Talk:RGB color model

message: The "red" and "green" that the R and G were named after in RGB are actually more yellow than pure red and pure green, defining such as being neutral on the blue-yellow scale, which are 2 of the 6 psychological primary colors. The psychological primary colors and their RGB coordinates are:
Red = 255 0 128
:: I just opened up an xterm with that color and it looks sort of pink.  If I just use 255, 0, 0, it looks red. Michael Hardy 02:21, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: This is ridiculous: orange and lime are disambiguation pages, not pages about colors!! Michael Hardy 02:24, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Why link to Primary Color with a capital "C" when no such page exists, and you could link to primary color with an appropriately lower-case "c", which does exist?  (The capitalized page now exists as a redirect page; I just created it.)  Please check your links to see if they're working right!! Michael Hardy 02:28, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Subject: Psychological Primary Colors

message: Would it be possible to include some history of the use of the RGB color scheme - including for example, the RCA standards for color television that were adopted in 1953, Edwin Land's use of an RGB scheme for the Land / Polaroid camera and the introduction - and subsequent adoption by W3C in HTML 3.2 - of color="#rrggbb" as the Internet standard for the presentation of color.
I would also like to offer a link that perhaps might be included in the RGB color model, namely http://www.peace-cubes.net, the home of the Virtual Light and Colour Cubes - defined as virtual entities with dimensions of red, green and blue, in which the color at any point is the sum of the red, green and blue coordinates, where color="#rrggbb" is understood as an arithmetic expression in a three-dimensional mathematics of light and color.
The Virtual Light and Colour Cubes were dedicated as Peace Cubes at the United Nations Peace Bell on March 20, 1997 - see http://habitat.igc.org/peace-cubes/dedicate.htm - and have served as icons for the transition to a digital knowledge-based universe in which we can see the world in transformed and transformative ways, and as a reminder of the existence of one light in all of creation - in the digital world as well as in material realms. 
Robert Pollard
Information Ecologist & Digital Artist
ecology2001@mindspring.com
Information Habitat: Where Information Lives - Home of the Virtual Light & Colour Cubes
http://habitat.igc.org/
: This looks like a semi advert. I'm at loss whether to delete it or keep it Kim Bruning 16:25, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'm removing the comic sans font.  It makes me want to hurt someone.  --jacobolus (t) 03:30, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  History of RGB color model - RCA, Edwin Land ... 

message: There has been a small disagreement on whether we should explain, and if so, how we should explain the difference/conversion between the two representation of a color's intensity, as per the section title.
The initial version of the article read:
:* Color science talks about colors in the range 0.0 (minimum) to 1.0 (maximum). Most color formulae take these values. For instance, full intensity red is 1.0, 0.0, 0.0.
:* The color values may be written as percentages, from 0% (minimum) to 100% (maximum). To convert from the range 0.0 to 1.0, just multiply by 100. Full intensity red is 100%, 0%, 0%.
The first paragraph never changes throughout the mini-dispute, so I won't repeat it. An edit made by 67.83.133.218 added a percent sign after the "100" you should multiply with. His/her comment in the history: "You multiply by 100%, not 100. 100% == 1, you aren't actually doing anything." The result was:
:* The color values may be written as percentages, from 0% (minimum) to 100% (maximum). To convert from the range 0.0 to 1.0, just multiply by 100%. Full intensity red is 100%, 0%, 0%.
Now that looks kind of silly to me, explaining to people they have to multiply by 100%, it looks like we don't know what we're talking about. Moreover, I think people need to take an arithmetic lesson if they want to find out how to "convert" 1.00 to 100%, instead of reading an article about RGB. Taking things to extreme, should we also include information about how to power up their computer in this article, in order to start Photoshop or whatever? Anyway, based on that rationale, I removed the conversion phrase altogether, leaving us with:
:* The color values may be written as percentages, from 0% (minimum) to 100% (maximum). Full intensity red is 100%, 0%, 0%.
Notinasnaid however said "I have to disagree: this is a very common cause of total confusion among people working with color. If it's confusing, please rephrase, but the explanation is important, I think.", and after a couple of edits we now have:
:* The color values may be written as percentages, from 0% (minimum) to 100% (maximum), or sometimes just 0 to 100 without a percentage sign. To convert from the range 0.0 to 1.0, just multiply by 100. Full intensity red is 100%, 0%, 0% (or just 100, 0, 0).
I have to say I never saw the 0 to 100 range for colors... 0% to 100%, yes, that I have, and 0..255 as well--but 0 to 100, never. For the time being, I'll simply revert to my deleted version. If someone can come up with a situation where 0 to 100 is actually used in a mainstream product to represent 0..100%, please comment here. --Gutza T T+ 09:47, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree – it's quite unnecessary to spell out that 1 × 100 → 100.  (And plain 100 would be very unlikely for a numerical value, anyway, it would more probably be 0→99. quota 12:12, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

