I haven't color calibrated my monitors in a long time since I no longer do graphics work on a regular basis, but I see 38 color bands. The whole image is suffering from JPG compression distortion particularly in the color space so there are definitely some color artifacts I ignored in the counting of what I can see. I'm not sure if I'm a tetrachromat or not, but I do have a very good ability to discern color across the spectrum, particularly when dealing with reflective color rather than transmissive color (pigments versus dyes for example).

I used to have a site bookmarked that had a very nice color perception test that required you to rearrange a spectrum of colored squares by red to blue by perceived hue angle. There were a lots of squares and the angle differences between hues was very small so the test really did help to find your color range sensitivity. I'm going to try to find it since it would be interesting to take the tests again to see if my eyesight and color perception have degraded with age by a lot. I'll post it if I find it again, provided it still exists some 10+ years later.

37

Finely calibrated racism.

4 cone Masterrace!

Wish this wasn't a compressed jpg but maybe a png or tif.

Compression and color subsampling messes with the original quality. My image viewer (IrfanView) counts 8577 colors. ;)

I see the lines but many seem the same color. Probably no more than 18. Makes sense, I do wear a lot of black and grey.

On my shit monitor, I can see 38. I know there's more there because some of the band are two wide.

39

Some yellow and green bands harder to discern.

I see 42 or 43. I keep losing count. I'm an artist. I can see slight nuances between the shades.

I wonder if this is why some people appreciate art more than others.

I saw 39… but in between each color is a strip that is like 3 colors wide.

I counted 37.

This really caught my interest, I did a bunch more research on the topic and there is a whole lot more to this than a simple glance at pop science lets on.

First, most birds are true tetrachromats having four completely distinct sets of cones that don't have response peaks overlapping, they can see into ultraviolet with a level of distinct like we can see blue. To be clear we can technically see ultra violet and infrared just barely but not with our color receptors the rods are just open tubes catching all light and if uv is bright enough it can bias other short wavelengths to look brighter and whiter just at the edge of violet vision infrared is similar it's why we perceive "white hot" in the way we do.

A true tetrachromat has four distinct lengths of cones while a trichromat has only three, the lengths of these cones determine colors. Short wavelength visible light is blue long is red and slightly less long is green, green and red have a shitload of over lap in frequency(wavelength) pick-up so that overlap is where we get yellow and orange which are really just hues of neon brown, sort of, we perceive them as more intense because we are getting double the visual uptake because the overlap in the long and medium cones frequency pick-up. Yellow and orange are illusory in a way. The same with cyan and teal where green and blue over lap.

If there are true tetrachromats then what are false tetrachromats? Us. This is where genetics talk gets sort of heavy, the x chromosome is where the cones are coded for, there are two alleles on each x chromosome which code for cone length and shape meaning men have two sets of cone genes and women have four sets of cone genes, potentially. Meaning you and I have variations in our cone lengths enabling or inducing extra colors over a man who has two copies of the same cone genes we have two separate copies which are widely different from each other meaning our color space is more complex. Women can have up to 4 variations, these genes have a naturally high variability because broadly humans have great motion and pattern detection we don't need great color vision. But now is where color blindness comes in, essentially color blind people have a missing cone or two but usually the length of their cones is radically different. On simple graph from 0 to 100 the peak for blue is at about 35 in a normal trichromat, the peak for red is round about 80 and the peak for green is round about 60. In mamy dichromats the medium cone(green) is way further away from red and blue is missing or green is missing and red(long) is much closer to blue(short) but just about any fuckery could happen, a monochromat can have 1 cone length or be missing blue and have a normal green with a relatively short red where they overlap the same frequency so heavily it is perceived as gray scale linguistically. The true tetrachromat is therefore someone, almost exclusively likely to be a woman, that has two radically different types of color blind genes and two radically different types of normal trichromat genes.

If we were to try to do this through eugenics in a short timescale it would be two false tetrachromat males like us reproducing with two color blind women, color blindness is rare In women for what should be obvious reasons by now, and then the offspring of those unions reproducing with the others and so long as the first two women experience different types of color blindness each of their female grand children has a theoretical 1 in 16 chance, if my table napkin math is right, of having true tetrachromacy, if you wanted a true tetrachromat male you would do this experiment over with as many different variations of color blind women as you could stomach and make all of them the majority breeding populations in small towns to try your damndest at getting a stable gene line of one type of tetrachromat females and hope a male mutates a transcription error eventually and that is the dominant gene.

There is a chance I've intuited this wrong somewhere because I have slightly different color vision in each eye and twins run in my family, I might have chimerism, my mother did say she thought she lost the pregnancy at before the halfway mark and I was pretty massive baby to be born to a 40 year old pack a day smoker.

I'm a fan of soft eugenics policies but I know genetic engineering is on its way and with how laissez+fair our response to AI regulation and ethics has been and how detached the public was made from the information on the death jab I suspect human/animal splicing will be common before the end of the century, there will be genetic freakshow towns in all of the over populated hell hole nations, where poors rent their wombs to mad scientists wondering what happens if you replace our cone alleles with pistol shrimp alleles, will we get 12-14 cone lengths thats probably gonna be here in 10 years in 60 years they'll be pushing non human irises engineered to take on the best features of all the eye types in nature and it will be a crime to ask if science has gone too far. This almost all will go on in asia, niggernomics obviously collapses the west if we don't drive out jews, blacks, jeets and spics this decade.