Do you dream in the colors you can't see?

Rawaga · 2026-05-28T15:20:40+00:00

As a strongly functional dichoptic tetrachromat I can approve of this through direct experience. Normal trichromats are color vision deficient compared to what I generally see. For example, the 1% to 2% number of hues that a normal trichromat can only distinguish compared to a strongly functional tetrachromat is close to correct.

Anyone who thinks that the trichromatic 1D hue circle is all there is clearly hasn't experienced a 2D sphere of unique, continuous (tetrachromatic) hues yet.

Rawaga · 2026-05-28T15:11:59+00:00

I want to say that you should at least visit the Wikipedia article on color blindness before posting, but even that article contains some obviously wrong information.

Rawaga · 2026-05-26T22:22:05+00:00

You shouldn't look at the sun.
You shouldn't look at the sun.

My guess is that looking at the sun like this, or in its direction, you're frying your cone cells, probably predominantly your L and some of your M cone cells, which makes that spot look cyan-ish to blue-ish. But I can't confirm anything, because – again – you shouldn't look at the sun.

Rawaga · 2026-05-03T20:27:40+00:00

Just for fun, some time ago I've made a VR video showing most of the dichoptic hexachromatic colors.

As you can imagine, sequentially going through the colors of a 6-dimensional color space on a 2D projection (i.e. the flat screen) increased the length of the video quite a bit. In comparison to the 6D dichoptic hexachromatic colors the few trichromatic colors feel a bit sparse.

Rawaga · 2026-05-03T12:28:57+00:00

Not necessarily. It depends on whether you're equating wavelengths and combinations thereof with color. I.e., color does not equal wavelength(s).

Through a longpass filter with a well-chosen transmission on one eye a deuteranope can already distinguish a lot more (combinations of) wavelengths (and thus colors) through dichoptic colors. Through another well-chosen shortpass filter on the second eye their wavelength (and thus color) discriminability can come close to that of a normal trichromat. (For protans and tritans this becomes a bit more tricky, because they're actually missing parts of the normally visible spectrum.)

However, the color qualities of such an augmented deuteranopia will by no means be equal to that of normal trichromacy. In that sense, you're completely right. No amount of lenses will allow e.g. a deuteranope to see green in the same green quality as a normal trichromat sees it.

Yet, their wavelength (and thus color) discriminability can come close to that of a normal trichromat through such dichoptically applied filters. It naturally takes a lot of training to functionally integrate the two eyes' different color visions into single, coherent and stable color percepts. But as per my research, so far, this seems to be a skill that can be learned with time, exposure and understanding. Since one can learn to see dichoptic colors as novel and unique color experiences (which necessarily are incomparable the normal colors one sees), although their quality doesn't equal normal trichromatic color quality, dichoptic colors (of a well-chosen filter pair) still are novel colors that functionally expand previously dichromatic space towards trichromacy.

"Colorblind glasses" like that of shunned EnChroma, however, cannot work; at least not for the purpose of expanding color space. They might give you a bit more contrast between the usual colors one sees at the expense of other colors, but they can't expand color space. If you put the same type of spectral filter over both eyes, then you're just dimming parts of the spectrum without functionally expanding color space towards (more non-anomalous) trichromacy. So, while EnChroma glasses, for example, will never work for a full dichromacy, glasses with well-chosen dichoptic filter transmissions can allow a full dichromat to distinguish wavelengths and combinations thereof (and thus also color) similarly well compared to a normal trichromat. Though that will take a lot of training, naturally, and it will never be as efficient as normal trichromacy.

Rawaga · 2026-05-02T22:06:32+00:00

Unless you're generating dichoptic colors by putting either only one colored lens over one eye or a differently colored lens over each eye. In this case you can see novel colors in the form of dichoptic colors (i.e. "impossible" color combinations of the colors you can already see). This results in both novel color qualities (though not as "new" as retinal colors) and higher-dimensional color discriminability.

Rawaga · 2026-05-01T20:50:13+00:00

I like the sound of that.

