| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
PoP
France15446 Posts
Like when I first saw the dress I did realize the black looked kinda goldish but my brain was 100% sure that was just the result from the reflected light so at no point I would've said "gold" or even brown. My brain substracted that naturally. Same goes for people "missing" the blue from the lighter part of the dress I guess (blue shade being substracted). | ||
|
Umpteen
United Kingdom1570 Posts
On March 03 2015 17:32 xM(Z wrote: that's just fake. 1) you can not replicate it irl. the same cube with the same colors and there's no brown turning into orange. 2) every other color on that cube, when in shadow, goes slightly more gray, darker; but no, oh noes, brown goes orange ... the software who made that image had a bug. Dude, you're completely missing the point of that image  The image isn't trying to prove that brown turns orange in the shade. It's demonstrating how your eyes interpret the exact same RGB pixel colour differently depending on context. According to Photoshop, the on-screen RGB value of both squares is 148,90,0. But when you look at the square on the side, your brain thinks: "In order to look like that in the shade, that square would have to be bright orange." When you look at the square on the top, your brain thinks: "In order to look like that in bright light, that square would have to be dark brown." In other words, your brain 'knows' that if you picked that cube up and turned it so the side was on top, the centre square would look much brighter than the one that's on top now. Conversely, it 'knows' that if you turned the cube so that the top was on the side, the centre square would look much darker. And if this were a real object, and you actually did pick it up and turn it, your brain would be right*. But it's still the case that the amount of light reaching your eye from the side square is EXACTLY the same as the amount reaching your eye from the top square. *unless the squares ARE the same physical colour, but there's a small square shade positioned off-screen between the top one and the light, and a tiny square spotlight aimed at the one on the side... | ||
|
xM(Z
Romania5296 Posts
pff, that never happened to me. i saw it light blue-gray and light black-gold-gray(brown-ish) right from the start and it never changed. i have not seen it and i can not see it white - gold nor black - blue. + Show Spoiler + i might be dead inside or something Edit: @Umpteen: i took that image, opened it in Paint, colored the top side(horizontal) black and the bottom side(vertical) in white. the color of the middle squares looked identical. pro skills+ Show Spoiler + ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/wjBCkvr.gif) there's no doubt now that Photoshop is bugged  , it sucks at imitating natural lighting or lighting in general.now, you might think that the 2 situations are similar, given that pixel values say one thing and the human perception another but i disagree . that cube is entirely virtually generated while that dress was a photo of a real dress + real lightning. (real = not computer generated).plus, in that cube image, the white and black contrasts are actually there, but for that dress picture, the brain adds them just because ... some add more white and others more black. <- that's a personality trait read right there. Edit1: if i do the same thing with the picture of the dress with black + Show Spoiler + ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/nR2yn7K.jpg) with white + Show Spoiler + ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/avinPJg.jpg) its color never changes for me (or maybe very slightly). | ||
|
Umpteen
United Kingdom1570 Posts
On March 03 2015 19:53 xM(Z wrote: @PoP pff, that never happened to me. i saw it light blue-gray and light black-gold-gray(brown-ish) right from the start and it never changed. i have not seen it and i can not see it white - gold nor black - blue. + Show Spoiler + i might be dead inside or something Edit: @Umpteen: i took that image, opened it in Paint, colored the top side(horizontal) black and the bottom side(vertical) in white. the color of the middle squares looked identical. pro skills+ Show Spoiler + there's no doubt now that Photoshop is bugged , it sucks at imitating natural lighting or lighting in general.I'm not sure what you're trying to say here. A plain white or black background is not enough for your brain to infer the lighting conditions, which is why the squares look the same in your edited version. What the hell does Photoshop have to do with anything? The point you still don't seem to grasp is that if it WERE a photo of a real cube, the two centre squares would have to be different colours in order to emit the same light to your eye under