text: * The color values may be written as percentages, from 0% (minimum) to 100% (maximum). To convert from the range 0.0 to 1.0, see percentage. Full intensity red is 100%, 0%, 0%.
--Gutza T T+ 12:40, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  0.0...1.0 vs. 0%...100% 

message: somebody said that the eyes can see 3 different colours.. yellow-green, and two others.. can we get a representation of these particular colours?
:much of this same info. is at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cone_cell and does have a source (a 1982 book). Has anyone read that book? [I have not, am just noticing the same info. is there on the other page]
Opirnia 15:37, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That wouldn't belong in this article, but might belong in color vision. Notinasnaid 07:24, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The three colors happen to be... drumroll... RED, GREEN, and BLUE! -SharkD 14:13, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Nevermind. I was wrong. -SharkD 04:53, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Why is there a discrepancy between the labeling of the eye's three cone types (i.e., yellow, green, violet on this page and blue, red, and green on the cone cell page). Both pages appear to cite the same source. Syntaxapse (talk) 14:25, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Color vision 

message: I did a 3D rendering of the RGB cube in POV-Ray. Wasn't sure where to put it, so I'll just put it here instead. -SharkD 14:15, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: 3D rendering of RGB cube

message: The article that appears at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RGB_color_model is slightly different to that at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RGB. The RGB article claims to redirect to the RGB color space article, yet has its own page with independent content. As an inexperienced user of Wikipedia, I'd like to know why this is, and what can be done about it.
:RGB and RGB color model do seem to be the same article. What differences can you see? RGB color space is an entirely different article. This is as it should be, but one of the great challenges is to make it clear why it should be. Notinasnaid 10:40, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Should RGB color space be added to the navigation table at the bottom of the page? -SharkD 06:32, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Orphaned article 

message: A small section about digital camera's has been added to the RGBA section. This seems to not belong there. Does it even belong on this page? -- Peter 12:50, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  RGBA and camera's 

message: I have a question, does anyone know where i can find an image containing all 24-bit colors? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 168.216.109.213 (talk) 18:31, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Here ya go. Tiff and png versions: http://www.brucelindbloom.com/ Jive Dadson (talk) 12:03, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

text: Um… presumably "24-bit colors" refers to 8 bits per channel, for a total of 24 bits/pixel, not to a 72 bit/pixel image (which I've never heard anyone even propose making).  At which point it is possible to put all 2^24 possible colors in a 212×212 pixel image, which at 300 dpi is a square less than 14 inches on a side. --jacobolus (t) 03:51, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  24-bit color image? 

