And Korean has joined the fold! 고맙습니다 !

Uh? oh I didn't know that

I know it's a bit Weird, but I love this man's voice!

So then what's going on with my cones when I see true indigo/violet wavelength? My eye and brain clearly know that something is happening that is different than seeing blue, but how if only the blue cone is responding?

@@jbtechcon7434 i'd assume that indigo is what you get when only your blue come is active and blue is what you get when your blue cone is active and your green cone is also slightly active

Matt McConaha They are both purple. Pink is light red -> also uses a bit of green and blue. Purple only uses red and blue.

Matt McConaha you were taught wrong sry bro

Matt McConaha thank you for saying this. I don't know what monochromatic rainbow this dude fell off of, but mangeta and purple and wildly different colors

Matt McConaha magenta is also purple, pink is a mix of green and blue lol.

SoosUnknown Do an image search for "magenta" and show us a screenshot of the majority of purple images that come up.

what a wise post

The 'red' (more accurately, 'L') cones are *not* activated by light in the 380-420 nm range, no. At least, not enough to matter in any meaningful way - at 420nm, the 'green' (or 'M') cones are triggered slightly more than the red ones are, but both are insignificant compared to the activation of the 'blue' (really 'S') cones. Here's the actual raw data for how sensitive to each wavelength of light the 3 types of cones are: www.cvrl.org/database/data/cones/linss2_10e_fine_8dp.htm Edit: And here's the data plotted: www.cvrl.org/pngimages/linss2_10e_fine_8dp.png

@Chris McNeil Because of how color is interpreted by the brain. The signals from the cones get remixed into opposites, so the brain requires there to be an opposite to green (the 'middle' of the visible spectrum). This is the color 'magenta', which is used by the brain when it sees the two opposite ends being mixed (blue/violet and red). You might not notice it in most cases, but there's also a faint hint of blue added to very super deep and pure reds, near infrared. This, and the red seen in violet, is because the brain starts to interpret these wavelengths as far enough away from green to be approaching the 'opposite of green', AKA magenta. For more information about how the color mixing occurs, refer to these diagrams: www.cvrl.org/gallery/Boynton-model.htm www.cvrl.org/gallery/Zone-diagram.htm www.cvrl.org/gallery/Rod-pathways.htm Man I love that website.

@@Tynach Red (L) cones are activated with red, orange, yellow, and all the colors until green. It's also activated with all the colors 'after' blue.

@@user4241 That is incorrect. Look at the curves on the Color Vision Research Laboratory's website. The L and M cones almost entirely overlap in terms of wavelength sensitivity, with only one bell curve shape for each. The L cones do NOT have a second 'bump' in the violet section - what you're thinking of is the 'X' color matching function for defining the CIE XYZ colorspace.

+Jacquobite They are. Magenta is not on the visible light spectrum but Violet is.

@@benanderson89 What?? They're all on the visible, or course. In physics colors have no name. What you're differentiating is not just hues, but colors with names given by civilization. Some of these colors are usually thought off in the subtractive mode (starting with white paper and adding pigment to reach black). None of those concepts exist in phisics. in physics we just have hue, luminosity and saturation. The rest are just social constructs.

50 years ago my 64 box of crayolas agree. I've always felt Magenta was a petty dark pink, but not really pink. Kinda violet, but not purple. I have full vision, no colored blindness. It's not purple or red but a mix of both. Maybe we can see what others can't. Can you stand to eat a refrigerated banana? To me they taste like a bar of ivory soap smells. But only 1% of the population can taste the enzyme a banana produces once it goes below 40 degrees Fahrenheit.

