[KV] Colors (was Re: Movies)

Glenn pondered
> Hmm, wonder what Kra'vak primary colors are ?

<pre>
Glenn pondered
> Hmm, wonder what Kra'vak primary colors are ?

Green (skin), pink (circulatory fluid) and purple (nerve/brain tissue)

</pre>

Which assumes they even see in the same spectrum as humans. Has this been
discussed in any of the KV 'backstory' stuff?

Also, IIRC, primary colors were chosen because of their 'primacy' in the color
spectrum (and differ from medium to medium) and not necessarily because of
species preference. Then again, it's not like there's another species that's
voiced an opinion on the subject (to my

FB2 indicates that they see further into both the IR and UV ranges. It does
not indicate, however, a number of details about this.

Do they see equally well in all parts of the spectrum that they can percieve?
Can they do this at the same time or do they concentrate on a partial range of
vision at a given time?

Is thier contrast perception greater or lesser than Human? Broad sprectum may
lead to less contrast perception as more of the sprectrum is "illuminiated".

Are they psycologically drawn to certain colors. Humans are; note how our eyes
are drawn to the color red. This is probably a survival instinct.

Do they have tunnel or wide vision?

How much does movement attract attention?

What is the "easy" focal lenth of thier vision?

---
Brian Bell bbell1@insight.rr.com ICQ: 12848051 AIM: Rlyehable YIM: Rlyehable
The Full Thrust Ship Registry:
http://www.ftsr.org
---

[quoted original message omitted]

[quoted original message omitted]

Yes it would.

Our Primary colors are the upper end of our vision spectrum (Blue) and the
lower end of our vision spectrum (Red) and the percieved middle of our
spectrum (yellow).

For KV, it would be the upper end of thier UV vision, the lower end of thier
IR vision and the percieved middle. All three will effect the range of colors
they can identify.

We would probably need to invent a whole other set of colors based on the
addition of IR/UV perception. What do you call 30% Green 27% UV Blue and
37% IR red?

It is also interesting that as we view colors toward the top of our spectum,
they seem to mix with the bottom end of our spectrum (purple is percieved as a
mix of blue and red).

On 26-Jul-01 at 13:49, Bell, Brian K (Contractor)
(Brian.Bell@dscc.dla.mil) wrote: > Yes it would.
> Our Primary colors are the upper end of our vision spectrum (Blue) and

Depends on if it is reflected or transmitted. If reflected you would call it a
muddy brown. (Try mixing primary colors). If you are thinking of something
transmitted or from a monitor you would call an almost equal mixture white.

In message <2A5C49585B46EC42BB99D3000F725D470232E9D4@col1smx01.dscc.dla.mil>
> "Bell, Brian K (Contractor)" <Brian.Bell@dscc.dla.mil> wrote:

> Yes it would.
I may very well be wrong here, but humans see _colour_ with retinal
'cone' cells, that come in three different types, which IIRC explains
the three primary colours - maybe (anyone on the list know any more?)

Also IIRC, some bird species have 5 different types of cone cells, and so
probably see 5 different primary colours! I remember seeing this on a
BBC science series 'Supersense' about animal sensory capabilities -
worth watching if you want ideas for alien senses.

Bring that back on topic, aliens, assuming thair visual apparatus is at least
somewhat like ours, could well have only 2 cone cells, or 4 or more, if their
eyes are sensitive to a wide spectrum, they probably see a lot of primary
colours.

OTOH, they may be colour blind (like cats).

If the phalon tri-lobed eye is anything like that of the War of the
Worlds (movie) Martian, then they probably have 3 primary colours.

G'day guys,

> Are they psycologically drawn to

Last thing I heard (so this may have been updated since as that was in
undergrad about 5 years ago) was that it was a bit of a chicken and the egg
thing. Fruits and berries are brightly coloured...especially the tastest

(red, yellow, oranges mostly) and so are we clued on to the colours because in
our evolutionary past they were good sources of food, or do fruiting plants
use these colours to get our attention? Bit of both probably, as reds, yellows
and oranges in combination with black are natures universal
"danger" sign - so the colours already existed in the plant world as a
whole and were probably just stripped of their association with black to

get our (mammals and birds) attention to something good rather than bad.