message: I vastly simplified the disclaimer about RBG at the top of the page.  Formerly, it said:
 : This term anedates many engineering standards dating historically back into early
 television and film leading to minor name variations such that it has been perhaps
 represented more frequently in literature as RBG, RBG color, RBG color standard,
 or RBG color model, etcetera.''
I also removed the silly comment that went along with it:
 < !--- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 ----- These additional terms redirect here, so please leave this disclaimer in place.
 ----- Note a Google test has no relavence. Most printed material antedates both the 
 ----- internet & in fact, the ability to digitally store records, rendering such a 
 ----- search and comparison pretty much meaningless. It is entirely likely that many
 ----- manufacturers cynically went out of their way to not use the same term as RCA/Kodak.
 ----- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 --->
—jacobolus (t) 03:59, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  stupid disclaimer and long comment about it 

message: "RGB is a type of component video signal used in the video electronics industry. It consists of three signals—red, green and blue—carried on three separate cables/pins. Extra cables are sometimes needed to carry synchronizing signals. RGB signal formats are often based on modified versions of the RS-170 and RS-343 standards for monochrome video. This type of video signal is widely used in Europe since it is the best quality signal that can be carried on the standard SCART connector. Outside Europe, RGB is not very popular as a video signal format – S-Video takes that spot in most non-European regions. However, almost all computer monitors around the world use RGB."
If I'm reading this correctly, does it mean that if I had a piece of electronics that could output RGB via component cables, I could make a simple component->vga cable and have it display on my CRT monitor? Also, if this is possible, what woul dhappen if you were to output TV signals like 480p or 720p etc to it? Mr toasty 04:13, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  quick question 

message: The description of M and L cone peak sensitivities and bluish-green and yellowish-green doesn't make much sense; they are really right in the green and yellow respectively.  But probably we should try to find some sources instead of arguing, or just leave it out as it's pretty irrelevant. Dicklyon 18:09, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Cone cells

message: Hi. I did again. This time, I hope, with no controversial points. Mainly, rearranging of sections, and a basic missing one added: how RGB are combined to produce colors. I'll try to put references next days. Sorry in advance for typos and copyedit work that can be needed. Yours. Ricardo Cancho Niemietz (talk) 20:52, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm traveling, with limited net access, so I'll have to let someone else look at it. Dicklyon (talk) 09:43, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I expanded the article even more, following some of the suggestions Jacobolus made in the previous section. I tried my best to avoid conflicting points, but surely you'll want to do some cuttings... Please, read carefully before acting. This article now is focused in many aspects of RGB color mode practical usage, not only theory. I think this way it can serve as the main root for the many RGB related articles found in the Wikipedia. See you. Ricardo Cancho Niemietz (talk) 12:17, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Ricardo: The changes here from today w.r.t. gamma encoding of images seem to me like POV-pushing, and I am going to revert them unless a very good reason is given not to, since removing the passages about gamma encoding makes the article noticeably less accurate for readers.  Provide some sources please.  --jacobolus (t) 22:14, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, I'm not sure you are talking about. In part 'cos I'm not an native English speaker and your lines are a bit obscure to me, and part because I can't understand you when talk about "removing passages". What passages?Ricardo Cancho Niemietz (talk) 15:27, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

text: I have incorporated Ricardo's point that 8-bit linear is sometimes used even if it's not considered sufficient, and lots of other corrections, but I've also taken out a lot of junk like the amateur history in the lead, which was all wrong with respect to early color photography, which was initially RGB.  This wasn't something to go so much into in the lead, and we already have a history section that's better.  I added a source about "additive" after surveying many possible ones. Dicklyon (talk) 04:19, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: In my previous lead, it stated that RGB was only used in early photograph, not modern, so it was not wrong. You add references to a very obscure, for technical, definition of "additive color". Not incorrect, only obscure. And in subtractive color models, you "add" ink to "subtract" intensity, so this opposition should be noted, as in my previous edit, I think. Also, you reverted to a previous edit by Mfc which says "This article does not discuss about RGBA..." while my edit said "Not to be confused (RGB) with RGBA...". Then you wonder why the article talks about RGBA... Please, read carefully anything you want to revert massively. Also, a couple of good points are missing after your revertion. Read or compare versions, please. Ricardo Cancho Niemietz (talk) 15:27, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