Naw, though 'purple' is really called 'violet' in the visible spectrum ('purple' doesn't exist); _magenta_ though, should really be beyond red and violet, thus "invisible". At least that is what I tell myself. And isn't it cool to think that a visible color can be... _INVISIBLE_!?! 😎

@La Serpenta Canta -I completely agree. And maybe it's just where I was educated, but we were taught that purple is created by mixing red and blue. If you add more red than blue, you get violet...when you mix more blue than red, you get lavender. No real mystery here and this guy needs to get his facts straight and his eyes checked because violet has always been in the rainbows around my neck of the woods. And in a rainbow the purple hue is always next to the red..on one side and blue on the other, so it comes across more violet. I hope that clears up the confusion he is creating.

What is a color.

Not the same as purple

Yeah, a "brown" light physically cannot exist. You will never see a brown light, ever, because all brown is is dark orange. And so when you try and make a brown light, you end up with an orange light because you need absence of light to create brown, and a light is the opposite of absence of light

@@danielc.freteval5685 visable light

Correction: a very dark shade of orange. Dark yellow is also called olive green.

+All My Best Friends Wear Turtlenecks You watch too much TV. ;)

All My Best Friends Wear Turtlenecks A real 1st world problem

I see what you did there, even if nobody else did...

worse, in the end you get WHITE

All My Best Friends Wear Turtlenecks well, you know, some people still live in the dark.

C?YK

Ancurio dayum son

Ancurio Does not

Not true... Light has a wave length. Its between 400 nm and 700 nm in the electrmagnetic spectrum. Look it up .

Emilioh888 does not

Emilioh888 Emilio, that is the point. White does not have a single wavelength number somewhere between 400 and 700. It is what one perceives when you get photons of all, or a broad sampling of wavelengths in that range.

I've always let one color dry a bit and then came back to it going back and forth until I am happy with the result.

what about blending/shadowing with colors

Stefan B I get around this (at least with water colors) by going from the yellow to orange to purple slowly to blue. Kinda like going around the wrong way on the spectrum as if the ends met up like this video is about. As for acrylics it would probably be harder.

That's because paints are pigments (subtractive colors that added together = near black) while a sunset is an expression of light (additive colors that mixed together = white). There are a lot of instructional videos that can help you to mimic the blend, but the easiest way is to use an airbrush and reduce your application of color where the colors mix. If using watercolor, thin the stronger color and blend into wet - once dry use pre-thinned color of the lighter shade on top - re-wet as you go!

As hakobo mentioned, I find the best way to recreate the transition is through the introduction of oranges and purples. When the sun is still somewhat high in the sky and the sunset not so intense, a yellow-white/grey-blue transition works well; when the sun is lower in the sky and the sunset more intense, you can achieve a smooth transition from yellow-orange-red-magenta-purple-blue.

And this is Paradise compared to the usual KZfaq rot.

@@LardGreystoke truly

That's a backwards way of thinking about it. Most light being emitted in the universe is by stars, which emit radiation in all wavelength bands (from radio to gamma). That light can be "split" or diffracted into its constituent wavelengths. In other words, its much more common for light to split apart than to come together.

The coolest thing for me is yellow. It just comes out of nowhere. Like how tf does that even work? The "magenta" looked more like a sort of pink and is obvious that it's just kinda a lighter red. the cyan is obviously just blue, not a new color. But yellow? tf? Intuitively I'd have figured I'd see something like a lime green.

kevnar infrared, ultraviolet

kevnar Human eye has 3 cones (red, green, blue). Butterflies have around 5 cones. Mantis shrimp has around 16 cones. If 3 cones are enough to produce millions of discernible colors, imagine how many colors you'd see if you had 16!

czarchasm2 the oatmeal has taught you well.

kevnar Don't forget octarine.

Ancurio How could I forget Octarine!?

Max Power This is particularly problematic. I got half way and had to stop. I think a speech therapist would be useful as he is interesting to learn from, but not so good with speech style.

Max Power *Gasp* Interesting video though

Kristian Akseth I didn't even make it halfway.

I thought that was just his British accent.

I didn't even notice this until I read the comment. It's really not that bad.