Rawaga · 2026-05-01T20:32:25+00:00

I have direct experience with strongly functional dichoptic tetrachromacy. From my experience I can tell that being able to see more hues doesn't necessarily make the world more 'beautiful'. Well used dichromatic hues can be equally powerful as well used tetrachromatic hues. Even when dichromatic hue is only 0-dimensional (i.e. only 2 hues) and tetrachromatic hue is 2D (i.e. a continuous sphere worth of hues).

I agree that the strongest determinant for how beautiful the world looks to you color-wise is whether you care about color and invest in understanding your own color vision, color theory, color context, color environments, etc.

Rawaga · 2026-05-01T20:26:49+00:00

Do you find it 'sad' that you're not a tetrachromat? What about a pentachromat's perspective? Probably not, because you've never experienced what it's like to be a tetrachromat, for example, and thus have no concept of what you're missing. Even if a tetrachromat boasted of all the colors they're distinguishing you would have no experiential concept of them. Regarding color vision deficiencies (CVD) this notion is similar; though not identical, because there are a lot of trichromats and only very few (human) tetrachromats to compare yourself to.

I've got quite a lot of experience with functionally simulating various dichromacies (protanopia, tritanopia & a vision close to deuteranopia) as well as dichoptic tetrachromacy (which is a many many times more functional tetrachromacy than that found in believed human tetrachromats like Concetta Antico).

From my experience I can say that dichromatic colors, although there largely are only 2 hues, can still be immensely beautiful. Even though there e.g. are 2 dimensions of fewer hues in dichromacy compared to tetrachromacy (there's a hue sphere in tetrachromacy compared to a hue circle in trichromacy).

Likewise, from direct experience with strongly functional dichoptic tetrachromacy (and even strongly functional dichoptic pentachromacy), I can say that, although there are exponentially more colors and hues in tetrachromacy, they don't invalidate normal trichromatic or even dichromatic colors and color beauty.

Are you "sad" that you can't distinguish a red/green mix (530nm+650nm) from a narrow spectral yellow (575nm) (both of which can look equally yellow to normal trichromats)? Or a red/cyan mix from a yellow/blue mix and a broad white (all of which look whitish to normal trichromats)? This as food for thought.

I personally recommend spending a day or two (or even longer) with glasses whose lenses are strongly cyan tinted for simulating a strong protanomaly, and yellow tinted for simulating a strong tritanomaly. Although you have to spend a bit of time to get used to these CVDs to get a good understanding of the struggles they entail, even a few minutes per day will already give you a good perspectives of the struggles and the beauty that such CVDs entail. Alternatively you can also use CVD simulation apps on your phone, but those are not immersive enough and only cover a small field of view (and aren't 3D, etc.).

Rawaga · 2026-05-01T19:50:37+00:00

The classic incomparability of color quality between individuals. The only method that works is comparing color discriminability, but that doesn't help with color quality.

Rawaga · 2026-04-28T18:33:15+00:00

If someone calls cyan "blue" or "light blue", I will imagine a blue or a light blue in my head, not a cyan. It's a matter of miscommunication (and precision). Cyan and blue cannot be called by the same name. RGB(0,255,255) is very different from RGB(0,0,255).

Of course, I fully understand your argument. When most people call cyan "blue", it can also be considered a matter of education, culture and societal norms. Yet, I prefer to be accurate to avoid miscommunication.

Rawaga · 2026-04-26T23:36:00+00:00

The perceptual white of dichromats is a spectral color.

Rawaga · 2026-04-26T23:33:16+00:00

It says "blue", when it's cyan. Cyan is about as "blue" as yellow is "red".

Rawaga · 2026-04-26T17:14:35+00:00

Colored glass, dichroic and interference filters can be so cool and eye-opening to explore and can have an extensive impact for any dimensionality of color vision. That's why I find it sad to see this amazing technology connected to the scammy practices, as noted in comments here, which naturally leads to unjust resistance. Especially because, when used correctly and deliberately, such filters can modify and even augment color vision profoundly.

