Cras wrote:
While that's as may be, the dress actually /is/ blue and black, so...
Which is fine. The picture isn't though.
The colours in the picture:
What do people see? I see, light blue, darker blue, light gold, dark gold.
Attachment:
Screen Shot 2015-02-27 at 11.16.12.png
What do people see? I see, light blue, darker blue, light gold, dark gold.
I see those colors too Trooper.
Is the internet bored today or something because honestly...
Is the internet bored today or something because honestly...
DBSnappa wrote:
I'm going to assume it's a gamut issue on monitors, or people are wearing glasses with very mild colour altering coatings.
You can put the photo on your phone, show it to people in real life, and still get a split of opinions on what colour it is. I did this in my office this morning. Nothing to do with glasses or displays.
TheVision wrote:
I see those colors too Trooper.
Is the internet bored today or something because honestly...
Is the internet bored today or something because honestly...
I think it's brilliant. Finally something that *everyone* is discussing that isn't some kind of huge tragedy or live event.
Trooper wrote:
The colours in the picture:
What do people see? I see, light blue, darker blue, light gold, dark gold.
Attachment:
Screen Shot 2015-02-27 at 11.16.12.png
What do people see? I see, light blue, darker blue, light gold, dark gold.
Light grey, dark grey, gold, brown.
If I see one more person talk about this then I'll beat them white and gold.
Future Warrior wrote:
TheVision wrote:
I see those colors too Trooper.
Is the internet bored today or something because honestly...
Is the internet bored today or something because honestly...
I think it's brilliant. Finally something that *everyone* is discussing that isn't some kind of huge tragedy or live event.
Also they're not calling each other cunts.
Grim... wrote:
Future Warrior wrote:
TheVision wrote:
I see those colors too Trooper.
Is the internet bored today or something because honestly...
Is the internet bored today or something because honestly...
I think it's brilliant. Finally something that *everyone* is discussing that isn't some kind of huge tragedy or live event.
Also they're not calling each other cunts.
Well, they're not typing it yes.
This link explains science apparently.
http://www.gizmodo.co.uk/2015/02/what-t ... explainer/
Grim... wrote:
Future Warrior wrote:
TheVision wrote:
I see those colors too Trooper.
Is the internet bored today or something because honestly...
Is the internet bored today or something because honestly...
I think it's brilliant. Finally something that *everyone* is discussing that isn't some kind of huge tragedy or live event.
Also they're not calling each other cunts.
Those people who see white and gold are just like Hitler.
Doctor Glyndwr wrote:
DBSnappa wrote:
I'm going to assume it's a gamut issue on monitors, or people are wearing glasses with very mild colour altering coatings.
You can put the photo on your phone, show it to people in real life, and still get a split of opinions on what colour it is. I did this in my office this morning. Nothing to do with glasses or displays.
I've just put the image in photoshop. It's blue (violet shade) and black(ish)
Kern wrote:
Grim... wrote:
Future Warrior wrote:
TheVision wrote:
I see those colors too Trooper.
Is the internet bored today or something because honestly...
Is the internet bored today or something because honestly...
I think it's brilliant. Finally something that *everyone* is discussing that isn't some kind of huge tragedy or live event.
Also they're not calling each other cunts.
Those people who see white and gold are just like Hitler.
You've just invoked Goldwin's Law (or Bluewin's Law).
Trooper wrote:
The colours in the picture:
What do people see? I see, light blue, darker blue, light gold, dark gold.
Attachment:
Screen Shot 2015-02-27 at 11.16.12.png
What do people see? I see, light blue, darker blue, light gold, dark gold.
Dark gold? I think the word you're looking for is brown.
Despite knowing it's wrong, I've only ever been able to see it as gold-and-white... except I just looked at it again and suddenly it's thoroughly, utterly, 100% blue-and-black.
Doctor Glyndwr wrote:
Despite knowing it's wrong, I've only ever been able to see it as gold-and-white... except I just looked at it again and suddenly it's thoroughly, utterly, 100% blue-and-black.
