 Poster: A snowHead
|
@Thornyhill, i have no intetest in continuong this. Abc's original solution:
| Quote: |
Say you’re interested in skiing only blues. Hold up the blue filter. All the red and black fade away, only the blue stands out
|
Was patently wrong, hence i corrected him, and he kept on.
I have answered the OPs question with a solution that is a goer.
@philwig, well done knowing how to use google.
Love Snowheads, and the inevitable disagreements that result from text based conversations on t'internet.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
| marodo2712 wrote: |
| @Thornyhill, i have no intetest in continuong this. ... |
and then continues regardless
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
|
|
Ok. We look at the US flag through a red filter, what's being filtered?
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
Photographic filters are, as I understand them, absorption in operation. They allow the colour they are to pass through and impede the other colours, they add nothing.
So a red filter absorbs green and blue so they don't pass through the filter.
The red ink on paper example even offers proof of this. The paper being white reflects all parts of their spectrum which we accept as white. If you put red ink onto that paper then you cause green and blue to be absorbed by the ink, reflecting just the red light to our eyes, so appearing red. Then view it through a red filter, which doesn't hinder the red ink reflected light passing through unhindered. So still red. The other light, from the paper, is now subjected to the same red filter, and so removes the green and the blue components "by absorption" at the filter. Making that light also reach our eyes with just the red component remaining.
Writing and paper now appear same colour to our eyes.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
|
How about an IR filter?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
@Mr.Egg, Colour photographic filters are referred to as described by@ski3. It makes it easier to class a filter by the light it transmits rather than all the colours it filters out. A pedant would point out that it’s not a filter for that colour. I suppose it all depends on your background. A scientist would argue that what a photographer calls a red filter isn’t as far as he’s concerned. Confusing isn’t it. To make it even more confusing as you point out an IR filter (and a uV filter) does what a scientist would expect and filter out that particular range of wavelengths and is what a photographer would expect too.
I hope that clears up what the confusion and why we have two different groups of people arguing about different things. Fun to watch though. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Very well put @geepee, but a filter still doesn't "add" anything which some people are saying it does.
OP, I get the feeling the best solution is to add symbols (or get someone else to) of your choice to a paper map and use that or refer back to that when looking at large piste side maps.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
|
Loving the discussion about colour blindness and "filters". I am also red-green colour blind - I struggle a bit with noticing the difference between red and black on piste maps but generally get it right - it helps that I usually go to the Grand Massif which I know well and does not have many black runs!
I also happen to have a PhD which involved lasers, colours and filters so can I briefly try and settle the argument? Take the example of a white sheet of paper viewed through a red filter. Most people are aware that white is not a single colour - it is comprised of all visible colours (not a technically correct phrase but close enough). Putting a red filter in between the paper and your eye filters out (actually absorbing a percentage of) all colours except the red. So white paper looks red through a red filter. It will look blue through a blue filter and so on. It may "appear" to add red to white but it doesn't really - it just doesn't let a lot of the other colours through.
Looking at red through a red filter does the same - filters out all colours except the red. So red looks red through a red filter. Red on a white background may seem to disappear. It will depend on the exact shade of red and the exact properties of the filter.
Just to complicate things more - red, blue, etc are just names we give to colours. In reality we measure the spectrum of the colour over a wide range of wavelengths which in the visible part of the spectrum varies from the "red end" to the "blue end". When you add a red filter to a scene you are removing (again absorbing a percentage of) colours except those in the red end of the spectrum which the filter lets through. This will give the appearance of overlaying the scene with red, tinting everything red, etc. It isn't really doing that - it is removing a lot of non-red wavelengths leaving everything looking like different shades of red. Shades of grey is a different thing altogether and definitely for the Apres Ski.
Hope that helps settle the argument (but probably won't and I shouldn't have even tried). Happy to discuss further but keep it polite and we may have to switch to fully technical language talking about wavelengths, absorption, transmission, etc.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| marodo2712 wrote: |
| Ok. We look at the US flag through a red filter, what's being filtered? |
Green and blue light are being filtered out, leaving just red.
