This level-5 vital article is ratedStart-class on Wikipedia'scontent assessment scale. It is of interest to the followingWikiProjects:
ColorHigh‑importance This article is supported byWikiProject Color, a project that provides a central approach tocolor-related subjects on Wikipedia. Help usimprove articles togood and1.0 standards; visit thewikiproject page for more details.ColorWikipedia:WikiProject ColorTemplate:WikiProject Colorcolor High This article has been rated asHigh-importance on theproject's importance scale.

Please add new discussion topics at the bottom

I think it should be stated that humans (usually if notTetrachromats) only can "see" the mixture of the colors red, green and blue, and the definition and calculation of hue is based on this fact.

Also: I think the given values are pretty much wrong:

${\displaystyle R=\mu +\sigma \sqrt{2}\cos \varphi ,}$

${\displaystyle G=\mu +\sigma \sqrt{2}\cos \left(\varphi +\frac{4\pi }{3}\right),}$

${\displaystyle B=\mu +\sigma \sqrt{2}\cos \left(\varphi +\frac{2\pi }{3}\right).}$

I would say, this is correct:

${\displaystyle R=\mu +\sigma \sqrt{2}\cos \varphi ,}$

${\displaystyle G=\mu +\sigma \sqrt{2}\cos \left(\varphi +\frac{2\pi }{3}\right),}$

${\displaystyle B=\mu +\sigma \sqrt{2}\cos \left(\varphi +\frac{4\pi }{3}\right).}$

(flipped 2 and 4)

Just take a look at the pictures on the pageHSV color space: Hue cycles from red to green to blue.

--Abdull 17:29, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I think there's something more wrong than that with these definitions: both the referenced definitions of brightness and saturation are symmetric in ( R, G, B ) and the definition of hue breaks the symmetry only with respect to R. Hence a transform swapping G and B produces unchanged values of hue, saturation and brightness, which is clearly wrong.

Pak2115:50, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

What is "gradation" mean in this context?

Also, can someone please fix the formulas or remove them, since they are clearly wrong.dave18:37, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not yet convinced the RGB formulae are wrong as opposed to the referenced definitions of brightness and saturation. The definitions of both brightness and saturation are symmetric in RGB. One extra variable (hue) can only introduce one degree of freedom, so we we've got only two degrees of freedom in this system, which isn't enough to reproduce RGB. Much more than this will need someone with more knowledge of the subject than me.

--Pak2114:17, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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 precedingunsigned comment was added by149.169.178.128 (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 --Pak2115:45, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The equations listed in theHue article do not match those inHSV color space. Discussion about this is occurring atTalk:HSV_color_space#Mismatch_with_Hue. --Orborde21:20, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the RGB conversion formulas for the hue regions don't match those in theHSL and HSV article. The ones in the HSL and HSV article seem to be correct, so to match that article, the second, fourth and sixth formulas should be:

60*(2-(R-B)/(G-B)) (G > R >= B)

60*(4-(G-R)/(B-R)) (B > G > R)

60*(6-(B-G)/(R-G)) (R >= B > G)

However, I don't have a verifiable source for these formulas, they were just derived from the formulas in the HSL and HSV article.

--Pzi (talk)08:24, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can anyone point me to a web site describing the sinusoidal HSV->RGB transformations listed on this page? --Orborde21:22, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is a major error in Hue formula${\displaystyle \varphi =\arccos \left(\frac{R-\mu }{\sigma \sqrt{2}}\right)}$.The thing is the image of${\displaystyle \arccos }$ function is an interval${\displaystyle [0,\pi ]}$, so for pure green and pure blue we'll be given by the same value.Moreover you can never obtainφ = 240° [4π/3^c] 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 precedingunsigned comment was added byBlpell (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 formulashere look better but are not completely correct (see my commenthere). 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 fororiginal 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)