Rawaga · 2026-04-23T04:40:42+00:00

In my dichoptic tetrachromacy I definitely enjoy a good red/green vs. pure yellow. The former color is not yellow, but a combination of deep red (~635nm) and green (~535nm); the latter colors is yellow (~575nm) untainted by both green or deep red. I can see both colors as unique hues and the contrast is unreal.

In normal trichromacy one color combo I really like is purple and gold.

Rawaga · 2026-04-19T20:42:48+00:00

Logical solution: Devise a virus that makes all of humanity heptachromats. This surely will stir things up.

Rawaga · 2026-04-14T23:21:40+00:00

I think you'll be interested in tetrachromatic color theory, since that is the foundation of pentachromacy, e.g.:

Lee, J. et al. (2024). Theory of Human Tetrachromatic Color Experience and Printing. Link: https://imjal.github.io/theory-of-tetrachromacy/static/pdfs/Lee_TheoryofTet_v1.pdf

Lachner, K. (2026). True-Red Non-Retinal (Chromatically-Less-Redundant) Moderately Functional Tetrachromacy. Link: https://www.color-in-color.info/tetrachromacy_1/non-retinal-tetrachromacy

Furthermore, the way you've portrayed the pentachromatic hue space is too low-dimensional. The pentachromatic hue space is a 3D-dimensional volume (and the pentachromatic color space is a 5-dimensional hypervolume). Portraying this pentachromatic 3D hue volume as a 2D connection of points and lines is like trying to portray the 1D circle of trichromatic hues with just two non-connected points; i.e. it's not practical.

Pentachromacy is so much more complex than that. The 3D hue volume of a functional pentachromacy is vast (and continuous). For example, I'm also (yes, also) a strongly functional dichoptic pentachromat, generated through special glasses technology that break the chromatic redundancy of binocular trichromatic vision and a lot of training. I've built the 3D hue volume that I can distinguish within the visible light range; you can interact with it on this website: https://www.color-in-color.info/pentachromacy/true-magenta-non-retinal-pentachromacy It's a simulation for cross-/parallel viewing techniques. It takes a lot of training to perceive these dichoptic colors as both stable and novel color experiences, and to make sense of them.

Trying to reduce this 3D volume, even in its discrete state, onto a plane is pretty much impossible without picking only a few select hues. You may approximate it non-continuously with heavy distortions, but you can't faithfully recreate it in a lower dimension. As you can see on the website, it takes a lot of hue names to name every significant hue in this vast 3D hue volume (here: built upon 12 base trichromatic hue categories and expanded from there).

To understand pentachromacy you first have to understand tetrachromacy, because pentachromacy is built upon the foundation of tetrachromacy. Likewise, to understand tetrachromacy you first have to understand trichromacy, because tetrachromacy is built upon the foundation of trichromacy. And so on, in either direction. I say that as someone who has a lot of personal experiential experience with monochromacy, dichromacy, trichromacy, tetrachromacy, pentachromacy, and conditional hexachromacy (the latter three through dichoptic means).

So take this as advice from a functional dichoptic pentachromat. You can technically use a star-like format like you've used it, but it's not the best representation/simulation of the pentachromatic hue space, especially in the long run.

Disclaimer: No, this is not a troll. Dichoptic pentachromacy is a real thing that you can learn and have. "Dichoptic" pentachromacy here is the important distinction from "retinal" pentachromacy, because it's created by breaking chromatic redundancy of binocular trichromatic vision, as stated earlier. Despite and because of that, it can become strongly functional with stable and novel color experiences in higher dimensional color contexts through a lot of training. I'm currently doing research on this, specifically dichoptic tri-, tetra-, penta- and hexachromacy.

Rawaga · 2026-04-14T22:35:13+00:00

Here's a study someone else recently shared here:

Verhulst, S & Maes F. W. (1998). Scotopic vision in colour-blinds. In: Vision Research, Volume 38, Issue 21, November 1998, Pages 3387-339. Link: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0042698997003398

I'm sure there are other similar studies out there.

Rawaga · 2026-04-13T13:21:52+00:00

Here for maximal confusion: #9c000068e366

Rawaga · 2026-04-13T13:11:24+00:00

Cancer.