> Do they have tunnel or wide vision?

The fact the bare headed ones have eyes set like ours would suggest binocular
vision.... where tunnel vision is not using your resources to the full.

> How much does movement attract attention?

If they're as deadly as we all say, probably A LOT!;)

> What is the "easy" focal lenth of thier vision?

That's a good question and would come back to the original "scene" of their
evolution. If they evolved in "open" areas they would (probably) have a better
time seeing further away than we do, but if they are aquatic then it would be
closer in.

Cheers

Beth

G'day,

> I may very well be wrong here,

We have cones and rods. The 120 million odd rods we have aren't colour
sensitive, but pick up shapes, dim light and movement (they're concentrated in
the peripheral vision and absent from the centre of the retina so that's why
we see movement better off to the side). The cones are light and colour
sensitive and we have about 7 million in each ("healthy") eye and they're
concentrated in the centre of the retina and taper off to the sides. There are
3 types of cone and each is sensitive to a different set of
wavelengths: short (430-440 nm), medium (535-540 nm) and long (560-565
nm).  The light that we perceive to be "brightest" a greenish-yellow (is

555 nm).

> Also IIRC, some bird species have 5

They definitely have 4 colour cones, they also have "double" cones which

maybe the 5th one you mention, but they're function is unknown (as yet).

For the 4 colour cone stuff they have the red, blue and green cones like we do
(or cones sensitive to wavelengths close to what we are), but they have a 4th
cone that is either violent or true UV depending on the type of bird. The bird
set is actually more typical of early vertebrates (according the
molecular biologists) whereas the human/primate set represents a
shifting
of the violet/UV cone to the blue spot, a loss of the "old blue cone"
and a slight shift in the "red" and "green" cones from the early (bird)
wavelength peaks to our peaks. This probably also explains why some humans
can just see into the UV spectrum - they have a mutation so the "blue"
cone peak is not as shifted as in the rest of us (as its all based on
biochemistry in the cones this is nothing too serious to achieve really).
Birds also have oil droplets in their eyes which help sharpen their
discrimination along the spectra.

> I remember seeing this on a BBC science series

I caught some of that on the ABC down here, it was a GREAT show for broadening
your horizons for weird alien ideas!!;)

> could well have only 2 cone cells, or 4 or more,

Or none, some aliens may well only have rods, but lots of them so movement and
shape detection is VERY sharp with no "weak spots" where cones would

dominate in us etc. Those with fewer types of cone would probably have a

restricted colour vision or a shifted vision... for instance bees (their

eyes don't have cones per se, but they could be a good guide to potential
effects) can see UV etc, but don't see red its just another blue to them.

> if their eyes are sensitive to a wide spectrum, they probably see

Potentially they could also see polarised light.

> OTOH, they may be colour blind (like cats).

Cats aren't strictly "colour blind" they do retain a few cones, though have
sacrificed a lot for good movement and night vision. They probably actually
see in pale with the definition getting better the closer they get.

Cheers

Beth

Thanks Beth, Your observations are, as always, interesting and informative.

I had posted some different options and hoped that you would chime in and
amplify or correct my thinking.

---

G'day Brian,

> Thanks Beth,

Glad to be of service;)

> Your observations are, as always,

I've just come back from my last PhD seminar so right now anyone that thinks
I'm informative may well find themselves on my Christmas card
list!!!! ;)

> I had posted some different options and hoped

My Mum would probably glad to know my 10 yrs at Uni - now finally
finished
(!!)...bar the corrections - was useful in some way ;)

I love speculating about alien biology, so I tend to get a bit excited and
talkative when it comes up, I'm glad to hear I'm not boring all of you to
death (just some);)

Have a great time guys!!!

Beth

> I love speculating about alien biology, so I tend to get a bit

Let's see, we've determined that KV juveniles are aggressive males but they
later become somewhat less aggressive females. And we know that there are some
"Walkers of the Path" who are a little more peaceable than the regular KV. And
Tom (or Los) has proposed that there are Warrior caste (normal troops) and
Hunter caste (elites). So maybe the Walkers are born with an excess of
KVestrogen or a deficit of KVtestosterone; and the Hunters would have the
reverse problem? The Walkers' problem has to be something visible rather than
eg a mental discipline. Comment?