Nope. Violet is a blue color. Hence the famous poem "roses are red, violets are blue". There is no purple wavelength of light

@@Monochromicornicopia There is no such colour as daylight,but we cant live without it

@Rex drabble What

Seamas Olabhradha it’s because light and paint are different in how we perceive them with light by mixing every color in the spectrum you get white due to it being the color that pure light take while in paint you see black the absence of light because the colors negate each other’s reflection so with paint you instead need to use cyan magenta and yellow

MandJTV Pokevids Speaking of cr*p, where's your brown cone? That's not in a rainbow either. And I definitely see in on TV, for example whenever I (accidentally) see Faux News.

Ross Parlette brown is a primarily combination of red and green, but some blue. i believe the percentage is about 40% red, 40% green, and 20% blue, but i could be wrong there.

***** Okay but hear me out, what if you take away 1% from each of those and add in 3% Salmon color, what THEN do you have??

MandJTV Pokevids Is it such a big coincidence that I wanted to study how colour works and found you here? 0_o

+LOLFlyingPotatoes No. KZfaq sorts comments partly based on your history and common interests ;-)

Currently, I use actual theatre lights. Those look like flashlights that happen to have a very nice even light pool.

Not sure what you mean by "different." Daylight has a higher color temperature than a flashlight if that's your comparison point. And it has 'different' in that it contains the full spectrum. Is that what you mean?

I want those light pens generally :D

Stuart Heinrich So how is it a good video if he is wrong?

Hugh Janus "Good" doesn't mean "correct."

Mark Hibbard en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magenta Violet as a single wavelength exists. Magenta is more of a pink or red-purple. Magenta and other pinks are a mix of 2 light wavelengths instead of a single wavelength. This illustration is correct and well done, except he made the mistake of saying purple since that includes Violet which can be shown as a single wavelength. The pink/red-purple region cannot be shown as a single wavelength EVER. That is it's classification.

Mark Hibbard en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rainbow Notice that pink is not seen in the rainbow, along with magenta. Violet is seen on the opposite side of red.

Goblin Honey That didn't answer my question.

A late reply but there are two distinct sets of primary colors! RGB are the primary colors of additive light, where each source adds photons CMY (cyan, magenta, yellow; quite close to blue, red, and yellow) are the primary colors of subtractive light, where each source takes away photons. Paint is subtractive so it uses these. (Printers use CMYK, with the extra blacK because its cheaper on ink and makes for a darker result)

*It's certainly a sign of passive-aggressive drooling. :D*

can't stand it either

Yessss

Yeah. Ink mixing is subtractive, rather than additive. So the secondary colours are used. Magenta ink is just a material that subtracts/absorbs green light. And cyan is just a material that absorbs red. Hence you are left with the secondary colour, comprised of the 2 remaining. And hence mixing magenta (subtract the green) and cyan (subtract the red) gives you blue (the only primary left). Add primary colours on top of black (an absence of colour) and you can make any colour, and subtract from white (a fullness of colour) with secondaries and you can make any colour.

ProPuke Thank you for the explanation!

+Syed Asif Ali Someone please answer this.

+Syed Asif Ali The video defines magenta as being in the violet/purple range. I personally consider magenta a red pastel.

No it isnt. As blue and red are at opposite ends of the spectrum its impossible to make purple. he just explained that. Any purple put in a representation of a "rainbow" is purely an invention of man and incorrect. So all those pride banners are technically wrong!

75IFFY Then we really need to stop teaching elementary and junior high school students the ROY G BIV mnemonic when learning about the visual spectrum. As far as I know, all American children have been learning it like this.

Violet used to be a shade of blue, somewhere between police blue and navy. Roses are red, etc. Purple has never been considered part of the rainbow. The blue in the rainbow is a robin's egg blue, or deep sky blue, or light turqoise, which we call "cyan" now.

Since this guy Mouldy says so. He is God, by the way.

You mean Indigo.

