Cyclops vs brunswick & aramith

This is not proof of anything, it does not state that green is best....and I have never seen yellow green cloth which is the color cited specifically in the article, and on the graph.

Many changed there minds based on this -- give a number 2, 5 10, 20? All this shows is that you can see colors at different light levels, and the green you are stating is not even the green on the chart.

Also, you cite percentages below, exactly where are they on this graph? I see numbers on the left from 0 - 100 however there is no legend describing what the numbers represent, I think your interpretation is flawed.

I asked before, what about the 8 - 10 percent of the male population that is red green color blind. What does green cloth look like to them?

One more thing for you to ponder, have you ever played pool on green cloth, under darker conditions? How well can you see the contrast of the balls with the cloth on the table. Fairly tough isn't it?
---------

From one of KD links http://science.slashdot.org/story/08/04/08/2213222/what-font-color-is-best-for-eyes

Re:Great Blazing Colors (Score:5, Interesting)
by dgatwood (11270) on Wednesday April 09, 2008 @12:17AM (#23009374) Journal
Our eyes don't work like that -- they don't scan the visible spectrum from low to high, and see blue as the opposite end of red. Instead, we have receptors for certain colours, and base our colour perception on how much each of those get triggered. This is why colour blindness hits red/green or yellow/blue, despite those colours not being adjacent on the spectrum.
Yeah. That's also why unless you are colorblind, light yellow on a very dark blue will probably be about as readable as it gets because it has both luma contrast (difference in rod response) and chroma contrast (the yellow hits the red and green cones hard with just a little on the blue cones, the blue hits the blue cones and barely registers on the others). Even if you're colorblind, the huge difference in contrast should be sufficient to make it reasonably readable.

The absolute worst, IMHO, is white on medium green... you know... road sign colors.[B]KD is't this green cloth color????[/B] Unreadable until you get right up to the things, by which time you end up cutting off the guy in the next lane to slam your car into the exit lane that should have been marked 200 feet earlier.... :-D

Parent Share
Re:Great Blazing Colors (Score:5, Insightful)
by Sandbags (964742) on Wednesday April 09, 2008 @08:22AM (#23011870) Journal
A lot of cities have started installing new road signs that are white on blue, or even a faint yellow on blue. They're also making the text paint reflective, but not the background blue. Unfortunately, the cost of replacing all the road signs is prohibitively expensive, but at least new ones going up are a lot easier to read.
---------
This curve peaks at 555 nanometers, which means that under normal lighting conditions, the eye is most sensitive to a yellowish-green color. When the light levels drop to near total darkness, the response of the eye changes significantly as shown by the scotopic response curve on the left. At this level of light, the rods are most active and the human eye is more sensitive to the light present, and less sensitive to the range of color. Rods are highly sensitive to light but are comprised of a single photo pigment, which accounts for the loss in ability to discriminate color. At this very low light level, sensitivity to blue, violet, and ultraviolet is increased, but sensitivity to yellow and red is reduced. The heavier curve in the middle represents the eye's response at the ambient light level found in a typical inspection booth.



I just looked at the graph that reads at 550 under normal and dark conditions the green spectrum above is at 100% while blue and other colors are at a much lower level near 70% for blue under normal light and 90% under dark conditions!

It does show and state green is superior based on the cones in the human eye!

The poll was posted prior to disclosure of the findings in the study. Many changed their mind after reading and investigating. Stated so in the thread!

Kd
 
Last edited:
I Played with the Cyclops balls in Tunica. I thought they played great! The colors took awile to get used to, but I liked em. Just my opinion...
 
This is not proof of anything, it does not state that green is best....and I have never seen yellow green cloth which is the color cited specifically in the article, and on the graph.

Many changed there minds based on this -- give a number 2, 5 10, 20? All this shows is that you can see colors at different light levels, and the green you are stating is not even the green on the chart.

Also, you cite percentages below, exactly where are they on this graph? I see numbers on the left from 0 - 100 however there is no legend describing what the numbers represent, I think your interpretation is flawed.

I asked before, what about the 8 - 10 percent of the male population that is red green color blind. What does green cloth look like to them?