text: I see your point on the RGBA; I think I'll just take it out of the lead; I was reacting to your use of a fragment where a sentence would be more appropriate.  As to the history bit that I removed from the lead, I don't know who wrote it, but it mixed up some not quite right hsitory fragments and some non-RGB commentary in a confusing way; what it said was "...but it was not widely used until then. Modern color photography and color films rely on sensible emulsions for more or other than red, green and blue light, so they are not RGB proper. The first commercial application of the RGB was in color TV. With dawning of the computer age and digital equipment, RGB was not only employed to capture and display, but also to store, manage and manipulate color images, both still and in motion. Color print relies on pigments using subtractive color models, which are not RGB related."  Dicklyon (talk) 17:42, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, perhaps a bit disordered, but there are no lies there. Some of you can rewrite it better than me, for sure. But I dislike your new "CMYK color printers" cite in the lead: some devices (as those of Kodak and Canon) employ true photographic paper which is impressed with RGB lights, and they are "printers" too. Still the "additive" definition remains obscure. Perhaps we can cite the "wavelenght" after to explain "the higher the component intensities the higher the resultant color intensity" or the like. Remember: subtractive color model "adds" ink to "subtract" light intensity. It should be noted. Also, the nonlinearity phrases in the 0-255 and 0-65535 numeric ranges sound redundant with the following paragraph. I vote to remove them (also the 0-to-1 range is nonlinear in some transformations, and it is not remarked), leaving only the paragraph, which is not "digital-dependent": it can be applied also to voltages. Also, the last luma-chroma section still lacks my edits (which were not untrue) that you removed. See you. Ricardo Cancho Niemietz (talk) 19:35, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Certainly nobody is accusing anyone of lying, just don't need extra amateur history in the lead when we have a good section on it.  As to the printers, even those that expose photographic paper with RGB lights are CMY processes, just like the modern color films, in terms of how the actual colors are reproduced by colorants, wouldn't you agree?  Dicklyon (talk) 19:41, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Hum, positive photograpic paper is subtractive, no doubt, but I'm not sure that it is actually pure CMY. I remember that photographic film & paper have more than three layers (up to five or six). Hum, maybe better do not mess up things: any on-paper media is subtractive and period. No citing CMYK, CMY or the like would be better. And what about my other claims? Ricardo Cancho Niemietz (talk) 19:50, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, I've lost track of "other claims". I fixed the CMYK. Dicklyon (talk) 21:28, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Expanded article 

message: Please see my Talk page for this insertion. Doug youvan (talk) 05:07, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pseudocolor in Pure and Applied Mathematics, a Free on-Line e-Book with Source Code 

message: I wanted to learn about RGBI, a kind of color generating hardware system, where red, green, blue, and intensity contribute to a kind of color) but somehow got misdirected, and ended up at RGB instead.
What is the difference between RGBI when it comes to graphics cards, and RGBA?  I have been told that CGA graphics cards come close to producing the kind of signal you find in RGBI. 
The article could be improved by talking more about RGBI, especially in terms of graphics chips like the 8563 that was once available in the Commodore 128.  198.177.27.16 (talk) 01:43, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: RGBI seems like a rare variant term for the IBM 5153 interface.  I don't find it in books.  It's a 4-bit palette interface; see: .  (I added this citation to the color graphics adapter article) Dicklyon (talk) 02:12, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wrongly misdirected to RGB 

message: : I've got a question...you know, light helps us see the color of objects, right? as it was said, the main lights are Blue,Red and Green. and the main colors are Blue, Red and Yellow. I was wondering why they are not the same? why we've got Green for light and Yellow for color? I just feel they should be the same...maybe this is non-sense...but can anybody explain it to me plz?
email me plz : foojan.hoodeh@gmail.com
:Apparently we need more "see also" links or other links to RYB color model and opponent color to help you find what you need. Dicklyon (talk) 16:08, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: That's not all we needed. See #Additive vs. subtractive models, or, How techie can we get?. --Thnidu (talk) 08:18, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Question

