←back to thread

151 points zdw | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0.223s | source
Show context
analog31 ◴[] No.42153517[source]
Interesting. As I understand it, shifting the red curve to shorter wavelengths, even by a seemingly small amount, would improve visibility. And something I've learned is that red vision varies by a fair amount from person to person.
replies(1): >>42153693 #
bhouston ◴[] No.42153693[source]
> And something I've learned is that red vision varies by a fair amount from person to person.

Is there vision tests similar to audio tests where they figure out one's individual responses to different wavelengths of light? Super neat.

It would be cool to simulate different people's vision, not just colour-blindness but the more subtle variations.

replies(2): >>42153968 #>>42170967 #
NL807 ◴[] No.42153968[source]
>Is there vision tests similar to audio tests where they figure out one's individual responses to different wavelengths of light? Super neat.

Unlike consumer audio equipment where you can easily do a frequency sweep to test hearing, you'd need a specialist light source to do the same. Something like a tunable laser. You could probably use a prism to do a similar sweep from a white light source.

replies(1): >>42154885 #
1. AlotOfReading ◴[] No.42154885[source]
You don't need a frequency sweep. You take three broad spectrum lights and ask people to adjust their brightnesses to match a selection of reference lights. The tool that does this is called an anomaloscope and it was invented before things like lasers in order to study how color vision worked. That work became the basis of CIE (and other standards) that now define how your screen renders accurate colors.

This setup is straightforward to adjust to different types of color vision too. They use 3 lights because that's how many opsins normal humans use for color vision. If you're testing di- or tetrachromats you can use 2 or 4 lights respectively, or 12 if you're testing intelligent mantis shrimp.