One more thing for you to ponder, have you ever played pool on green cloth, under darker conditions? How well can you see the contrast of the balls with the cloth on the table. Fairly tough isn't it?
---------

From one of KD links http://science.slashdot.org/story/08/04/08/2213222/what-font-color-is-best-for-eyes

Re:Great Blazing Colors (Score:5, Interesting)
by dgatwood (11270) on Wednesday April 09, 2008 @12:17AM (#23009374) Journal
Our eyes don't work like that -- they don't scan the visible spectrum from low to high, and see blue as the opposite end of red. Instead, we have receptors for certain colours, and base our colour perception on how much each of those get triggered. This is why colour blindness hits red/green or yellow/blue, despite those colours not being adjacent on the spectrum.
Yeah. That's also why unless you are colorblind, light yellow on a very dark blue will probably be about as readable as it gets because it has both luma contrast (difference in rod response) and chroma contrast (the yellow hits the red and green cones hard with just a little on the blue cones, the blue hits the blue cones and barely registers on the others). Even if you're colorblind, the huge difference in contrast should be sufficient to make it reasonably readable.

The absolute worst, IMHO, is white on medium green... you know... road sign colors.[B]KD is't this green cloth color????[/B] Unreadable until you get right up to the things, by which time you end up cutting off the guy in the next lane to slam your car into the exit lane that should have been marked 200 feet earlier.... :-D

Parent Share
Re:Great Blazing Colors (Score:5, Insightful)
by Sandbags (964742) on Wednesday April 09, 2008 @08:22AM (#23011870) Journal
A lot of cities have started installing new road signs that are white on blue, or even a faint yellow on blue. They're also making the text paint reflective, but not the background blue. Unfortunately, the cost of replacing all the road signs is prohibitively expensive, but at least new ones going up are a lot easier to read.
---------
This curve peaks at 555 nanometers, which means that under normal lighting conditions, the eye is most sensitive to a yellowish-green color. When the light levels drop to near total darkness, the response of the eye changes significantly as shown by the scotopic response curve on the left. At this level of light, the rods are most active and the human eye is more sensitive to the light present, and less sensitive to the range of color. Rods are highly sensitive to light but are comprised of a single photo pigment, which accounts for the loss in ability to discriminate color. At this very low light level, sensitivity to blue, violet, and ultraviolet is increased, but sensitivity to yellow and red is reduced. The heavier curve in the middle represents the eye's response at the ambient light level found in a typical inspection booth.
What is it with you?

I refuse to argue about this. Everyone here is free to interpret the data for themselves!

Kd
 
The last I am going to say on this matter (and expecting to be flamed for it) there is only one thing worse than pseudoscience, and that is to express opinions as facts.

Face it, there is little objective proof that one color cloth is better than another, or that the colors of the Cyclops balls are worst than brunswick or aramith.

We all know what we like, and dislike. There is nothing wrong with that, we have all grown up with different experiences and ideals. Some folks are traditional, others embrace change. There is nothing wrong with that. The trouble is when opinions are stated as facts the lines are drawn in the sand.

For the record, I play with all three ball sets mentioned here, I don't give a flying flip about the colors. In my opinion, the cyclops balls play well, but I think the cueball plays a little light. It is nothing that you cannot adapt too.

As far as cloth, I prefer tourny blue, because it make the bed and rails brighter compared to green as I have gotten older, my 54 year old eyes appreciate that. Do I get my panties in a wad if I have to play on green? I am a pool player, show me a table, and I play.

Rant over.
 
I just looked at the graph that reads at 550 under normal and dark conditions the green spectrum above is at 100% while blue and other colors are at a much lower level near 70% for blue under normal light and 90% under dark conditions!

It does show and state green is superior based on the cones in the human eye!

The poll was posted prior to disclosure of the findings in the study. Many changed their mind after reading and investigating. Stated so in the thread!