--Oxygene12316:43, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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.Lovibond02:06, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Performed an edit which addresses some concerns, but not all. Citations added. Still need to work out correct formulae used in HSB and HLS color spaces. Is article ready to be upgraded to "B" or "G"?Lovibond03:25, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Removed references to saturation as one of the main perceptual attributes of color, per CIE Publication 15.2 (and later); Chroma is not Munsell-specific (ibid), so intimations to this effect were deleted.Lovibond19:01, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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?Dicklyon02:59, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed that CIE Publication 15 is not the only thing which has something to say on the matter, but the definition of saturation in HSB/HVS is essentially in accord with CIE's definition (colorfulness relative to lightness). In HSB, saturation is, in essence, the complement of the quotient of the smallest of R, G, or B to the largest of the three. Mathematically, its easily to define, but it is not fundamentally perceptual. Take an orange (0xFF9900) and a brown (0x553300). Both have the same HSB hue, both have the same HSB saturation, as both are fully saturated. Yet one looks more colorful than the other. Show people patches of each side by side and ask which they think is a more saturated color and I am confident most will pick the orange -- overwhelmingly so. Saturation, as defined both by CIE and in the HSB/HLS encodings of RGB, is decidedly not fundamentally perceptual.

I'm not suggesting that HSB or HLS be scrapped; I am pointing out that the saturation coordinate is not fundamentally perceptual, so saturation should not be enumerated as one of the three principal perceptual attributes of color. Remember, Chroma and Saturation are different. Saturation is Chroma relative to lightness. It is even defined as such in both the CIE 1976 L*, u*, v* (CIELUV) color space (with a scaling by 13), as well in the newer CIECAM02 color appearance space. Chroma is perceptual difference from the closest gray; as such it is computed as distance in perceptually (relatively) uniform color spaces; saturation is physical rather than perceptual and is a distance on a chromaticity diagram.

Lovibond23:12, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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?Dicklyon04:02, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Which physical color measurement systems use Hue? HLS and HSB aren't really color measurement systems, but re-encodings of RGB. They use coordinates which are more intuitive than RGB, but are also designed to have simple relationships with RGB. "Lightness" in HSL and "Brightness" in HSB are neither according to their commonly accepted definitions in the color community (see, e.g., Mark D Fairchild,Color Appearance Models, Wiley, 2005)

I have removed once again the inclusion of "saturation" as a "main perceptual attribute of color," as it clearly is not.

129.21.57.21123:54, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK; I added another lead sentence for the use of Hue in HSV etc. color spaces.Dicklyon02:30, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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 thatchroma 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.Dicklyon17:44, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I should check those links -- thanks!

Lovibond23:12, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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?Dicklyon00:03, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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?Lovibond02:10, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Color Temperature

So you were editing the article for a while, Where do you think, we can add the temperature of color in it then?, by the way, as a painter I know that the temperature is not independent from its hue(it was explicitly stated in the sentences), but it doesn't mean that is not a color attribute which is, incidentally, what the introduction is discussing at the moment. We can get into bibliography and other sources as/or you can ask those who work with colors not only the computerized or projected ones, if not with pigments, that would be the houses that for centuries in Europe and America have produced the finest hues and shades and tones of them. In oils or watercolors, pastels, temperas, and then acrylics, i.e., Rembrandt oils, Old Holland, Gumbacher and other Companies. Also you might check with realistic artists, those with professional and academic background, and ask them for the attributes of colors. Evenly, Leonardo explain to us the essence of this attribute in many ways, first with his "esfumato" and throughout his manuscripts. I am willing to work on this one with you, whether to discuss it in the intro or in the body of the entry, we want to present temperature in it because is part of how our sense is susceptible to the the amount of hue in a resulting compound color.◙JMK◙ -01:45, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The point of describing "hue" as one of three "attributes of color" (essentially dimensions in some space), including some lightness/brightness measure, and some colorfulness/saturation measure, is not to deny that there are other dependent dimensions along which color can be measured (indeed there are an infinite number of them), but merely to place "hue" within a system in which it is coherent: in this case, one such asHSV,Munsell, etc. Additionally, it isn't at all clear to me that color temperature is particularly special (from a human perceptual perspective) among possible dimensions. In any case, I think it's perfectly reasonable to explain later on in the article that there are other types of systems in which to place colors (and wikipedia in general doesn't explain color models as well as it could; thecolor models article could use a large-scale rewrite), but that treatment isn't needed, and only distracts, from the introduction. --jacobolus(t)02:33, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For more detail, I suggest you readthis article. I found it quite interesting (and perhapsthis bit as well). --jacobolus(t)02:39, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I support what jacobolus says. Please don't add strange unsourced concepts. If there's a color system in which "temperature" fits, find a place or it or start a new article, but be sure you come prepared with at least one reliable source. Be sure to read and understandcolor temperature first, too, in case that's related to this confusion.Dicklyon04:35, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