Purple is dark magenta. They share the same hue (300°) but have different lightness. So they are the same color in some sense (hue) but different colors in a different sense (lightness, also known as value).

Ikr it looks more “pink” to me

It's just words, words, words, to quote Hamlet.

Magenta is The Same color of pink a powerfull version of pink. Purple is really diferent.

@@apolloreysol5294 its pink. its basically what you get if you mix blue and red but more red and add white.

Purple is dark magenta. They share the same hue (300°) but have different lightness. So they are the same color in some sense (hue) but different colors in a different sense (lightness, also known as value).

+Nathan Kramer The spectrum is linear, it doesn't go in a circle. The colour directly between red and blue is green.

+Nathan Kramer In art class, they show the colours as going in a circle or wheel, but it actually doesn't work that way.

***** He was talking about the light spectrum, and that is not a wheel.

Psychologically it's a wheel. Physically it's a line.

Purple encompasses violet and magenta and all the shades in between; i.e., magenta is a subset of purple.

Magenta is not purple.

Naw, magenta is clearly pink.

I call shenanigans on this, because there were very clear and well-defined Sumptuary Laws in most of Europe starting in the Medieval period, forbidding people not of Royal lineage from wearing clothing made of “purple” materials. If purple was the same as magenta to most non-Americans, then why are the closes described in those laws--and depicted in every medieval and Renaissance painting closer to violet, and not dark pink (Magenta)? Because Purple is NOT Magenta. It’s much closer to violet than magenta. Royal Purple was made mostly with dyes derived from sea snails of the family Muricidae, and was commonly known as Tyrian Purple. And it a LOT closer to Violet than pink. The idea that "magenta" is the same as 'purple" is not just silly--it is easily provable as historically, perceptionally, and spectrally incorrect.

Looks purple to me. Pink is just washed out red

+The Royal Institution Grazie! We now have Italian subtitles too! Keep them coming, and thankyou so much!

+The Royal Institution Danke! German, too. You guys are the best!

Indonesian and Swedish subtitles now available thanks to our amazing friends. Terima kasih! Tack!

So, it we had a hypothetical eye with an ultraviolet cone, would they not be able to see the color purple? What would they see?

@Tyneras If some people had substantially different eyes to them the word purple would have no meaning. Those hypothetical people might see the colors "plish", "vergile", and "snude". They could no more imagine red or purple than you can, at this moment, imagine plish. If I am reading between the lines correctly, you are thinking about the "violet" that lies beyond the "blue" in a rainbow. (The scare-quotes are to remind us that color is _not_ an attribute of light. When I speak of "blue light", that is shorthand for light of a particular wavelength band. ) Violet is a whole different kettle of squishy, wet, eye/brain-biology. We see purple when our R-cones and B-cones are stimulated and the G-cones not so much. The fact that most people see a purplish color violet at the shortest wavelengths visible to them is an artifact of how their R-cones respond. For most people, the R-cones respond not only to relatively long wave light ("red"), but also just a tiny little bit to the shortest wavelengths they can detect ("blue"). Graphically, their R-cone response curve (transfer function) has two humps, a great tall one at the longest visible wavelengths and a squat one at the shortest. So when their eyes are stimulated by those relatively short wavelengths, both their R and B cones get stimulated. The experience of that - by definition - is purple. Purple is something that happens in their eyes and brains. (So is red. So is pink. So is gray,) Personally, I do not see violet on that side of a rainbow. I guess my R-cones are not "bumpy".

Violet.

Illusion. Rainbows can repeat in bands. So you see the start of a second rainbow with the red at the top of this second rainbow and blue at the bottom of the first rainbow. where these colors collide you see magenta.