Kd

So are you contending that people actually changed their "preferences" after reading the article to which you linked? That they actually allowed a series of rather specific scientific findings to overrule their actual playing experiences in determining their preferences? Not only do I find this contention ridiculous but not believable. Furthermore, contrary to your claim, I see no evidence supporting this in the thread/poll you linked to. Yes...I'm calling BS.

The fact is, 2 out of 3 people in your own poll voted for blue, yet you dismiss/ignore/discount these results. Do you think it's possible that preferences over a billiard table - under artificial lighting conditions, trying to see the edges of man made spherical concoctions might yield prefenences that are difficult to predict, differ across people, and contradict the results of a narrowly defined research paper?
 
Last edited:
The last I am going to say on this matter (and expecting to be flamed for it) there is only one thing worse than pseudoscience, and that is to express opinions as facts.

Face it, there is little objective proof that one color cloth is better than another, or that the colors of the Cyclops balls are worst than brunswick or aramith.

We all know what we like, and dislike. There is nothing wrong with that, we have all grown up with different experiences and ideals. Some folks are traditional, others embrace change. There is nothing wrong with that. The trouble is when opinions are stated as facts the lines are drawn in the sand.

For the record, I play with all three ball sets mentioned here, I don't give a flying flip about the colors. In my opinion, the cyclops balls play well, but I think the cueball plays a little light. It is nothing that you cannot adapt too.

As far as cloth, I prefer tourny blue, because it make the bed and rails brighter compared to green as I have gotten older, my 54 year old eyes appreciate that. Do I get my panties in a wad if I have to play on green? I am a pool player, show me a table, and I play.

Rant over.

Fwiw... I grew up on green tables and always considered it to be the only true pool table color. However, after trying tournament blue (especially with fluorescent lighting) i have NEVER wanted to go back. I see edges better and can play longer at a higher level. And, when I have to play on green tables I play demonstrably worse. I attribute this to difficulty I have seeing the dark solids (2, 4, 6, 8). And on a darker green table with incandescent bulbs, I'm basically guessing.
 
So are you contending that people actually changed their "preferences" after reading the article to which you linked? That they actually allowed a series of rather specific scientific findings to overrule their actual playing experiences in determining their preferences? Not only do I find this contention rediculous but not believable. Furthermore, contrary to your claim, I see no evidence supporting this in the thread/poll you linked to. Yes...I'm calling BS.

Jalapus logan says he picked blue then joked that he does not use his human eyes to shot pool joking and eluding to agreement with the prior points regarding green! Post number 2 and 19!

Kd
 
Last edited:
Pointing out inaccuracies in your conclusion of an article that does not even support your hypothesis is not arguing.

You have an opinion, as do I but don't portray yours as the correct one because of an article you found that has nothing to do with the issue at hand.

The coup de grace is your statement that members changed their opinion after reading the research you provided, no evidence of that exists either.

Edit...OMG from the post above, ONE member who was joking to begin with is your proof? What happened to many? (your words)

Please can I have whatever you smoke it must be great stuff.


What is it with you?

I refuse to argue about this. Everyone here is free to interpret the data for themselves!

Kd
 
Last edited:
Jalapus logan says he picked blue then joked that he does not use his human eyes to shot pool joking and eluding to agreement with the prior points regarding green! Post number 2 and 19!

Kd


Gonna have to call BS again!

JL posted three times in your thread. Here are his posts in their entirety.

Post 2: "Hope you are well kd. I voted blue but I think that its splitting hairs here. Either are just fine."

Post 19: "Fortunately for me, I don't use my human eyes to shoot pool."

Post 30: "Hmmm...come to think of it, I think that yellow smells much better than gray."

Please enlighten me as to how any of these statements (or combination thereof) would lead you to believe he changed his mind after reading/investigating?

...and unlike Tony, I'd prefer you keep the stuff (that you're smoking) to yourself.
 
Last edited:
Pointing out inaccuracies in your conclusion of an article that does not even support your hypothesis is not arguing.

You have an opinion, as do I but don't portray yours as the correct one because of an article you found that has nothing to do with the issue at hand.

The coup de grace is your statement that members changed their opinion after reading the research you provided, no evidence of that exists either.