G'day,

> Let's see, we've determined that KV juveniles are aggressive males but

Less physically aggressive..... but mentally... ouch;P;)

> And we know that there are some "Walkers

Biochem isn't my strong side, but the Walkers may well have a "problem" more
with the KVadrenaline system rather than the sex hormones. Sex hormones do
influence overall natural settings of aggression and development etc, but
they're not the sole answer as conditioning etc can do it too. Age old nature
vs nuture debate rears its ugly head there. The case (as I understand it) is
much clearer if you slide into ancillary systems we
all have - and as the Walkers don't go into Ro'Kah (which in turn
results from strong emotional stimulation) I'd say its more likely to stem
from the ancillary (e.g. adrenaline) side of things.

The hunters on the other hand (I would say) would result from either training
or a mindset or both (i.e. more likely to stay in being a "supersolider" if
you're that way inclined in the first place, I'd GUESS). Unless of course Tom
and Los have specifically mentioned its a biochemical thing <;)>, I'd say its
more likely a neurological and nuture based tendency to be that way (like
loners etc in our societies) rather than an excess of anyone sex hormone.

In other words I'd say the motivations and mutations of the KV are going to be
as complex as what makes people placid to predators in our societies...leaves
it open for lots of fun
interpretation/misinterpretation
then too;)

Cheers

Beth

On Fri, 27 Jul 2001 10:17:15 +1000, Beth Fulton
<beth.fulton@marine.csiro.au> wrote:

> OTOH, they may be colour blind (like cats).

Just as dogs aren't colour blind, either.

Another thing could be the placement of the point where the optic nerve
attaches to the retina (assuming a similar structure to humans). This point
creates a blind spot. It's fairly easy to find that spot.

Okay, so the blind spot isn't much of an evolutionary disadvantage. How often
does it come into play, really (he asks, rhetorically)? I read, though, that
baseball players have a problem with it. Certain pitches will bring the ball
into the blind spot. At that point, based on the "launch window" for
intercepting the ball with the bat, the blind spot can be nasty. It doesn't
take too much too much effort to devise an alien where evolution required a
very small (no? is that possible, biologically?) blind spot.

Or... maybe they DO have a blind spot, perhaps a nasty one. One of the
interesting concepts in the film "Pitch Black" is the blind spot of the alien
critters, though in this case it was based on extreme binocular "vision" and
not from a retina. (I think they used sonar to see, as the planet was, well,
pitch black most of the time.)

This is all neat stuff to think about. There should be an evolutionary reason
for KV seeing into the IR and UV ranges, and for how far they see into them. I
like the idea of them being less colour sensitive than humans, but more
sensitive to motion and contrast. More rods than humans but fewer cones. I
like the PSB potential for hiding from a KV as long as you are VERY still and
in cammo. Sort of would make sense if the KV came from such a nasty
environment that everthing seems predatory, ready to strike at you quickly.
(Although in that case I'd suspect that being a critter that hid very still
would be an evolutionary advantage...)

G'day,

> I like the PSB potential for hiding from

If they really can't see the same spectrum we can and are only really
sensitive to motion then you may well find just standing still regardless is
best....imagine the looks you'd get from you mates in full cammo with

twigs out the helmet and all if you did just as well in a Hawaiian shirt
;)

Cheers

Beth

> On Fri, Jul 27, 2001 at 01:00:06AM -0400, Allan Goodall wrote:
How often
> does it come into play, really (he asks, rhetorically)? I read,

As I understand it, the blind spot is present because the visual nerves run
"inside" the rods and cones. In octopus, on the other hand, the nerves run
"outside" the rods and cones, removing the need for a blind spot.

        So, there's no _need_ for a blind spot.

G'day,

> As I understand it, the blind spot is present because the

Yep this comes from the different ways the eye evolved, ours are an extension
of the brain while octopus' started as a pocket in the skin. That's what's so
potentially cool about alien physiology, they might not

have a blind spot, but they may well have more than one, it all depends on how
their eye evolved and from what.

Cheers

Beth