message: One of the introductory paragraphs states
:RGB is a device-dependent color space: different devices detect or reproduce a given RGB value differently, since the color elements (such as phosphors or dyes) and their response to the individual R, G, and B levels vary from manufacturer to manufacturer, or even in the same device over time. Thus an RGB value does not define the same color across devices without some kind of color management.
Can we make such a blanket statement? I mean, yes, different devices do reproduce color differently and so on, and yes, one does need color management in order to achieve good results – but that doesn't mean sRGB or Adobe RGB are device-dependent color spaces. Speaking of which, this article is about the model, not about the space, so why even bother? Of course we could mention device dependency of the native RGB color space of all devices, but that should be placed in the proper context – most modern devices tend to support color profiling (at least in theory, even consumer-grade P&S cameras output sRGB).
Or am I interpreting all this upside down? --Gutza T T+ 20:56, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  RGB is a device-dependent color space? 

message: Hi. Everyone
I'm here to suggest Truecolor and Deep Color articles to be merged into this article, respectively into "The 24-bit RGB representation" and "Beyond the 24-bit RGB" section due to their overall small length and similarity of context:
* Truecolor, apart from being relatively small, covers exactly the 24-Bit RGB representation as it defines Truecolor as:
* Deep Color on the other hand, attempts to cover its subject as term that describes wide gamut in RGB, xvYCC and YCbCr color spaces but ultimately fails. It has one or two sentences that is worth being merged into this article. The rest can be deleted, or merged into xvYCC and YCbCr articles.
I'd like to know your opinion on this matter. Please cast your votes too.
Regards,
Fleet Command (talk) 18:23, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Support the merge proposal.  There is insufficient material for "deep color" to retain its own article.  Ditto on Truecolor.  N2e (talk) 00:34, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

text: Support +1 As HDMI is expanding & Window 7 is supporting higher colour depths it is not going to be a separate topic, just one more variant. 60.242.97.120 (talk) 21:50, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

text: They should be merged into color depth instead, though some of the information can go here too. –jacobolus (t) 23:31, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merger proposal: [[Truecolor]] and [[Deep Color]] 

message: I don't know English name of the color RGB 136 71 75.
121.102.47.215 (talk) 06:23, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Color naming is pretty much arbitrary. Personally, I’d call the first one  “brown”, and the second one  “tan”. –jacobolus (t) 15:24, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  I don't know color name 

message: The article says: "The human eye is popularly believed to be capable of discriminating among as many as ten million colors." Subtext: truecolor is good enough.
But when I look at a color gradient 1, I can clearly see color banding in the green and gray bar. I can't believe we have gone 20 years without upgrading to deep color. It's just ridiculous. Can someone find a ref that truecolor isn't perfect?--71.194.190.179 (talk) 04:30, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: (1) I don’t think the “subtext” that you are reading in here is implied by that sentence at all. (2) Your linked GIF image is not “true color”. GIFs are palletized and limited to 256 colors per file.  –jacobolus (t) 17:44, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

text: I removed that sentence though. I agree with you that it’s out of place here. –jacobolus (t) 17:51, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