their two different lighting conditions. Your brain takes that into account, and uses what it knows about lighting to reverse-engineer what the original colours must be. Think: suppose I took a real cube and took photos of it, mixing paints and repainting the two centre squares until they were the exact same RGB value in the photograph. I would need to paint the shadowed square a light colour, and the brightly lit square a dark colour to make that happen, yes? Your brain knows that instinctively, and would 'see' the squares as different colours even though the RGB values on screen were identical. now, you might think that the 2 situations are similar, given that pixel values say one thing and the human perception another but i disagree . that cube is entirely virtually generated while that dress was a photo of a real dress + real lightning. (real = not computer generated)....dude, you're just looking at RGB values on a computer screen in both cases. The point is that the 'cube' picture is rendered sufficiently realistically to persuade your brain that it's looking at a three-dimensional object lit from above. Consequently your brain interprets identical pixel values as different colours in different parts of the image. Destroy the illusion of a 3D lit object and your brain 'corrects' its interpretation and you see the colours as the same. Edit1: if i do the same thing with the picture of the dress with black + Show Spoiler + with white + Show Spoiler + its color never changes for me (or maybe very slightly). Why would you expect it to, when the colours in the 'cube' image didn't look different on a pure white vs pure black background? The original picture is sufficiently ambiguous that the majority of people's brains pick the wrong interpretation (white/gold). That's all. It's nothing to do with whether it's a photo of a real object or not. I'm pretty sure someone could render an identical image of a computer-modelled dress if they could be bothered to. | ||
TheEmulator
28094 Posts
 | ||
|
Thorakh
Netherlands1788 Posts
| ||
|
Dingodile
4139 Posts
Your eyes take the one more in account in to your brain (for experience etc). In other words: If you are rather a real life boy, you will see it in gold&white (experience with sun and shades). If you rather a nerd (even on daylight, window down, bulb on) you will see it as black&blue. Most people do activate bulb even on daylight and didnt notice it. I see it, even if I dont know where the bulb is. The color between natural and artificial is scary for me. My eyes sense aritificial light as annoy. | ||
|
PoP
France15446 Posts
On March 04 2015 20:48 Dingodile wrote: Is more like where your eyes spent more times in the past. I already see a huge difference between natural light (daylight) and "artificial" light (lamp, bulb). Your eyes take the one more in account in to your brain (for experience etc). In other words: If you are rather a real life boy, you will see it in gold&white (experience with sun and shades). If you rather a nerd (even on daylight, window down, bulb on) you will see it as black&blue. How does that make any sense though? As was said before that pic has a lot more chances to look blue/black while imagining it in a very sunish/yellowish light-intensive setting. That sounds more like something people used to being outside would be used to. | ||
|
PoP
France15446 Posts
On March 04 2015 20:32 Thorakh wrote: Pick out the colours with any image tool and you'll see that it's brownish gold and light blue. It doesn't matter how your eyes are fooled by whatever mechanic when you look at the picture, the actual colours (of the picture, what the dress looks like in real life is irrelevant) are not white and not black, but brownish gold and light blue. Indeed but it's not really the point. When being asked what color an object is in a picture you'll try to infer what the actual color that object is depending on the setting and how your brain interprets it. That's the really interesting part about it, not the "computer colors". | ||
|
DarkPlasmaBall
United States45182 Posts
I'm 26 and I see blue and black. I know at least a dozen people my age (+/- 2 years) who see blue and black as well, and a dozen others my age who see white and gold. | ||
|
DarkPlasmaBall
United States45182 Posts
On March 04 2015 20:32 Thorakh wrote: Pick out the colours with any image tool and you'll see that it's brownish gold and light blue. It doesn't matter how your eyes are fooled by whatever mechanic when you look at the picture, the actual colours (of the picture, what the dress looks like in real life is irrelevant) are not white and not black, but brownish gold and light blue. The real colors of the dress (blue and black) don't have to match the image tool colors of the purposely-misleading, illusion-esque photo. | ||