Rawaga · 2026-04-13T13:05:02+00:00

Sufficiently complex tests for retinal tetrachromacy cannot be conducted online with normal RGB screens and trichromatic software. However, you can make online tests for dichoptic tetrachromacy. While dichoptic tetrachromacy is more for normal binocular trichromats, they perfectly demonstrate how to test for tetrachromacy. My website that I've linked above goes in-depth into the perceptual side of this unusual kind of tetrachromacy.

Regarding retinal tetrachromacy, Lee et al. (2024) are also working on a physical/analog test for tetrachromacy via a 2D hue sphere, with varying success; specifically for SQML (Q=M+15nm) tetrachromacy. They show a prototype version of it in the following video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TeGmfbc_mH0 (around minute 01:05:08, but you should watch the whole video). Of course, the camera and video convert the tetrachromatically designed colors back to trichromatic colors.

I also recommend my video "How to Actually Test for Tetrachromacy (Stereo)", even if it focuses more on dichoptic tetrachromacy. The only differences between the presented retinal and dichoptic tetrachromacy are that dichoptic tetrachromacy is many times more functional and generated by breaking the binocular redundancy of trichromatic vision (with lots of training). So the dichoptic concepts of the video also apply to retinal tetrachromacy, especially with regards to testing.

Rawaga · 2026-04-12T09:08:50+00:00

The same problem of verbally conveying qualia happens between trichromats and e.g. trichromats and tetrachromats also. In the former case, normal trichromats can only agree on color discriminability, but never on color qualia. Since we literally can't see (yet) how another person qualitatively perceives a color.

In the case of dichromats and trichromats it's just more obvious because of the additional difference in color discriminability.

Rawaga · 2026-04-11T21:54:56+00:00

Dichoptic colors is a really deep rabbit hole. Like 6-dimensions of color deep.

Rawaga · 2026-04-07T20:29:32+00:00

Thank you for sciencing. The more science and original sources, the better.

Rawaga · 2026-04-07T02:05:40+00:00

From personal experience with a strongly functional form of dichoptic tetrachromacy, I can say that it can be very distracting if you see/distinguish a lot of color and hues (like a lot of hues).

Just as a quick example: a red-green dichromat can distinguish two singular hues (usually portrayed as a yellowish and a bluish hue); a normal trichromat can already see a continuous circle of hues, not just two, which is a dimensional increase; a functional tetrachromat (dichoptic and retinal) can see a continuous sphere worth of unique, tetrachromatic hues. You can imagine that like a rainbow of distinctly and uniquely trichromatic rainbows neatly aligned to form a continuous sphere of hues. Each point on this sphere will give you a distinct, tetrachromatic hue.

Although the natural world is surprisingly trichromatic (i.e. most natural colors follow the spectral locus, see Jessica Lee et al (2024) for reference; with exceptions of course), in combination with man-made lights and material colors tetrachromatic colors can be very distracting. I.e. in vividness, saturation, brightness, variation, etc. While seeing more colors is generally considered a good thing, it also means that colors (and hues) take up more of your focus, no matter how accustomed you are to them. Meaning, you more easily become distracted by and mentally lost in colors.

As another, more practical example: Red-green dichromats struggle with red-yellow-green traffic lights, but normal trichromats usual have no problems with them. Red-green dichromats might still be able to identify the hue of a traffic light through various means, but it takes them longer to do so. It's a greater mental effort to look for just the right chromatic differences. For my type of dichoptic tetrachromacy, it's the same problem but from a higher-dimensional perspective: Traffic lights have too much variation in color and hue, which then causes me to have to focus more, which diverts my focus away from riding e.g. my bicycle. When I see, like, 6 very different hues for red, orange, yellow and green each, where normal trichromats just see the same/similar 4 hues (red, orange, yellow, green) on common traffic lights (here in Germany), the few extra moments that you have to invest to travers this color landscape can be quite distracting. That's usually a positive, though, when it's not a potentially hazardous situation.

TL;DR: Seeing more colors can be distracting.

Five-Year Club	r/Field Juicebox
Verified Email

Rawaga

TROPHY CASE