Contrary to what you also said, a filter does not augment colours/hues. It might seem like it, but the clue is in the word. It’s a ‘filter’. It filters out colours leaving you with just red (or whatever). https://www.olympus-lifescience.com/en/microscope-resource/primer/lightandcolor/filter/
It’s a bit like one of those flat earth discussions. Just because it seems flat, doesn’t mean it is and there is a whole world of science to back that up. Trust me, you really don’t want to stick your neck out on this one.
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
@Mr.Egg, we can't generally see IR, so if it were being reflected from the piste map ( it definitely will be) it forms no part of the image presented to our brain.
As an example, camera image sensors can see IR so they use a filter it to prevent any image being recorded with that detail as it would appear odd to us having something we can't see then subsequently presented to us in human visible form
Removing the IR filter from a sensor gives you, roughly, a night vision camera that can scavenge any IR component from very dim light to convert to something we can see.
|
|
|
|
|
|
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
|
| marodo2712 wrote: |
| @philwig, well done knowing how to use google. |
Still wrong, but now you mention it... I was surprised by your ignorance, which made me wonder when this sort of thing is taught to children.
DuckDuckGo is great for that, and here's an example of a lesson aimed at five year olds which should tell you everything you need to know.
Remember not to put the gumballs up your nose when you're done 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
If i look at matt black through a red filter the black will have a red hue, black is an absence of lightwaves, so the redness must be produced by the filter, thus by extension.
Anyway, I've never been a fan of angry mobs, so I'll step away from this thread, and wish you all good skiing/boarding. I hope the OP finds my two practical solutions helpful.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
"matt black" is not entirely black - look up Venta black it's the "blackest black" yet found. All filters, etc work on a percentage and not many are 100%.
Only light sources can "add" colour. e.g. light bulbs, stars and the sun (even the moon is not a true light source - it's reflected light from the sun).
I'm enjoying the discussion except when there's name calling and insults.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
| marodo2712 wrote: |
If i look at matt black through a red filter the black will have a red hue, black is an absence of lightwaves, so the redness must be produced by the filter, thus by extension.
|
Does that work in a darkroom. Black isn't really entirely 100% black. If your theory holds true you should be able to walk into a room completely devoid of light and use a red filter to see. Unfortunately it doesn't work.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
As above, the black example can be misleading dependent upon the pigment used in printing process. Many are cyan magenta and yellow maxed out to produce a "close to " black, potentially displaying residual colour when viewed through a red filter. CMY K adds black to augment the colours, but nothing is perfect.
The confusion is partly propagated by programs like photoshop which I think originate as graphics set out regimes. The photo is just a source file and once into digitised form is then worked on with a user interface that leads to output, it's this stage that is additive from primarily being destined for inks etc. It just makes it easier to run workflow by using terminology that is related to output and not cause the mental conversion that is happening here.
This whole seam of thought does bring up another area within our collective interest though. It's one I've often thought when reading posts about goggles and how they improve, or not, our vision in the ski environment. If someone with red colour deficient sight uses a red lens, it has the potential to cause more difficulty if it places more of the contrast detail within an already challenged part of their eye response.
Conversely, if they use yellow, will it enhance the detail they are able to discern?
It seems to me that it could account for such a wide indication of lens performance if they are given by both colour blind and colour normal reviewers.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
Apart from the problem of differentiating between red and black on a piste map/signs (red chalk on a blackboard was an evil act that some teachers liked to inflict upon me at school) I've never perceived a problem skiing. On a bright day there is probably sufficient light that a red filter on it doesn't have too much of an adverse impact. I'm not an expert on the colour correcting contact lenses that exist but I think they work by applying a filter to one eye and not the other - creating a greater differential than normally exists. This reduces the non-red light reaching the brain from one eye only to shift the balance in favour of red (if you see what I mean).
Red goggles would be different as they apply the filter to both eyes. On a dull day red goggles may be a hindrance to me but then I wouldn't wear dark goggles on a dull day. In fact last year I bought some photo-sensitive goggles which change with the light.