|
Dingodile
4139 Posts
On March 04 2015 21:02 PoP wrote: How does that make any sense though? As was said before that pic has a lot more chances to look blue/black while imagining it in a very sunish/yellowish light-intensive setting. That sounds more like something people used to being outside would be used to. Thats the difference between gold&white and black&blue! sunnish=natural, yellowish= bulb. It really comes what "colour" you see the background (actually your brain) of that picture. I see/sense that "colour" as a very sunny day (40°C). | ||
Dangermousecatdog
United Kingdom7084 Posts
What colours I think the dress actually is, is a different matter from what I actually see. | ||
|
DarkPlasmaBall
United States45182 Posts
On March 04 2015 22:28 Dangermousecatdog wrote: That's funny because I see blue&brown, the real colours, and nothing else, no matter where or what I view it from. What colours I think the dress actually is, is a different matter from what I actually see. The real colors are blue and black lol. | ||
|
PoP
France15446 Posts
On March 04 2015 22:01 Dingodile wrote: Thats the difference between gold&white and black&blue! sunnish=natural, yellowish= bulb. It really comes what "colour" you see the background (actually your brain) of that picture. I see/sense that "colour" as a very sunny day (40°C). Still doesn't make much sense to me: natural light wouldn't make a blue dress look completely white, no matter how white the light source is (sunlight does look a tiny bit yellowish to the human eye anyway, though indeed much less so than a bulb). For the record I see blue and I've been convinced from the beginning that the light coming from the right side of the picture is sunlight. I think it's more a matter of whether you consider that sunlight (coming from the right angle) or the shade coming from the left angle as the bigger source of color alteration. | ||
|
Dangermousecatdog
United Kingdom7084 Posts
On March 04 2015 22:30 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: The real colors are blue and black lol. What are the real colours on your monitor? Hint: it's not blue and black. | ||
|
Cyro
United Kingdom20322 Posts
On March 04 2015 22:30 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: The real colors are blue and black lol. The pixels are a browny gold and a slightly blue tinted white | ||
|
DarkPlasmaBall
United States45182 Posts
On March 04 2015 23:18 Cyro wrote: The pixels are a browny gold and a slightly blue tinted white And the dress is blue and black... | ||
|
Dingodile
4139 Posts
On March 04 2015 22:50 PoP wrote: Still doesn't make much sense to me: natural light wouldn't make a blue dress look completely white, no matter how white the light source is (sunlight does look a tiny bit yellowish to the human eye anyway, though indeed much less so than a bulb). For the record I see blue and I've been convinced from the beginning that the light coming from the right side of the picture is sunlight. I think it's more a matter of whether you consider that sunlight (coming from the right angle) or the shade coming from the left angle as the bigger source of color alteration. Well you are trying to understand how blue turns white (your first sentence). Thats the mistake, do NOT retroactive accounting unless you see it black&blue. I see white dress (real colour) because dress is under a shade (black/blue/violet-sunshield was my assume and sun from left angle) changes from white to a very light blue/violet tinted white. Dress is in shade, background has sun. edit: if you see it black&blue then tell me the context/background (ofcourse before you know the answer)?! | ||
|
Dangermousecatdog
United Kingdom7084 Posts
So...what if it is? Dingodile's point is that he belives that people percieves colour differences depending on whether their eyes are attuned to outdoor/indoor light. I reply and clarify that that I, like many others, see the true colours of the picture, thus rendering his point invalid for many people. You again reply that the dress of which the image was taken of is blue and black. I suppose you will repeat that the dress is blue and black ad infinitum even despite what the colours of the image actually is.Ok...I suspect that thinking logicaly isn't your forte. | ||
| ||
Platinum Heroes Events
PSC2L Finals - Playoffs
Krystianer vs PercivalLIVE!
Gerald vs Jumy
Nicoract vs Creator
RotterdaM988
[ Submit Event ] |
|
|
|
OSC
Korean StarCraft League
OSC
IPSL
Dewalt vs Bonyth
OSC
OSC
uThermal 2v2 Circuit
Replay Cast
Patches Events
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://news.bbcimg.co.uk/nol/shared/bsp/hi/dhtml_slides/10/illusion3/img/illusion_dhtml_6_v2.gif)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/7gHUgOv.gif)