Good question! We're an independent charity based in London. We were established in 1799 with the aim of 'diffusing science for the common purposes of life', and 200 years later we're still at it, through videos like this, public lectures, a museum, loads of education initiatives for young people, and the CHRISTMAS LECTURES, which were founded my Michael Faraday. Our history includes the discovery of several elements, a couple of Nobel Prizes, and some of history's greatest scientists. Loads more info on our website, if you're interested: www.rigb.org/

Cool. I've never seen the word diffusing used in that context before (maybe because I'm American).

It's mental hospital for people who don't understand optics and neurophysiology lol.

Alexander White Different people could actually perceive colors differently. We agree on the colors of the rainbow, meaning we agree to call a specific range of wavelengths a certain color (e.g. yellow). It is completely possible that my brain perceives yellow to look like some sort of "green" in my mind, and you see yellow as some sort of other "color", but we agree that yellow is yellow since true color is a physical property of the light (wavelength). To answer your question, when we both see a color like blue and red mixing to make magenta, we are simply agreeing that there are a few light particles with "blue wavelengths" (450-495 nm) and a few light particles with "red wavelengths"(620-750 nm) reaching our eye. Our brain interprets this signal differently than if just red or blue light were hitting your eye, so it "invents" a color like magenta so your eye isn't switching/flashing back and forth between red and blue every time you simultaneously see both wavelengths. This constant perceived "strobing" between colors when both are present would be extremely annoying in my opinion. Having a color in place of this constant switching is easier on the brain it seems. Keep in mind though that violet is a part of the spectrum (video doesn't address this), so there are wavelengths that are naturally purple but this video is specifically talking about magenta.

sam .the man winning answer.

Alexander White Not necessarily. An individual's brain just have to keep creating purple constantly. If a man showed you a new color, and he calls it purple, then you know that color as purple. Even if you and the man perceive that color differently, it is still purple to both of you.

Alexander White "We" invented the color millions of years ago. Some primates saw pink at some point and some didn't. Over the years the primates that saw pink must have bred more and the trait was eventually passed to humans. Dogs, cats, etc. see with a mix of 2 colors not 3. This allows more rods so they can see at dark better than us. We are day hunters so naturally color identification was the trait we went for. Some day hunting birds have a broader view of color to help them hunt.

Clay Norrbin Note: even though we know everyone without colorblindness interprets wavelengths the same. The resulting "color" is still unknown. Also it really doesn't matter. We are taught to like a color or not. So technically, we teach our kids to like the wavelength not the resulting "color" for their shirt.

Username0123456789 Good question, violet is the mixture of red and blue but only your paint colours, just like your primary paint colours are instead red, blue and yellow. Light colours however don't work like that, in fact, true paint red is more orangeish while true light red is pink/magentaish, it's weird, but let's just sum it up by saying colours don't follow all rules all the time, in light, they have a different order than they do in paint. Or it's just our eyes, if our brain registered what we see as "green" instead as a more "yellow" colour, we'd see a spectrum a lot like our paint palette, however, the reason why it's red-blue-green as our prime colours for light is because that's what our eyes pick up. The reason why red-blue-yellow is our prime colours for paint is because it's near impossible to mix other colours to make those colours.

She's at my place giving me head.

Pit Kid Icarus Red, blue and yellow aren't primary for anything. Where did you get that from?

LOLFlyingPotatoes They are in paint, ever taken art, it's because back in the day you could use plant's chemicals to make any colour out of other colours except for blue, red and yellow, while in light yellow is replaced by green.

Pit Kid Icarus In paint, the primaries are cyan, magenta and yellow. Aren't they?

if you pretend the spectrum is on a strip and connect the ends.. u know?

Fede Aragon I thought of this too. Who's to say that instead of a "line" like a rainbow...it was a circle. Then magenta WOULD be between those 2. However, I am assuming he is referring to wavelengths and maybe blue is as wide of a wavelength as you can go and red is narrow. Anyway, I am not physicist, and I was just using those for examples. But I had the same thought as you :)

Fede Aragon well if you look at the wavelength sprectrum, youll see that magenta cant appear because if we connect them at each end youll end up having infered and ultraviolet light inbetween the red and blue and dont say ultraviolet light is purple cause its actually black ;)

No. It's a coincidence. Yellow, cyan etc. are invented colors, as well and they have nothing to do with ends of the spectrum.