text: Here’s Mark Fairchild on “how many colors there are in the world”: “They have shown that we can see about 1000 levels of light-dark, 100 levels of red-green, and 100 levels of yellow-blue for a single viewing condition in a laboratory.[...] Since [...] the variety of viewing conditions and observers is endless, [...] the only truly correct answer is inﬁnity.”  I’m not sure what you’re getting at, but computer displays obviously can’t reproduce the visual experience of the world. –jacobolus (t) 00:26, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  Hey RaptorHunter, the problem is that the way the sentence about TrueColor you keep putting back are worded, the statement is somewhere between oversimplified and misleading. It is true that the human eye can distinguish more colors than any displays today can produce, but the main reason is lack of dynamic range and color gamut (esp. in a normally lit room), not because they’re quantized into 256 bits/channel per se. It’s quite possible to make an image that has a very very smooth looking gray gradient (to an extent that you won’t be able to distinguish any transitions) by allowing the {R, G, B} components to have slightly different values than each-other, and by dithering. Unless you have a reliable source (by a real color vision expert, not just any old published book) which talks about specifically the limits of TrueColor relative to human vision, I’d really rather leave the section out, because it’s not directly relevant to the scope of that section. Better would be to have a section by itself about the differences between human perception and RGB, in gamut, dynamic range, etc. etc., but that would take some real research to write, and I don’t plan to write it. Cheers. –jacobolus (t) 07:59, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: That sounds great. You obviously know a lot about this so go ahead and add that section.--RaptorHunter (talk) 08:18, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  TrueColor isn't complete. 

message: The digital representations section is not really about the RGB color model, and would be much better suited in the color depth article, yes?  Dicklyon (talk) 04:41, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Not sure color depth is quite the right place, but I agree with you that it’s definitely out of scope here. –jacobolus (t) 11:27, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Split proposal 

message: I've noticed that colour is misspelt color 284 times.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Babysabre (talk • contribs) 05:19, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: In case you're not being facetious, please note that Wikipedia is American. I'm British, but I do understand American - it's one of the easiest languages to learn! (now I'm being facetious) nagualdesign (talk) 21:07, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Colour! 

message: User 174.1.97.241 has made a long list of changes today, some minor, some incomprehensible (I don't think he or she meant any malice), but it has raised a question: Is it Truecolor, truecolor, True color or true color? The article - in fact the whole of Wikipedia - now uses them all interchangeably. Surely there should be some consensus on this before anyone takes it upon themself to make blanket changes (perhaps there was?), which introduce multiple 'errors'. nagualdesign (talk) 20:58, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, it's a mess.  I think we need to revert it all, as it goes the wrong direction, away from spitting this material out to a sensible place; and masssive change sequences with zero edit summaries are anti-collaborative anyway.  As for truecolor, when it had its own article, it referenced Poynton, who used the term as one-word, non-capitalized; whoever did the merge did it incompetently, and dropped the references.  So there's work to do.  Dicklyon (talk) 21:24, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  True colour 

message: I was wondering what the exact wavelengths were that are produced by LCD displays, assuming that they align with our eyeballs. the article says:
The normal three kinds of light-sensitive photoreceptor cells in the human eye (cone cells) respond most to yellow (long wavelength or L), green (medium or M), and violet (short or S) light (peak wavelengths near 570 nm, 540 nm and 440 nm, respectively[3])
But Colors and materials seems to indicate 570nm is on the green end of yellow. Should it read 670nm (red)? I don't have the book to check and found no other data sources today. Raskalnickoff (talk) 09:52, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: First, I’m not sure what you mean by “assuming they align with our eyeballs”. Light sources (like, say, the backlight behind an LCD) produces light of many different wavelengths (there are some spectral power distribution charts for various light sources floating around the internet). Colors and wavelengths of light are not directly relatable, and the color of an object or light depends on not only the distribution of wavelengths emitted or reflected by it, but also on the human observer's eyes’ current state of adaptation, and on the colors of surrounding objects. It’s misleading to directly label L, M, and S cones with “yellow”, “green”, and “violet”. Second, I’m not sure what common LED colors have to do with the light emitted by generic LCDs. –jacobolus (t) 03:00, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  nm 

message: I did a check using Google Safe Search and the website listed in external links is quite full of Malware. Should it be removed and replaced with an alternative for user Security? Tnu1138 (talk) 16:46, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, immediately, and the site should be WP:Spam blacklisted if that's the case. Dicklyon (talk) 19:33, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

text: Which site are we talking about? http://www.cs.rit.edu/~ncs/color/a_spaces.html is not “full of malware” as far as I can tell, but it does include a Java applet. There’s nothing inherently suspicious about that. –jacobolus (t) 01:02, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  bad external link. 

