Steve makes good content on an average day, but this one was extra interesting. The random chameleon cameos was just extra icing on this delicious physics cake.
Steve makes good content on an average day, but this one was extra interesting. The random chameleon cameos was just extra icing on this delicious physics cake.
I remember being blown away when I learned that birds don't have blue feathers. The explanation I read was that it's the structure of the father that makes it appear blue, and that you could...
I remember being blown away when I learned that birds don't have blue feathers. The explanation I read was that it's the structure of the father that makes it appear blue, and that you could observe it by looking at a blue feather through backlight. I tried it on a bluejay feather and sure enough, against backlight it became drab brown.
Sidenote, I'd love to be corrected if that statement about blue birds isn't accurate. I've requested it a few times but don't know if it's actually true.
afaik you are right about blue bird feathers being caused by the structure of the feather rather than due to pigment. That said, I take issue semantically with insisting that this means "there are...
afaik you are right about blue bird feathers being caused by the structure of the feather rather than due to pigment.
That said, I take issue semantically with insisting that this means "there are no blue bird feathers". This isn't a you problem, as this statement can be seen in other pop sci stuff about this online, but it's bad, clickbait-y science communication imo. The common definition of "blue" is simply "appears blue to the human eye" and doesn't require that the source be some pigment. The sky isn't blue due to pigment either, but insisting the sky isn't blue as a result of that would be inventing a bad definition of "blue" that no one ever uses (even afaik in the sciences, to my knowledge).
Info-dumping sidenote: while green coloration in birds is also usually due to structural coloration for the blue combined with yellow pigment, there is also a rarer uniquely green pigment called turacoverdin! It's a copper-based pigment which I think is really cool.
The title of the video when I first saw it was "This Photo Has No Color," which annoyed me for the reasons you outlined. Both structural colour and pigmentation have the same end result, which is...
The title of the video when I first saw it was "This Photo Has No Color," which annoyed me for the reasons you outlined. Both structural colour and pigmentation have the same end result, which is that only certain wavelengths of light return from the surface and enter our eyes.; and in the absence of light, both will appear black. I see no reason to say that pigment is the only true "colour."
Now the video is called "You've Never Seen a Real Photo," which is just confusing to me. Title issues aside, it is an interesting subject and a well-done video. I do enjoy Steve Mould's channel.
At some level, pigment and structural color are doing the same thing: reflecting the blue wavelength of light from the incoming light. I (and Steve Mould) would argue that structural color is...
At some level, pigment and structural color are doing the same thing: reflecting the blue wavelength of light from the incoming light. I (and Steve Mould) would argue that structural color is actually more blue than a mix of pigment or an LCD display, because it actually emits blue light, not just a combination of other wavelengths that happens to look blue to humans.
However, structural color often depends on the angle you look at it, so maybe that's an argument against it being "truly blue". I guess it depends if you consider color to be an intrinsic property of the material or a property that depends of the observer.
Steve makes good content on an average day, but this one was extra interesting. The random chameleon cameos was just extra icing on this delicious physics cake.
I remember being blown away when I learned that birds don't have blue feathers. The explanation I read was that it's the structure of the father that makes it appear blue, and that you could observe it by looking at a blue feather through backlight. I tried it on a bluejay feather and sure enough, against backlight it became drab brown.
Sidenote, I'd love to be corrected if that statement about blue birds isn't accurate. I've requested it a few times but don't know if it's actually true.
afaik you are right about blue bird feathers being caused by the structure of the feather rather than due to pigment.
That said, I take issue semantically with insisting that this means "there are no blue bird feathers". This isn't a you problem, as this statement can be seen in other pop sci stuff about this online, but it's bad, clickbait-y science communication imo. The common definition of "blue" is simply "appears blue to the human eye" and doesn't require that the source be some pigment. The sky isn't blue due to pigment either, but insisting the sky isn't blue as a result of that would be inventing a bad definition of "blue" that no one ever uses (even afaik in the sciences, to my knowledge).
Info-dumping sidenote: while green coloration in birds is also usually due to structural coloration for the blue combined with yellow pigment, there is also a rarer uniquely green pigment called turacoverdin! It's a copper-based pigment which I think is really cool.
The title of the video when I first saw it was "This Photo Has No Color," which annoyed me for the reasons you outlined. Both structural colour and pigmentation have the same end result, which is that only certain wavelengths of light return from the surface and enter our eyes.; and in the absence of light, both will appear black. I see no reason to say that pigment is the only true "colour."
Now the video is called "You've Never Seen a Real Photo," which is just confusing to me. Title issues aside, it is an interesting subject and a well-done video. I do enjoy Steve Mould's channel.
At some level, pigment and structural color are doing the same thing: reflecting the blue wavelength of light from the incoming light. I (and Steve Mould) would argue that structural color is actually more blue than a mix of pigment or an LCD display, because it actually emits blue light, not just a combination of other wavelengths that happens to look blue to humans.
However, structural color often depends on the angle you look at it, so maybe that's an argument against it being "truly blue". I guess it depends if you consider color to be an intrinsic property of the material or a property that depends of the observer.