Talk:Hue

message: in rgb, colors of constant hue are not on a single circle: red, yellow, and green are all on the same face of the color cube.  Consider variable names red = r, yellow = y, green = g, cyan = c, blue = b, and magenta = m. the color gray shall be G. The colors r, y, g, c, b, m have 100% saturation, but they are not on the same plane in rgb space. 
I think that the six colors are flatened to a haxagon, with grey in the center. hue is computed specially for each triangle (G,r,y), (G, y, b) etc.
COnsider the equations on the HSL space cited above: they use 6 spacial cases to convert from hue to rgb —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 149.169.178.128 (talk • contribs) .
:See my comments above; I believe there's something fundamentally wrong with the definitions we're using here, which goes beyond problems with just the hue equation. Don't have a clue what it is, though :-( Cheers --Pak21 15:45, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  I think the "hue" equation is much too simple 

message: The equations listed in the Hue article do not match those in HSV color space. Discussion about this is occurring at Talk:HSV_color_space#Mismatch_with_Hue. --Orborde 21:20, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Equation mismatch 

message: Can anyone point me to a web site describing the sinusoidal HSV->RGB transformations listed on this page? --Orborde 21:22, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sources needed 

message: There is a major error in Hue formula \phi=\arccos\left( \frac{R-\mu}{\sigma\sqrt2} \right).
The thing is the image of \arccos function is an interval [0,\pi], so for pure green and pure blue we'll be given by the same value.
Moreover you can never obtain φ = 240° [4π/3c] using such an equation.
The formula should consider a ratios between R, G and B values (you should consider which value is the largest to obtain an addition for value obtained by given formula).
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Blpell (talk • contribs) 08:32, 22 September 2006  (UTC)
----
You're right. The formula is wrong. The conversions from hue, saturation and value to RGB is also quite strange. The formulas here look better but are not completely correct (see my comment here). I've added the disputed template on the article, so nobody uses the formula without noticing that something could be wrong here.
I could develop the right formulas, but wikipedia is not the place for original research, so we need sources first. I couldn't find anything with google but maybe I just hadn't the right keywords for it.
(note: please sign your posts with --~~~~, it will automatically turn into a signature like the following one)
--Oxygene123 16:43, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Formula mismatch 

message: Hue is a perceptual aspect of color; this should be covered in an introduction. Further, only one type of hue, that in the HSB/HLS encodings of RGB, are covered. There are many other mathematical definitions, some more useful.
Much of the discussion regarding a "spectrum" is potentially confusing, as Magentas and Purples are not part of the spectrum of visible light.
Lovibond 02:06, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please respond to my note below. It appears to me that Hue/Saturation is a more common system of chromaticity than Hue/Chroma; CIE Pub 15 is not the only game in town.  Can we expand the viewpoint a bit? Dicklyon 02:59, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I see.  I had missed that point, that chroma is more perceptual and saturation more physical, and that our lead sentence mentions perception: "Hue is one of the three main attributes of perceived color".  However, since Hue is also one of three dimensions of many physical color measurement systems, where saturation is another, doesn't this lead then need to be expanded to cover those as well? Dicklyon 04:02, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

text: OK; I added another lead sentence for the use of Hue in HSV etc. color spaces. Dicklyon 02:30, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Lovibond's comments moved from top and put in order

message: Lovibond, thanks for pointing out that my conceptions of chroma were out of sync with CIE Pub 15.  Where can I find a copy of that doc?  The problem in the article now, which prompted me to hack it in the first place, is that chroma links to a disambig page where none of the choices support the use in the article.  The Munsell chroma was the closest thing, and I was more used to the video chroma, a 2D concept more like chromaticity.  So, we probably need an article on CIE chroma, or not link the chroma article, or something. Dicklyon 17:44, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Chroma

message: Following up on several years of complaints about the wrong equations, I removed them and stubbed out a section based on what I could find in a book.  The book has code, not equations, but perhaps we should construct the equations.  Or maybe they're what we have already in one of the other articles.  Someone want to help? Dicklyon 00:03, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The computations for hue for the Preucil Color Circle may be the same as those used in computer graphics. I'm not a computer graphics person, so I can't say for sure. Would someone be so kind as to check this? Lovibond 02:10, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Flushed bad equations

message: Hue is not the same as dominating wavelength. The two consepts are similar in some senses, but most certainly not the same. I suggest the merge template be removed.--Thorseth (talk) 10:08, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I also think we should not merge the two articles. Hue is of a certain meaning as such, for example in painting. It would appear all-too abstract and philosophical, yes, even playful to direct the catchword Hue to Dominant wavelength. --Hans Dunkelberg (talk) 09:16, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

text: I also oppose merging. These two topics are distinct enough to warrant separate articles.  Lovibond (talk) 22:34, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I have removed the template, I think it was put there due to a misundersanding. --Thorseth (talk) 08:44, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hue vs. Dominating wavelength 

message: Please discuss it in Talk:Color#Color_scheme_of_optical_interference_fringes. Thx. Fgnievinski (talk) 02:14, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Color scheme of optical interference fringes 

message: The fundamental work on this topic was done by Munsell in the 1930's. Without that foundation, the entire discussion is confusing, incomplete and lacks a proper frame of reference. I taught color theory at a major university for over 20 years, and as an expert in the field I can say that this article needs considerable improvement.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bsmith0000 (talk • contribs) 02:13, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Wonderful! You can actually do this yourself, and move from theory to practice. Superp (talk) 07:14, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: P.S. Munsell died in 1918. Superp (talk) 07:18, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Where is Munsell???? 

message: There is a column named "color name (in try colors)" in the "24 Hues of HSL/HSV" table. What is "try colors"? I can find no other mention of it in the article, and there is no reference for it. What is the source for the color names in that column?—Auctoris (talk) 19:21, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed. I removed the "try colors". I also tagged the "color name" column as vague. There are no canonical, universal, color names; giving specific colors a name only makes sense if a context is given, such as CSS, RAL, Pantone, etc. Superp (talk) 07:11, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Try Colors"? 

message: gh 184.98.106.136 (talk) 04:49, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spanish