message: Would it be possible to include a category about Art & Design in the section "History of RGB color model theory and usage"? There is the RGB project by Milan based art design duo Carnovsky that works on the interaction between additive colors (RGB color changing lights) and subtractive colors (printed CMYK or hand dyed fibers). The pieces are made up by the superimposition of images in subtractive colors. Under normal/white light, all the layers are visible at the same time giving life to unexpected and disorienting worlds where the colors mix up and the lines and shapes entwine becoming oneiric and not completely clear. When viewed through a Red, Green or Blue colored light the individual layers can be shown or hidden revealing the elements of the composition. With this technique they have done RGB wallpapers, RGB limited editions (prints, foulards, furniture) and installations around the world (Milan 2010/2011/2013 http://www.yatzer.com/RGB-Wallpapers-by-Carnovsky-for-Jannelli-e-Volpi ,  Berlin 2010 http://www.designboom.com/design/carnovsky-rgb-exhibition-at-johanssen-gallery/ , London 2011/2012 http://www.dezeen.com/2011/08/28/rgb-by-carnovsky-at-dreambags-jaguarshoes/ winning the wallpaper magazine design awards 2011, Tokyo 2011, Toronto 2011, Paris 2012/2013, Melbourne 2012, Portland (ME) 2012, Lille 2012, Amsterdam 2013 and Helsinki 2013 between others)   
Reliable sources:
Arizona state University School of Art Core Program 
http://artcore.pbworks.com/w/file/fetch/55762430/Additive%20and%20Subtractive%20Color%20Michaelsen.pdf   
Artist to reference Carnovsky, Olafur Eliasson, Bruce Munro, Dan Flavin
Simon Fraser University of Canada, paper on Human color perception by Neuroscience Dr. Kathleen A. Akins 
http://www.sfu.ca/~kathleea/Colour%20Project.html  
http://www.sfu.ca/~kathleea/docs/B&W&C.FINAL.pdf 
Carnovsky’s RGB work is used to explain Luminance vision and Chromatic processing (from page 11)
Smithsonian Magazine September 2013 Color Issue
http://www.smithsonianmag.com/arts-culture/the-art-that-is-hidden-in-plain-sight-750047/?no-ist
This is the online preview, complete article in the printed magazine or
http://www.scribd.com/doc/172066759/Smithsonian-September-2013-k page 14
Washington Post Article
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/innovations/post/carnovsky-paper-wallpaper-that-changes-with-the-light/2011/08/28/gIQAdgQ8lJ_blog.html 
Forbes Article
http://www.forbes.com/sites/haydnshaughnessy/2011/08/28/bringing-design-thinking-home-a-must-see-innovation/
Article in The Creators project from Vice magazine
http://thecreatorsproject.vice.com/blog/carnovskys-rgb-landscapes-add-color-to-milan-design-week 
connects it to digichromatography (Prokudin-Gorsky photopgraphic work)
Color Association research RGB
http://causnow.colorassociation.com/topic/profile/rgb/
Changing Landscapes
http://id-beta.fh-mainz.de/rgb-filtered-wallpaper/
Most read article on creative review
http://www.creativereview.co.uk/cr-blog/2010/november/carnovsky-rgb-wallpaper-new-show
http://bldgblog.blogspot.it/2010/11/stationary-cinema.html
Articles in printed media
http://www.carnovsky.com/press.htm
Lots of articles in online magazines and blogs just by clicking Carnovsky RGB on google or any search engine
Books
Graphics Alive 2 (2010)
http://www.victionary.com/book/ga2.html 
Basics Interior Architecture 05: Texture + Materials (2011)
http://my.safaribooksonline.com/book/design/9782940411535
Palette 02: Multicolour (2012)
http://www.victionary.com/frameset%20multicolour.html
Colour in the Making (2013)
http://blackdogonline.com/all-books/colour-in-the-making.html
ISBN13: 978 1 907317 95 8
New Graphic Design: The 100 Best Contemporary Graphic Designers (2013)
http://www.amazon.com/New-Graphic-Design-Contemporary-Designers/dp/1847960448
ISBN-13: 978-1847960443
Installation Art Now (2013)
http://www.sandupublishing.com/design360en/publicationshow_en.php?id=102
ISBN-13: 978-1584235149
Carnovsky is a Milan based art/design duo formed by Silvia Quintanilla and Francesco Rugi
Carnovsky's official RGB page http://www.carnovsky.com/RGB.htm 
JackieB Capsaicin (talk) 16:23, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request for expansion in section "History of RGB color model theory and usage"  