You are not the real Doccy-G and are now a pod person
(I cant see anything other than white / gold - maybe a little hint of a lilac / purple in some places on the white and a dirty muddy dark brown but I cant see anything else - like someone else suggested I'm going to try it on a tablet in a dark room)
Doctor Glyndwr wrote:
Despite knowing it's wrong, I've only ever been able to see it as gold-and-white... except I just looked at it again and suddenly it's thoroughly, utterly, 100% blue-and-black.
If you stare at it for 60 seconds then look at a blank wall does it turn into Mother Teresa?
FYI I've seen posted in a few places if you focus on the garment in the bottom right corner (which is sort a dark brown / white) then it will help you to see the dress colours more - if i focus on there then the dress seems more 'light blue' than white but i cant get it to any darker colour and the other bits still look 'gold' / 'brown' to me
Doctor Glyndwr wrote:
Despite knowing it's wrong, I've only ever been able to see it as gold-and-white... except I just looked at it again and suddenly it's thoroughly, utterly, 100% blue-and-black.
A friend of mine found the same earlier - viewing on the same screen etc. Her only explanation was that the ambient light levels in the office had changed.
Doctor Glyndwr wrote:
Despite knowing it's wrong, I've only ever been able to see it as gold-and-white... except I just looked at it again and suddenly it's thoroughly, utterly, 100% blue-and-black.
Splitter!
Whether or not I agree with those in the Bruise Foundation (I don't), at least they have the courage of their convictions. The worst are those hand-wringers in the middle who say it *might* be blue and gold. Fuck those guys.
Doctor Glyndwr wrote:
Well?
It was white and gold this morning. When I was in the house.
Now it is blue and black. How bizzar
Isn't this just people's brains disagreeing about how to make sense of a shitty picture and second guess how a shitty phone camera has mangled the colours. The actual colours in the pictures are muddy shades that a dress wouldn't be.
Doctor Glyndwr wrote:
Despite knowing it's wrong, I've only ever been able to see it as gold-and-white... except I just looked at it again and suddenly it's thoroughly, utterly, 100% blue-and-black.
This is what happened for me, too. I thought you'd done something to it...
This was even on PM...
Oh fuck me, on the train the fucking picture looks blue and black.
Grim... wrote:
Oh fuck me, on the train the fucking picture looks blue and black.
Natch
The Grimlet sees blue and black, Mrs Grim... sees both. Well of course she does.
Mr Daves verdicts:
1) I can choose to see either. gold/white or blue/black.
2) Mainly as it's a poorly taken picture.
1) I can choose to see either. gold/white or blue/black.
2) Mainly as it's a poorly taken picture.
I can only see red and green :/
Of course I fucking don't, it's gold and white you colour blind fools.
Of course I fucking don't, it's gold and white you colour blind fools.
I just tried it in a couple of different lighting conditions on my phone in the flat and still cannot for the life of me see blue/black.
I know which one I'm getting!
Future Warrior wrote:
I know which one I'm getting!
Both?
Gotta catch 'em all
If you squint really hard (til your eyes are closed) it looks black. Still don't see blue tho.
The wife sees white... I see blue.
She thinks I'm winding her up.
She thinks I'm winding her up.
I see black and blue. Also, the picture on the actual website (http://www.romanoriginals.co.uk) looks clearly to be black and blue.
Ramsea wrote:
If you squint really hard (til your eyes are closed) it looks black. Still don't see blue tho.
Try blocking the top of the photo, looking away for a moment and looking at it. Easiest way to see it.
Similarly just the top is the most white/gold looking.
For all the normo's that can't see white & gold here's what you're missing out on.
http://metro.co.uk/2015/02/27/attention ... d-5081971/
/pointless
http://metro.co.uk/2015/02/27/attention ... d-5081971/
/pointless
If you really squint it's blue and black. Otherwise its white and gold.