***** It's exactly as stated in the video. All the colors we see are actually made up from our brain, they don't physically exist. They are a helper we got from evolution probably to distinguish fruits from leaves. It's absolutely logical that we have a different color for magenta than for green because of how the cones work. Brilliant video btw.

lulz

+SHACA LACA Fun fact - a lot of the things that you experience in reality are illusions. For example, colours, sounds and the sense of hotness and coldness are just ways that your body register waves and enthropy in a meaningful way - those things don't actually exist "out there".

+Laurelindo Do you exist or you're a illusion too?

Anmol Yes, I exist, because I consist of physical matter and I interact with a physical environment. My presence and my actions have real effects on other people - if I open a door, then other people can pass go through it, and if I stand somewhere then nobody else can take up that space. However, things like colours, sounds and temperatures don't exist in the outside world, because they are just they way that your brain interprets wavelengths and energies. Colours are electromagnetic waves, and only exist "out there" as wavelengths, and similarly, sounds are pressure differences that travel through a medium, and temperatures are different levels of entropies and kinetic energies. THOSE things certainly exist "for real", because x-rays (which is a form of light at a very low frequency) can damage your body, sound waves can cause pressure changes in other objects, and temperatures exist as kinetic energies in molecules - the reason why a hot and cold object that are put into physical contact always aim for their average common temperature is because their atoms collide with each other until all atoms have reached the same speed. This is the pure physical meaning of colours, sounds and temperatures.

troll.

readyrepairs I'm dead serious

timma100 work harder on that please, I dont think youre actually dead yet.

readyrepairs :| Touche, I am very serious, its just blue over red. Probably just shitty youtube videos. Although when you google search magenta, I just get pink as a result..... idk if thats right

timma100 LOL , your monitor is probably not calibrated. try looking at it on your phone which should be you a bright purple.

***** actually, later i find out yellow is detected by red and green cones, both at same time detect a tiny bit of yellow and when that happens, our brain just figure out it should be yellow.

"4th yellow led" - really? Wow, that's a sleek marketing campaign. Might be even better than 4k video playback on a mobile phone. Both of them absolutely useless.

I'm curious whether somebody could support with arguments the 4th subpixel color TV. I just can't see its advantage no mater how I'd put it.

***** marketing, money. It works. Look at the QHD smartphone displays, with 2560x1440 resolution on a 5.7" display. The DPI is over the roof. Our eyes can't really see the difference between FHD and QHD on these phones. So why spend money developing a new matrix, and producing it for the people? Because people will upgrade to the newer device because it has QHD. People look at the numbers and announced features. I see it all the time. Even in the AMD vs Intel debate, I saw one nutcase that was using general CPU scores to argue that the performance of one particular AMD CPU is higher than a particular Intel CPU, when all real world applications work faster with the Intel CPU. But he did not care. The numbers were there. AMD has more cores and more GHz. It must be better. In other views, an advantage was pointed out that you could "Play a game, encode a video, listen to music, all at the same time". Who does that? It's like Jon Stewart said "That thing could sure tow the boat I don't have up the mountain I don't leave near". Same with "organic" food. People use it as a marketing trick. Consumers believe it tastes better and that is full of flavor. I've seen a double blind experiment that showed the opposite. So about the 4th subpixel. Here's the marketing: "Regular TVs have 3 subpixels, and are fooling your eyes, but what you're seeing is not a clean yellow, it's ugly, bad, whatever. But we present only the TRUE, REAL colors, in the most color-accurate display on the planet, for just $9999.99". Aaand people will believe that, and actually buy it, thinking it is superior.