the following message copied from my talk page --jacobolus

You need to start parsing what you read

[...] I remind you of the 3R rule, WP:NPOV and of WP:OWN. I wrote in your talk page, because you are reverting without consensus my dear fellow, I asked you a question and you didn't answer, so I opted to revert your edition. Now you are communicating, but you are still acting by reverting without consensus, have you check my sources? Look there is nothing wrong to be wrong, it is recursively true.[...] It seems that you are not understanding how to collaborate in here, and as anyone can read from your page, I am not the only one who thinks it is so; the only thing is that you just do not want to recognize it. So, I would ask you in other way this time: Do you want to collaborate to improve theHUE article? after you answer this question then we will continue, take your time and think. It is fine to disagree, the difficult thing is to work together in spite of disagreement. Remember you don't own the truth evenly about Hues. Greetings. I will wait for your answer. John Manuel-05:14, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You quite are welcome to add a discussion of how color temperature relates to hue, further down the page; perhaps such a discussion even deserves a whole sub-section. But I removed it from the introduction, where it only serves to muddy the issue and confuse the reader: a color can be expressed by breaking it into three parts corresponding to hue, colorfulness, and lightness (or roughly similar concepts like "saturation" and "brightness"). Color temperature is a variable dependent on hue and colorfulness, and so is not required to understand the conceptual hue/colorfulness/lightness model. I understand Wikipedia policy just fine, and I'm happy to collaborate, but please don't try to pick a fight. It's not useful. --jacobolus(t)06:29, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 catchwordHue toDominant wavelength. --Hans Dunkelberg (talk)09:16, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I also oppose merging. These two topics are distinct enough to warrant separate articles.Lovibond (talk)22:34, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the template, I think it was put there due to a misundersanding. --Thorseth (talk)08:44, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please discuss it inTalk:Color#Color_scheme_of_optical_interference_fringes. Thx.Fgnievinski (talk)02:14, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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.— Precedingunsigned comment added byBsmith0000 (talk •contribs)02:13, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wonderful! You can actually do this yourself, and move from theory to practice.Superp (talk)07:14, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Munsell died in 1918.Superp (talk)07:18, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Dear IP editors 2600:1700:CEF0:4EF0:1A6:1C45:47BE:7AAC, 2600:1700:CEF0:4EF0:452C:296A:5072:186C104.7.69.193, et. al: please desist from revert wars, before we have to fetch an administrator to figure out how to block you.

The names in the large table are made-up nonsense and the table of HSV colors itself is not in scope for this article, is not encyclopedic, and is not helpful to readers. The same 24 "hues" are already represented in a picture (frankly the picture is already pushing it and should perhaps also be removed), and plenty of HSV swatches are included underHSL and HSV § Swatches (but conceivably another grid of swatches could be added with e.g. H and S as coordinates, if someone is desperately missing that). Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information; this table can be hosted at any number of other websites. The "H" coordinate of HSL/HSV is not closely correlated with the human-perceived color attribute "hue", and adding this giant table is thus substantially misleading to readers. If we want to discuss HSL/HSV hue here at all, it should be substantially rewritten to make the problems with HSL/HSV clearer, and should direct focus toward the practical uses that HSL/HSV have in e.g. computer software (for example in color pickers, cf.HSL and HSV § Use in end-user software). But all of those topics are already discussed atHSL and HSV and are not really necessary here. –jacobolus (t)02:32, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

For anyone curious, this table was originally added (partly in Japanese) with no sources or edit summary by the IP editor115.38.15.126here in August 2020. –jacobolus (t)03:10, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Also agree that it be kept out. To even debate it, step 1 would be to be clearer on exactly what it is trying to say. Right now it makes no coherent point that would be apparent to a typical reader or attempt to be explanatory to a typical reader, including the table. Also calling the removal "vandalism" is a wp:personal attack. Don't do that.North8000 (talk)

I don't see why the spelling of colour on majority of colour-related Wikipedia pages seems to be the American way of spelling it? Are people against the Commonwealth/British English version for some reason? I don't see why color gets precedence? Can I go ahead and change color to colour?RyanPLB (talk)16:00, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Start-Class level-5 vital articles
• Wikipedia level-5 vital articles in Physical sciences
• Start-Class vital articles in Physical sciences
• Start-Class color articles
• High-importance color articles
• All WikiProject Color pages

• All Wikipedia vital articles