Edit...OMG from the post above, ONE member who was joking to begin with is your proof? What happened to many? (your words)

Please can I have whatever you smoke it must be great stuff.
You sir are a troll

No further comment needed!

You must have missed my previous post. Plus, Jason aka jalapus Logan can confirm! You and someone else owe an apology! I ain't holding my breath!

Kd
 
Gonna have to call BS again!

JL posted three times in your thread. Here are his posts in their entirety.

Post 2: "Hope you are well kd. I voted blue but I think that its splitting hairs here. Either are just fine."

Post 19: "Fortunately for me, I don't use my human eyes to shoot pool."

Post 30: "Hmmm...come to think of it, I think that yellow smells much better than gray."

Please enlighten me as to how any of these statements (or combination thereof) would lead you to believe he changed his mind after reading/investigating?

...and unlike Tony, I'd prefer you keep the stuff (that you're smoking) to yourself.
Post 19 by jalapus logan

Referred directly to this prior post

" [quote name="JAM" post=4593780]I had a discussion about cloth colors in 2005 with Greg Sullivan when the blue cloth first came to the fore.<br />
<br />
He told me that the color of the Simonis cloth is called "TOUR BLUE." After studies were conducted on this hue of blue, it was determined that this was the BEST on one's eyes to see clearly. Tennis venues also went to TOUR BLUE in their color schemes.[/QUOTE]<br />
<br />
I looked into tennis' reason for changing and here is what I found.<br />
<br />
"DecoTurf officials point out that while clay courts and hard surface courts have been traditionally green, blue is actually closer to purple, the opposite of yellow on the color wheel. Consequently, the blue surface provides a higher contrast to the yellow tennis balls and thus improves visibility."<br />
<br />
Source:<br />
http://www.competitionathleticsurfaces.com/articles/19-us-open-tennis-surface.html<br />
<br />
Pool balls are not all yellow. The human eye handles the green color better at all lighting levels according to the data.<br />
<br />
Not busting anyone's chops! Just food for thought.<br />
<br />
Based on this info tennis courts should be purple for maximum contrast. Purple pool table anyone? LOL<br />
<br />
I am biased to green if you have not noticed.<br />
<br />
Kd<br />
<br />
Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk<br/>"

Kd
 
Post 19 by jalapus logan

Referred directly to this prior post

" [quote name="JAM" post=4593780]I had a discussion about cloth colors in 2005 with Greg Sullivan when the blue cloth first came to the fore.<br />
<br />
He told me that the color of the Simonis cloth is called "TOUR BLUE." After studies were conducted on this hue of blue, it was determined that this was the BEST on one's eyes to see clearly. Tennis venues also went to TOUR BLUE in their color schemes.
<br />
<br />
I looked into tennis' reason for changing and here is what I found.<br />
<br />
"DecoTurf officials point out that while clay courts and hard surface courts have been traditionally green, blue is actually closer to purple, the opposite of yellow on the color wheel. Consequently, the blue surface provides a higher contrast to the yellow tennis balls and thus improves visibility."<br />
<br />
Source:<br />
http://www.competitionathleticsurfaces.com/articles/19-us-open-tennis-surface.html<br />
<br />
Pool balls are not all yellow. The human eye handles the green color better at all lighting levels according to the data.<br />
<br />
Not busting anyone's chops! Just food for thought.<br />
<br />
Based on this info tennis courts should be purple for maximum contrast. Purple pool table anyone? LOL<br />
<br />
I am biased to green if you have not noticed.<br />
<br />
Kd<br />
<br />
Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk<br/>"

Kd[/QUOTE]

==================================================

Are you retarded? In no way does this incomprehensible expulsion of garbled nonsense vindicate your -as of now- still BS claim or for that matter integrity,
 
Last edited:
Please, you totally wrong in drawing a conclusion from an article and I am a troll for pointing it out?

I don't think analysis is your strong suite. In fact I remember some other nonsense you were posting about tuning forks that got Royce spun up as well. Additionally there was another thread in which you were stating that you could adjust your stroke upon contact of the cueball based on its feel. You then saw some super slo mo video of the cuetip and ball interaction as proof of your statement because it looked like the cuetip stayed in contact with the ball for seconds. That was until I pointed out the timestamps in the corner of the video showed the timeframe was thousands of a second.