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on RGB color model. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090306171954/http://www.ieee.org/portal/cms_docs_iportals/iportals/aboutus/history_center/publications/entertainment/Chapter2.pdf to http://www.ieee.org/portal/cms_docs_iportals/iportals/aboutus/history_center/publications/entertainment/Chapter2.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 12:33, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: See #Questions and #Question and #Primary colours. I cannot believe that in the nearly seventeen-year history of this article
NOBODY seems to have mentioned the distinction between additive and subtractive models of color except the barely-relevant (to most readers of an encyclopedia) mention in the lede. --Thnidu (talk) 07:48, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Additive vs. subtractive models, or, How techie can we get? 

message: After adding  the above section, I of course looked at the page to check my edit, and found a whole bunch of references under it— twelve, to be exact. (Diff) So I tracked them down and inserted  at the end of the two sections that had them: mostly #Removed section (unsigned, though at the time it would've been clear enough), plus one in #Ricardo's massive edits. Sheesh! --Thnidu (talk) 08:15, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  references on talk page 

message: What this article lacks is actual use of RGB in what a TV (not computer!) monitor is able to digest properly upon input, rather than 4:4:4 YUV (note: this is different from Y'UV, color subsampling, and wire crosstalk, none of which have to do with YUV itself). Yes, the display's decoding everything to RGB internally, but that doesn't make it an "RGB TV" as such that it displays it right if you're feeding it raw RGB rather than 4:4:4 YUV. In reality, only very, very few professional broadcast TVs exist that can actually properly read and display an RGB signal fed externally into them as most TVs on earth are actually made to interpret YUV signals, as well as very, very few professional broadcast RGB cameras existed (prior to the advent of HDV) that generated or output RGB rather than 4:4:4 YUV. So basically, what I'd like to see in the article is a reflection of this fact there's hardly any TVs (not computer monitors!) that can properly interpret an RGB signal fed into them, and very few video cameras, (video) disk-based or tape-based media that can generate, store, and output an actual RGB signal, rather than a 4:4:4 YUV signal.
This issue comes up especially with gamers who are so proud of claiming that they're "gaming in RGB" on their consoles particularly via SCART when in fact their TVs are only interpreting a 4:4:4 YUV signal sent via the same connection and pins, TV decoding it into RGB, and they believe that "YUV", other than their fake "RGB", would be identical to color subsampling, wire crosstalk, Y/C, and component, mainly because their TV input sockets are labeled "component", "Y/C aka S-video", and, falsely, "RGB". --79.242.203.134 (talk) 02:12, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  RGB in television 

message: I have rendered a new 3D image of three spotlights shining on a wall. Would the new version be preferable to the old? ➧datumizer  ☎  00:34, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the old one looks better.  I actually thought it was a photo, while yours looks more obviously faked. Dicklyon (talk) 03:35, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image of spotlights on wall 

message: Why ? 176.59.210.175 (talk) 18:54, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  One, from the all, finest colors - amber. (Pitch, then rosin.) 

message: البنات ال ونبقى.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.181.157.103 (talk) 10:12, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  انور