| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
DarkPlasmaBall
United States45048 Posts
On March 05 2015 02:19 Cyro wrote: Yea, but the pixels are a browny gold and slightly blue tinted white  The picture isn't a good representation of the actual color of the dress. The picture is white(blue tinted)+gold, but the actual dress is blue+black. I know  | ||
|
PoP
France15446 Posts
On March 05 2015 02:19 Cyro wrote: The picture is white(blue tinted)+gold It's clearly blue (and brown), not white. Still surprised anyone can see this as white (even on the dress) but I guess same goes to the other side with black/gold (though most of the dress is really dark brown which to me looks way closer to black than any of the shades of blue look white). Again, computer colors is not the point of this thread anyway. | ||
|
PoP
France15446 Posts
http://i.imgur.com/pIQIm9I.jpg http://i.imgur.com/xA9DV3x.jpg Comparison: http://i.imgur.com/VLb9XQO.jpg Exactly the same colors used on both. | ||
|
Dingodile
4137 Posts
On March 05 2015 01:03 PoP wrote: Background has sun, front/side also has sun, sun hits dress, black part therefore looks goldish on the side and blue part looks like lighter blue. Dress is black and blue. And of course I didn't mean "blue turns white" literally. I meant it as "seeing it white even though it's actually blue". I dont see that sun hits dress. dress is at shadow unlike the background. Edit: Do you mean sun hits dress from behind? I was thinking about sun forward left angle. I highly doubt that sun hits from behind, dress should have more brightness in that case I think. | ||
|
Dangermousecatdog
United Kingdom7084 Posts
On March 05 2015 01:47 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: You said the "real colours" were "blue&brown", which is what I replied to in the first place -.-' So now we've come full circle. I'm not sure if you're trying to troll me or you just have really bad memory, but I don't think there's anything else to add to your correction. If you're honestly still confused about the colors, SKC lays it out really nicely a few posts above mine. Maybe that'll help you more. This is a forum with recorded posts. I've clarified twice that I am refering to the image, yet you insist I am talkign about the dress. You are so dearly confused or purposely obstinate. Either way, there really isn't a point to talk with someone who despite recorded posts insists that one party was talking about something they did not, in order to "prove" themselves right. | ||
|
Cyro
United Kingdom20321 Posts
Still surprised anyone can see this as white (even on the dress) Because there's a huge amount of red and green in the color. It's not flat white (100/100/100) but it's much closer to flat white than it is to pure blue (0/0/100). It's clearly blue tinted, but white is the dominant color (to what my eyes originally saw, and via digital examination of the pic) On March 05 2015 03:08 PoP wrote: Someone on YouTube posted two (bad) photoshops of the dress picture under clearly different lighting conditions: http://i.imgur.com/pIQIm9I.jpg http://i.imgur.com/xA9DV3x.jpg Comparison: http://i.imgur.com/VLb9XQO.jpg Exactly the same colors used on both. Nice | ||
|
PoP
France15446 Posts
On March 05 2015 03:27 Dingodile wrote: I dont see that sun hits dress. dress is at shadow unlike the background. Edit: Do you mean sun hits dress from behind? I was thinking about sun forward left angle. I highly doubt that sun hits from behind, dress should have more brightness in that case I think. I don't know if that's the same sun as the light we can see on the background, but it's light coming from somewhere on the front and/or side. If you look at the dark part on top of the dress, it's definitely hit by light on the rightmost part of that. Actually a whole "column" of light can be perceived towards the middle (slightly towards the left) of the whole dress. | ||
|
PoP
France15446 Posts