BTW I saw your prior post, and the response from the other member, tell me is Jason "many who changed their mind" His posts were inconclusive as best.

Face it, the color preference you have is your opinion, and not based on scientific fact.



You sir are a troll

No further comment needed!

You must have missed my previous post. Plus, Jason aka jalapus Logan can confirm! You and someone else owe an apology! I ain't holding my breath!

Kd
 
I've owned all the sets and currently have Cyclop and Aramith. I got swept into some of Cyclop hype when I bought my set. There is nothing wrong with them but they are not better than Aramith. I do consider Aramith pro balls to be the very best. Martin
 
Please, you totally wrong in drawing a conclusion from an article and I am a troll for pointing it out?

I don't think analysis is your strong suite. In fact I remember some other nonsense you were posting about tuning forks that got Royce spun up as well. Additionally there was another thread in which you were stating that you could adjust your stroke upon contact of the cueball based on its feel. You then saw some super slo mo video of the cuetip and ball interaction as proof of your statement because it looked like the cuetip stayed in contact with the ball for seconds. That was until I pointed out the timestamps in the corner of the video showed the timeframe was thousands of a second.


BTW I saw your prior post, and the response from the other member, tell me is Jason "many who changed their mind" His posts were inconclusive as best.

Face it, the color preference you have is your opinion, and not based on scientific fact.
Troll on sir

You do not have to agree with anything!

I provide sources and reasons for my conclusion. Everyone can assign value or credence to my posts.

But, attacking opinions and sources that contradict your opinion is the act of a "troll"

Logic states that visual spectrum goes from 300 to 700 roughly and the human eye processes the middle spectrum levels better than the extremes! Fact

But, believe what you want and leave me alone and "keep my name out your
mouth"

Kd
 
Yellow is the middle of the spectrum, should we have yellow cloth now.

Troll on sir

You do not have to agree with anything!

I provide sources and reasons for my conclusion. Everyone can assign value or credence to my posts.

But, attacking opinions and sources that contradict your opinion is the act of a "troll"

Logic states that visual spectrum goes from 300 to 700 roughly and the human eye processes the middle spectrum levels better than the extremes! Fact

But, believe what you want and leave me alone and "keep my name out your
mouth"

Kd
 
Troll on sir

You do not have to agree with anything!

I provide sources and reasons for my conclusion. Everyone can assign value or credence to my posts.

But, attacking opinions and sources that contradict your opinion is the act of a "troll"

Logic states that visual spectrum goes from 300 to 700 roughly and the human eye processes the middle spectrum levels better than the extremes! Fact

But, believe what you want and leave me alone and "keep my name out your
mouth"

Kd

He did no such thing, You were simply called out for making an erroneous statement.

I was inclined to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you did this unintentionally (perhaps due to a less than perfect memory), but your continuing, feeble, and ineffective attempts to defend that statement might lead me to believe that you are either a dishonest person by nature or simply so insecure that you are incapable of admitting when you are wrong.
 
Troll on sir

You do not have to agree with anything!

I provide sources and reasons for my conclusion. Everyone can assign value or credence to my posts.

But, attacking opinions and sources that contradict your opinion is the act of a "troll"

Logic states that visual spectrum goes from 300 to 700 roughly and the human eye processes the middle spectrum levels better than the extremes! Fact

But, believe what you want and leave me alone and "keep my name out your
mouth"

Kd

I recall, very clearly, my conversation with Greg Sullivan about the blue cloth. Basically, he approached a professional engineering consulting firm about determining what would be the best color for pool table cloth. They came back with the Pantone scale that, based on they're professional opinion, would provide the best color. It had nothing to do with paying a company to choose the color he wanted already. That doesn't make sense. If he wanted to use blue, then he would have just done so. He wouldn't have spent any money at all to falsify a claim that it's better.

You might want to actually talk to Greg before you make assumptions as to his motivations.


Royce
 
Back
Top