This topic is for the purpose of discussing #3921: totodiletrainer01's NES Color a Dinosaur "Poetic Edition" in 00:09.53

Yes for coloring a dinosaur!

Suggested screenshot: Frame 123

Yes for coloring a dinosaur!

This statement is incorrect as white and black aren't colours. lololol i troll u

Yes for coloring a dinosaur!

This statement is incorrect as white and black aren't colours. lololol i troll u

^ That TROLOLOLOOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL

Ah, it must be that most magical of special days again.

Ah, it must be that most magical of special days again.

February 33 2001?

It belongs in a museum!

wonderful... just wonderful... totodiletrainer01, I want you to know that I truly "get" it. If I were a monk, I'd wrap myself in a print of your perfect dinosaur, and then set myself on fire.

Yes for coloring a dinosaur!

This statement is incorrect as white and black aren't colours.

Depends on your definition of "color". Technically speaking white is a color.

Yes for coloring a dinosaur!

This statement is incorrect as white and black aren't colours.

Depends on your definition of "color". Technically speaking white is a color.

1) Black and white lack hue and saturation, which are defining aspects of a colour. 2) We refer to colour-blindness as the inability to see colours. But colour-blind people can perceive black and white fine, therefore they cannot be colours. 3) No one, artist or layman, has ever referred to a monochrome picture or painting as 'colourful'. trolololol

1) Black and white lack hue and saturation, which are defining aspects of a colour. 2) We refer to colour-blindness as the inability to see colours. But colour-blind people can perceive black and white fine, therefore they cannot be colours. 3) No one, artist or layman, has ever referred to a monochrome picture or painting as 'colourful'

Well, I said technically speaking. Light with a frequency inside the visible spectrum is perceived by the human eye depending on its frequency spectrum distribution. In fact, several different frequency spectrum distributions might look identical to the human eye (so-called metamerism.) For example light that's a sharp spike at the frequency of yellow will look yellow to the human eye, but also light that has two spikes, one at red and another at green (and with proper amplitudes) will look exactly the same color to the human eye (even though the properties of those two spectra are completely different.) The reason for this is that our eyes do not perceive all frequencies within the visible light spectrum equally because we only have three types of light receptors. These receptors perceive slightly overlapping ranges of light approximately around the red, green and blue frequencies. There are colors perceived by the human eye that have no single frequency. For example there is no frequency that corresponds to magenta. Magenta is a "fake" color, an interpretation of our brain that's triggered when the light has red and blue frequencies. What happens when all three types of receptors are activated in an equal manner? Again, we get another "fake" color perception like magenta. In this case it's perceived as white. Technically speaking there's little difference between the two; in both cases more than one receptor is activated, and our brain interprets the result in a certain manner. In fact, the vast majority of colors in practice activate all three types of receptors in some manner. (Real-life surfaces and lights extremely seldom have pure single frequencies, or completely lack frequencies at the lower or higher ranges of the visible spectrum.) It's just that they activate some receptors more than others, which is why not all colors look white. In case of white, they are all activated almost in an equal amount. Technically there's little difference between white and other colors. It's just our subjective interpretation of white being somehow different from the others. (Black is truly a different matter. Pure black is the complete lack of any light, which truly can be considered a non-color.)

Wow, truly inspiring! And I now see the error of my ways. I will go back and change TASes to "Dinosaurs who lack the awareness of their divine grace"

Man, I missed Color A Dinosaur.

...you didn't colour the dinosaur! Huge no vote. Highly disappointing run.

An albino stegosaurus!!

Does this mean CCC is the most poetic of SM64 runs? After all, it proves Mario doesn't need fancy caps or lots of coins to find true happiness. Voting yes for both time and style improvements over previous CaD runs. The way you matched this dinosaur's color scheme with the opening graphics was a big aesthetic improvement. Hope to see the 100% soon!

This is art. Yes vote.

As great as your dinosaur is, you have failed to color a dinosaur. I'm sorry, but i can't vote yes for a movie that doesn't color a dinosaur.

Link to video

I'm enlightened! Yes vote!

Btw, there's an interesting peculiarity about certain colors we perceive. On the lower end of the visible light spectrum, ie. the red end, as we go lower and lower, the light triggers our red receptors less and less. (The light receptors in our eyes are able to perceive a range of light frequencies with a sensitivity that follows an approximate bell curve, so that they perceive light of a certain frequency the best, but as we move higher or lower in the spectrum, they perceive it less and less until it perceives it no more.) In other words, as the frequency of light gets lower and lower, we just see it as a dimmer and dimmer red, until we don't see it anymore. However, on the upper end of the range something peculiar happens. One would think that as we get upper and upper, it would just activate our blue receptors less and less, which means that we see the light as blue, getting dimmer and dimmer until we see it no more. However, that's not what happens. Instead, when the frequency goes above blue, we start seeing violet. Now that's strange indeed. We have no receptors for violet light, only for red, green and blue. The red receptors perceive the lower end of the scale and the blue receptors the high end. Thus it would make sense that on the high end we only see blue (dimmer and dimmer as it goes up.) Yet somehow we instead start seeing a new color: Violet. How come? Violet is the perception we get when both blue and red are combined. If light had two frequencies, one at blue and one at red, at proper amplitudes, we would see it as violet. However, one single frequency above blue is also seen as violet. But how? It's nowhere even near the red receptor's frequency range. How can it affect it in any way? AFAIK the answer is that frequency of violet light is twice that of the lower ranges of red light, ie. it's one octave higher. Violet light does trigger the red receptors as well due to this, and that's why we see it as violet.

AFAIK the answer is that frequency of violet light is twice that of the lower ranges of red light, ie. it's one octave higher. Violet light does trigger the red receptors as well due to this, and that's why we see it as violet.

If true, this is really interesting! Do you have a source?

om, nom, nom... sweet!

AFAIK the answer is that frequency of violet light is twice that of the lower ranges of red light, ie. it's one octave higher. Violet light does trigger the red receptors as well due to this, and that's why we see it as violet.

If true, this is really interesting! Do you have a source?

Unfortunately no. If you ask about it out there, you will get as many different answers as people you ask (or even more.)