How's you color vision? (test)

[xpatUSA]

Thought I had perfect color vision until I went here:

http://www.biyee.net/color-science/color-vision-test/

A pretty sobering experience - I have a bit of blue blindness (tritanopia), only scored 60% on that one, and 80% on the green. 100% on the red, though - appropriate because I "see red" a lot

I always knew that monitor calibration would be a waste of my time . . . now I know

[Donald]

But maybe it's because the monitor is not calibrated and profiled that your results are being thrown off!

[xpatUSA]

But maybe it's because the monitor is not calibrated and profiled that your results are being thrown off!

Now that I wouldn't know, Donald. Perhaps someone here could un-profile their monitor, take the test, then re-profile and take the test again? But only a pedant would do that and your resident pedant has no means of calibration.

[Black Pearl]

Wants me to install Silverlight - not a chance

[xpatUSA]

Wants me to install Silverlight - not a chance

Can't argue with that, Robin. I installed it a while back to free myself of the other Elephant in the room and have had no problems with it so far, FWIW, touch wood, etc.

On a more general note, it's quite irritating how much stuff we have to install just to get anything to work. All very insidious and makes me quite grumpy.

Come back, oh beloved 128K Macintosh with it's singing 3.5" drive and it's only connection being to the world's noisiest dot matrix printer . . .

[tao2]

It works without silverlight.

On the individual tests, said ah may have blue blindness, don't think ah was correct viewing distance. Did the integrated test - 100% on all three (in indirect daylight). Went back tae the individual test got 100% that time. Think the test is pretty inaccurate.

Dell U2410 D6500 colour profile.

[Shadowman]

Protanopia 75, Deuteranopia 100, Tritanopia 88.

As a teenager colorblindness was always considered an embarrassment, not being able to distinguish between two different colored socks.

[xpatUSA]

Protanopia 75, Deuteranopia 100, Tritanopia 88.

As a teenager colorblindness was always considered an embarrassment, not being able to distinguish between two different colored socks.

When I was a teenager, John, our so-called "electric" socks were pretty easy to tell apart, but that was 60 years ago and my eyes were much better back then

[Manfred M]

The issue with the test is that it is giving only one numerical (absolute) result. I have similar tests given to me every couple of years when I have a thorough eye exam. Here the results are compared by gender and age and my score I was at the 98th percentile for a male of my age (i.e. 2 out of 100 other randomly selected men would have better colour vision than me).

1. In general women have better colour vision than me (back in the old days of film photography, the colour techs were almost always women, for that reason alone); and

2. Colour vision is age related; as we get older our colour vision deteriorates, so as the person giving me the test said; my colour vision is much better than normal for a 60-year old, but worse than a 20 year olds; on that chart I was around the 60th percentile (i.e. my colour vision was better than 60% of 20 year old men, but worse than the other 40%). That includes colour blindness; this makes sense as we all get a yellowing of the cornea and lens as we age, so less of the other colours get through (a bit like viewing the world through a light yellow filter).

[Shadowman]

When I was a teenager, John, our so-called "electric" socks were pretty easy to tell apart, but that was 60 years ago and my eyes were much better back then

[Shadowman]

This test has been posted on the forum many times, I feel the X-Rite test is more difficult to assess.

http://www.xrite.com/online-color-test-challenge

[Kris V]

It works without silverlight.

Not in Chrome...

[tao2]

Not in Chrome...

Folk use Chrome ?!!

[TrishBJ]

Couldn't get the first test to work...though maybe that's because I use Chrome.
The xrite test scored 11 - not too bad for an old chook. It was correct in identifying the shades I have trouble with.
Will have a go with the other test using Explorer....wish me luck.

[xpatUSA]

Folk use Chrome ?!!

Why should folk not use Chrome?!!

[Steaphany]

Not in Chrome...

Nor does it work in UC Browser ( Windows PC Version )

[xpatUSA]

This test has been posted on the forum many times, I feel the X-Rite test is more difficult to assess.

http://www.xrite.com/online-color-test-challenge

That's quite a hard test. I scored 15, not too bad for an old man. Main difficulty in the cyan area.

[xpatUSA]

But maybe it's because the monitor is not calibrated and profiled that your results are being thrown off!

Having second thoughts about that. Surely the test itself is more about the relative hue of side-by-side areas than it is about absolute hue accuracy of the entire screen?

[Simon Garrett]

Having second thoughts about that. Surely the test itself is more about the relative hue of side-by-side areas than it is about absolute hue accuracy of the entire screen?

I think the test may depend more on absolute hue of monitor primaries than on calibration/profiling of the monitor.

For example, Tritanomaly may result from an abnormal spectral response of the S receptors. (Tritanopia means that the S receptors are not working at all, but Tritanomaly means that they are reduced sensitivity or abnormal spectral response, AFAIK.) Clearly the absolute hues used in the test will matter.

For example, on my Eizo wide-gamut monitor, I get a slight Tritanomaly detected when I do the test. My score for this test is typically around 80-90, and it's always the same colours that I find hard to distinguish. If I change the calibration from wide-gamut to sRGB or alter the screen brightness or ambitent brightness, it makes no difference to the score.

But if I do the test on a laptop (which is not wide gamut, not calibrated, and poor quality TFT screen), I get 100% every time!

[xpatUSA]

Originally Posted by xpatUSA

Having second thoughts about that. Surely the test itself is more about the relative hue of side-by-side areas than it is about absolute hue accuracy of the entire screen?

I think the test may depend more on absolute hue of monitor primaries than on calibration/profiling of the monitor.

For example, Tritanomaly may result from an abnormal spectral response of the S receptors. (Tritanopia means that the S receptors are not working at all, but Tritanomaly means that they are reduced sensitivity or abnormal spectral response, AFAIK.) Clearly the absolute hues used in the test will matter.

For example, on my Eizo wide-gamut monitor, I get a slight Tritanomaly detected when I do the test. My score for this test is typically around 80-90, and it's always the same colours that I find hard to distinguish. If I change the calibration from wide-gamut to sRGB or alter the screen brightness or ambient brightness, it makes no difference to the score.

But if I do the test on a laptop (which is not wide gamut, not calibrated, and poor quality TFT screen), I get 100% every time!

Food for more thought there indeed, Simon. I wonder if Luma has an effect? After all, wide-gamut monitors are supposed to appear more "saturated" in some hues, are they not?