryzen 9 5950X OC@4Ghz, 64Gb (TG4 benchmark 4:13)

PabloMack

#1
Interesting. This reminds me of a recent article I read, perhaps in the magazine the NRA started sending me after becoming a member "American Hunter". Anyway, it said that men have a higher density of rods in their retinas (at the expense of cones) while women have a higher density of cones in their retinas (at the expense of rods). This results in men having higher acuity for detail in vision and better sense of detecting motion (hunters) while women have a better ability to sense small differences in color (gatherers). This contrasts the difference in the need to see motion of prey in the field vs. find fruit and judge their ripeness under various lighting conditions. I got only a 66 in the color test. Maybe I should do the test again or, better yet, go hog hunting!

cyphyr

I noticed that if I used my peripheral visions to view the sequence the differences stood out more.
www.richardfraservfx.com
https://www.facebook.com/RichardFraserVFX/
/|\

Ryzen 9 5950X OC@4Ghz, 64Gb (TG4 benchmark 4:13)

PabloMack

#3
Interesting. I'll have to try that. The "fovea centralis" has a higher concentration of rods. So when you look "at" something (i.e. move your eyes so that the image is striking your fovea) then the image is received by a lower concentration of cones. Cones require more space because they need more light collecting ability to capture a smaller fraction of the spectrum. It's the same reason why colo(u)r film produces more grainy images than B&W film. Presumably, the part of your retina that is responsible for peripheral vision can accommodate a higher concentration of cones because of the lower concentration of rods. This also relates to the needs of hunters/gatherers. When hunting, predators use their peripheral vision mostly to spot prey initially then they use their fovea to stalk. Gatherers use their peripheral vision to find nuts and fruits and when they find them, they use their peripheral vision again to judge their suitability for consumption using color. But they also use their central vision to inspect closely for flaws.

The tradeoffs in biology are fascinating. It always brings me back in awe of the archosaur eye (e.g. birds and other dinosaurs). They see more clearly than mammals across the whole surface of the eye because the capillary blood supply to the retina in mammals is on top of the sensors. So the light has to pass through this tissue and is distorted some before being received. In birds, the blood supply comes from behind the retina and does not interfere with vision. The embyological implications are intriguing. This is why eagles are said to have 8~10X more visual acuity than humans. Also, birds have more types of color receptors than mammals. While we perceive only three "primary colo(u)rs" birds have at least four seeing ultraviolet to which we are totally blind. Next time you think about what it would be like to be stalked by a 10 meter Allosaur or Torvosaurus, just contemplate all of your disadvantages and you will understand what mammals had to deal with during the Mesozoic. People once thought Dinosaurs to be sluggish stupid reptiles that went extinct because of their inferiority. Hahh! They couldn't have been more wrong. The way we think about dinosaurs began to change after Bob Bakker wrote his book "The Dinosaur Heresies". I am going to the Houston Museum of Natural Science this evening to hear him speak. My wife and I talked with him at breakfast twice because we were staying at the same hotel for the SVP meetings in Austin.

Sorry, I got into 3D and TG2 because of dinosaurs (among other extinct animals). My mind is never very far from them.

Hannes


otakar