If everyone wants to pay me I'll be happy to spend a season doing proper research on this.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
|
|
What’s the science behind the theory that yellow lenses help to increase contrast in flat light? Personally, I’ve never found that even the very best goggles make an appreciable difference.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
| ski3 wrote: |
| ... The confusion is partly propagated by programs like photoshop ... . The photo is just a source file and once into digitised form is then worked on with a user interface that leads to output, it's this stage that is additive from primarily being destined for inks etc. It just makes it easier to run workflow by using terminology that is related to output and not cause the mental conversion that is happening here. |
Open an image in Photoshop and run a red photo-filter in the default "RGB" mode.
The histogram reflects the physics of what's happening.
The name describes the effect of the filter on the image.
| foxtrotzulu wrote: |
| ... What’s the science behind the theory that yellow lenses help to increase contrast in flat light? Personally, I’ve never found that even the very best goggles make an appreciable difference. |
Hadn't thought about it, perhaps we can work it out.
Reducing the brightness of parts of the view could increase the contrast with other parts.
The eye's response isn't like a sensor or film, which may be a factor.
Plus the brain's processing that image a fair bit.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
@philwig, yes the program facilitates these decisions I'd agree, no problem with that. It's listening to people using it and their perception is to think that they are adding something (for example, image is a bit too cold so I'll add some red/yellow) that gives them the impression they are in fact adding red as in the general thread discussion.
Where as somebody else may describe it as taking out cyan, just depends on their approach knowledge. But I can see in it the derivations of confusion in this subject.
Goggles, I'd perceive that you are looking for localised contrast to get your brain delivering a topographical interpretation to you for assessment in judging the terrain in front of you.
On a day that's getting dimmer but with blue sky you'd get predominantly blue shadows that if you convert in whichever way you feel gives an advantage, it may be that you are moving those parts of the original coloured light into perhaps grey in various levels. It's possible by spreading these details across other parts of the eye's response it could fall into an area, that being more sensitive to the converted tone, you increase your perception of the detail. And hence the ease with which you can make those decisions about pace, direction etc.
As I say this is my, "run through PERCEPTION" for discussion really.
Take it to a proper "white out" day, and that may present a very different scenario. Firstly if it's thick enough to remove conventional references like trees, slope angle and any other ski furniture, it's definitely going to be difficult. In addition, the light at any level can be massively diffuse which immediately removes most residual contrast. Further it filters most chroma bias, leaving virtually no defined colour to convert. It all just goes to which ever colour you put on the goggles. So possible that no lens filtration will give any thing much in the way of assistance.
Again, this is my "run through PERCEPTION" for discussion.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I was going to suggest North America too. As well as the shapes, they don't have red runs. Their categories are green circle, blue square, black diamond, double black diamond.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Very interesting problem. I do UX design and we always try and augment colors with other visual feedback so that color blind customers can still see all the info... The US is ahead of us in that respect since they use circles/squares/diamonds/dble diamonds to denote each type of route.
A lot of suggestion about marking the OP's own map but I think the OP question was about tips to allow him to read Maps at lifts when his is not handy..
I can't think of anything else other than color filters. I wasn't aware of that Chromatic Vision Simulator app. It's going be really helpful for my work as sometimes going through photoshop or Illustrators filter is a pain..
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
|
Well, I've read around the internet, been to the library near me, had a think, then went to a camera shop. I asked the owner if he'd read this thread and tell me what he thought. It wasn't long before the owner started smiling, then he gave intermittent giggles. Eventually the owner finished, looked at me, and said 'im sorry but you're totally wrong'. He then went on to describe what has been said here and what i read on the internet, i left the shop humiliated, which is where you find me now.
Perhaps, as suggested by @ski3, I've been using PS so long it just became my norm, to be honest i still don't get it, (but i still don't get daylight saving either).
Anyway, my apologies to you all, especially those i was cheeky to.
We live and learn
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
@marodo2712, wow, that doesn't often happen on here, someone admitting they just plain got it wrong. Well done for 'manning up' or props as the youngsters say I think.