I was in the house alone for most of yesterday and was mildly amused by all this on Twitter etc but just assumed it was a joke and that the picture was both, just switching between the two. I knew this to be a fact because a couple of times I had even looked at the picture just as it switched from white and gold to blue and black or vice versa. So when, yesterday evening, I showed it to two other people who swore that it was only white and gold I was totally confounded. I think it's really cool and it's so hard to believe someone when they tell you they're seeing something so completely different from you!
Given that vision is only 10% what your eyes are doing, and 90% your brain's interpretation of the information it's getting, this is not that surprising.
Surely vision is 100% of the brain's interpretation?
Mr Kissyfur wrote:
Smuggity smug smug smuggy smug.
Well, quite.
Who rattled your cage?
DBSnappa wrote:
Doctor Glyndwr wrote:
DBSnappa wrote:
I'm going to assume it's a gamut issue on monitors, or people are wearing glasses with very mild colour altering coatings.
You can put the photo on your phone, show it to people in real life, and still get a split of opinions on what colour it is. I did this in my office this morning. Nothing to do with glasses or displays.
I've just put the image in photoshop. It's blue (violet shade) and black(ish)
What?
There's a big difference between isolated colour pixels taken from an image (from DBS's example I see a cornflower blue and dark gold/brown colour) and his your brain reads it in context.
In context of the wider photo I see a white and gold dress, cast that way because it's hideously backlit and underexposed due to the glaring light that is bleaching out everything behind it.
Because everything behind it is so badly affected by the light conditions the photo data is too difficult to recover to give a true representation.
My brain assumes that it is gold and white because I know from experience the effect of taking pictures of white objects facing away from the light source in pictures taken into a strong backlight, so my brain thinks this is what is happening here and so interprets the colours on the screen to probably be sometthing close to white and gold.
In context of the wider photo I see a white and gold dress, cast that way because it's hideously backlit and underexposed due to the glaring light that is bleaching out everything behind it.
Because everything behind it is so badly affected by the light conditions the photo data is too difficult to recover to give a true representation.
My brain assumes that it is gold and white because I know from experience the effect of taking pictures of white objects facing away from the light source in pictures taken into a strong backlight, so my brain thinks this is what is happening here and so interprets the colours on the screen to probably be sometthing close to white and gold.
Quote:
There's a big difference between isolated colour pixels taken from an image (from DBS's example I see a cornflower blue and dark gold/brown colour) and his your brain reads it in context.
I trust the image directly. If you show me something and ask me what colours are in it, I'll tell you what colours are in it. I won't tell you that the colours in the image are wrong, because that would just be rude! If I got a picture of Michelangelo and Raphael and screwed with the colour balance so that Mikey's mask was exactly the same colour as Raph's, I wouldn't say Mikey was wearing orange because he's the one with nunchucks and the pizza. I'd say he was wearing red because he's wearing red.
If you don't trust the image, then surely the image provides no information whatsoever and the objects can be any colour? It could be a green object lit by a strong blue light, or a flat coloured object lit by a striped light!
Quote:
My brain assumes that it is gold and white because I know from experience the effect of taking pictures of white objects facing away from the light source in pictures taken into a strong backlight, so my brain thinks this is what is happening here and so interprets the colours on the screen to probably be sometthing close to white and gold.
If you consider that the image has a strong background light, it makes even less sense to me:There's strong white in the upper right. That upper-right white and the white of the dress are not the same brightness or hue: The dress in the image can't be white.
There's strong black in the bottom left. That lower-left black and the black of the dress are not the same brightness or hue: The dress in the image can't be black.
Mr Kissyfur wrote:
Given that vision is only 10% what your eyes are doing, and 90% your brain's interpretation of the information it's getting, this is not that surprising.
r4 said something about brain auto filtering out the noise of blue light which makes it appear white or filtering out orange light. Then went in about Monet for a bit. I was driving through Bradford at the time but it should be on listen again. Mr Chris was sort of there.
Is this seriously what you blue-blackers see? I'm flabbergasted.
http://metro.co.uk/2015/02/27/attention ... k-5082034/
http://metro.co.uk/2015/02/27/attention ... k-5082034/