Donnieman, I almost reported this as spam!I had to read further to see your point. I thought it was some kind of ad or smth XDYes, you are right and I wonder what makes me/us look so retards, so alienated that those ridiculous teleshopping ads perform that systematic bizzare-grotesque circus chinese water torture postures and incantations.

Where's my double green and double blue? edit: holy hell, I found it!

supercooper92 - If you're talking about a double rainbow, the cause of that is very different and is actually just the regular colors. For the double green and double blue, their wavelength is too short to heavily trigger our cones even though they are multiples. They're there, but just as violet is super faded and not very bright, the next red green and blue are even more so.

Ah, no I actually put "real rainbow" into google images and can see it faintly right next to the main rainbow. Wasn't sure if that's just an illusion created because it was taken on a camera.

Violet is just violet.

There's a lot of it. It just isn't white. Or is it?

Average Joe Purple. Because it is the royal color. Only royalty is allowed to wear it.

+Cryptid The imperial colour. Because it was associated with _imperium._ Only emperors, magistrates, and their sons were allowed to wear it. Though all young boys wore the the purple-striped _toga praetexta_ until they came of age, and certain others were permitted to wear it on special occasions. +Average Joe The colour so prized by the Romans is actually a lot closer to burgundy than it is magenta and, as Cryptid stated, is properly called purple (which is literally where the word purple comes from; _purpura_ is the Latin name for the colour).

of course, all the illuminati know that RGB stands for Rome/Greece/Byzantium and magentians rule them all

Cryptid nothing is "royale with cheese" its an illusion its a sword forced down your throat

That's like saying red, as green, shows up in traffic lights, so I don't have to stop.

"That's like saying red, as green, shows up in traffic lights, so I don't have to stop." It's not the same argument at all. The video is using a definition of purple as meaning any non-spectral light with a hue between violet and red. But if we go by common usage of purple (and usage found in many dictionaries), it can also mean any color with a hue between blue and red.

Elinia Tollea in light the photons are going into your eye. With paint, the color you see is what the paint doesn't absorb. A green light source shoots out green photons. Green paint absorbs light and rejects the green photons.

Kevin Nguyen did i just learn something from a youtube comment?? haha :)

Steven Countryman That didn't actually answer Elinia's question. At all.

Kevin Nguyen Thank you very much for your explanation. I still have to look that up and learn more, thanks again.

***** I never heard of those terms before haha. Thanks for explaining.

+LucisFerre1 "Purple" and "Magenta" are two different colour

Hakingdoesgames Try watching the video for a change...sheesh.

+HakingMC Maybe it's a British thing. Where I'm from, purple and magenta are not the same.

gastronomist Same here

+HakingMC Purple is a lower intensity Mixture of red and blue. On a 0-255 RGB light scale Purple is 50% intensity on Red (128), and 50% intensity on Blue (128). Or in terms of Complementary colors (CMYK) used in dye/printing/pigments its 2 parts Magenta to 1 part Black (0,100,0,50). Magenta light is 100% intensity Red (255) plus 100% intensity Blue (255). Or CMYK (0,100,0,0). Violet. Which appears like a mix of Blue and Red is actually 380-450nm wavelength. Now the Cones don't just see one color, its a range. So violet triggers the Blue cone a bit and the brain goes "I see something more blue then blue here". Oddly however we have a strange bit of wiring in our brains that fools us into thinking Blue with a bit of Red is the same thing as Violet. RGB (127,0,255) or CMYK (50,100,0,0) hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/vision/colcon.html

Eric Ihnen You're intellect, or lack thereof, is showing. Unless you have a legitimate condition that causes sounds to bother you in an abnormal way, you're just being a whiny person.

@@Arycke you must be fun at parties

@@Arycke TaKe A jOkE!1!1

awesome

Sssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssss.

I'm colorblind and I don't know what the hell he was talking about LOL! XD

Search for NASA images in X-ray, Ultraviolet etc.