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
@marodo2712, well done.
Sometimes, a person-to-person talk with someone is the best way to get something explained.
The internet has shortcomings. In this case, the explanations were lengthy, word-y, and not so easy to digest. And missing the actual color filters to play with, which would have helped enormously.
(IF you do go back to the camera shop, ask to borrow a set of color filters. Start by stacking the red and green ones on top of the other. You'll ended up with ... black! That's because the red filters blocks anything but red, but since the green blocks anything not green, the red doesn't get through. So you got nothing left but "black", i.e. no light. Had the filters "add" color, you would have ended up with yellow when you stack red and green color "adders".)
I'm glad the thread didn't get derailed, and more suggestions are still forthcoming for the OP. All is well.
|
|
|
|
|
|
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
|
All is well.
Maybe some of you clever app builders could design an app that adds indentifying marks to lines of specific colours when the phone camera is pointed at a piste map.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
@marodo2712, well done
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
| Brownpack wrote: |
Apart from the problem of differentiating between red and black on a piste map/signs (red chalk on a blackboard was an evil act that some teachers liked to inflict upon me at school) I've never perceived a problem skiing. On a bright day there is probably sufficient light that a red filter on it doesn't have too much of an adverse impact. I'm not an expert on the colour correcting contact lenses that exist but I think they work by applying a filter to one eye and not the other - creating a greater differential than normally exists. This reduces the non-red light reaching the brain from one eye only to shift the balance in favour of red (if you see what I mean).
Red goggles would be different as they apply the filter to both eyes. On a dull day red goggles may be a hindrance to me but then I wouldn't wear dark goggles on a dull day. In fact last year I bought some photo-sensitive goggles which change with the light.
If everyone wants to pay me I'll be happy to spend a season doing proper research on this. |
No expert either so could be totally wrong, but I think they work by filtering the overlapping colour regions giving a sharper transition that is easier for the brain to differentiate, the overlap is too big in colour-blind people. A notch filter if you like (I too should in theory know a bit about filters, though of the electronic variety)
Not sure if chromapop/prizm lenses are specific enough to help, but for me (I'm not colourblind - my dad is so dodged that genetic bullet!), they make red things look really red ,and green things look really green
Last edited by Poster: A snowHead on Mon 22-10-18 20:48; edited 3 times in total
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
|
I like to think I'm an honest guy, so when i left the shop i knew i had no choice but to prostrate myself and beg forgiveness from my snowy peers.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
|
|
So @enigma, have you had a chance to try that app on an old piste map?
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
|
@marodo2712, Well done for admitting you were mistaken. It is easy to come to the wrong reasons why something works but difficult to admit you were mistaken. That takes guts. Now let;s all move on
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
From me too @marodo2712, for you having an enquiring enough outlook to go and find out for yourself, and to come back on with a revised view of it. Fair play.
Photoshop completes things with such consummate ease (that's what good computing and software is supposed two do) that it masks many things.
I've worked right down inside many aspects of imaging and colour determination, but still on occasion have returned to basic finger counting to follow each iteration of some processes like, it goes this way then flips that way then returns to original and finally flips again depending on output device etc. Transmittance/reflectance, rgb/cmyk colourspcaces and so on.
Sometimes so simple and at other very complex.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
Yes @ski3, PS is an amazing tool, and so easy to take it for granted.
Although not on the same level as you, i do find myself staring at the ceiling trying to work out what I'm actually trying to achieve.
When out in public with my partner and her friends I occasionally regale them with the fact that my favourite colours are #ff9900 and #0066ff, followed by the amazing reveal that one is a negative of the other - ta da!
I don't get invited out much.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
@marodo2712 A fellow computer nerd?
Sad joke:
To be or not to be equals minus one
I'll get my coat . . .
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Yes, computer nerd. Self taught website developer (whilst bringing up the twins and she was at work earning the money).
Nerd i maybe, but I don't get that joke!
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
|
@marodo2712 Sorry
Try
2B or Not 2B = -1
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