On March 05 2015 03:48 Cyro wrote: Because there's a huge amount of red and green in the color. It's not flat white (100/100/100) but it's much closer to flat white than it is to pure blue (0/0/100). It's clearly blue tinted, but white is the dominant color (to what my eyes originally saw, and via digital examination of the pic) Well I'm not a color expert but every article/document/video I've seen using photoshop or similar tools (including tweets from the Adobe company itself during the big buzz) have mentioned the color is absolutely blue (other being (dark) brown), no question about it. I would also gladly eat a hat if anyone with normal eyes would ever think "white" looking at the rectangles I posted earlier. Maybe grey/blue, skyblue (for the first one) or something, but that's it. But this is a totally different "debate" from the actual topic of this thread, and a much less fascinating one. | ||
|
Cyro
United Kingdom20321 Posts
it was 131, 140, 195. White would have been 131, 131, 131 - but there was a very very slight bias towards green, and a more heavy bias towards blue. Blue would have been 0, 0, 195. The 131 and 140 are extremely significant. It doesn't look solid white when placed against a light background, but it's miles away from blue (especially when placed on backgrounds of every color) | ||
|
PoP
France15446 Posts
#838cc3 color description : Slightly desaturated blue http://hex.wikimix.info/en/color-838cc3 The hexadecimal color #838cc3 is a color blue whose [...] http://encycolorpedia.com/838cc3 "The hexadecimal color code #838cc3 is a medium light shade of blue. [...] etc etc Can people at least agree on something in this thread | ||
|
SKC
Brazil18828 Posts
| ||
|
Cascade
Australia5405 Posts
On March 05 2015 03:08 PoP wrote: Someone on YouTube posted two (bad) photoshops of the dress picture under clearly different lighting conditions: http://i.imgur.com/pIQIm9I.jpg http://i.imgur.com/xA9DV3x.jpg Comparison: http://i.imgur.com/VLb9XQO.jpg Exactly the same colors used on both. Ummm, some people read tl from work. Please nsfw that. | ||
|
nemus
9 Posts
On March 05 2015 03:08 PoP wrote: Someone on YouTube posted two (bad) photoshops of the dress picture under clearly different lighting conditions: http://i.imgur.com/pIQIm9I.jpg http://i.imgur.com/xA9DV3x.jpg Comparison: http://i.imgur.com/VLb9XQO.jpg Exactly the same colors used on both. I can see blue/black dress!!! I can move on now lol  | ||
|
Dingodile
4137 Posts
blue + red = violet. violet - blue =red. Gets it?! blue - blue = white gold - blue = (light) gold indoor has basically no blue. thats why the color of bulb looks very yellowish (compared to outdoor light). blue - yellow = (dark) blue gold - yellow = black Your brain already do this in subconscious mind. | ||
|
MarlieChurphy
United States2063 Posts
On March 05 2015 00:31 Dingodile wrote: Oh wow that picture. Look at the bulb, gold and white around the bulb. Maybe they put a bulb under that dress outside?! The color of the moon is actually the color of asphalt. Although when we look up at night it is white most of the time. And then because of the refraction near the horizon, it's sometimes yellow, orange, etc. And during a lunar eclipse (a shadow on it) it is also red, orange, pinkish for the same reasons. All of these things are similar to what happens in the lighting of the picture and the refraction of the lens of the camera afaik. The main source of the debate is how the picture subtly gives us the option of choosing whether the dress is under tons of light, or is in a shaded place via top right and forgeground. So people's brains that see the opposites are filling in the missing data from either of those options. It's not really about some people being better or worse, it's probably more just a random thing. So the real debate that people don't understand is where this person actually is in relation to the background. The people seeing the darker colors are assuming that the person is directly in the lighting, while the people seeing the lighter colors are assuming the person is standing under an umbrella or something outside. Since we know the colors of the dress are actually blue and black (although we don't actually know how faded/old the dress is IRL) we can assume that the person is actually not standing under an umbrella, and that is the optical illusion. | ||
|
JieXian
Malaysia4677 Posts
On March 05 2015 03:08 PoP wrote: Someone on YouTube posted two (bad) photoshops of the dress picture under clearly different lighting conditions: http://i.imgur.com/pIQIm9I.jpg http://i.imgur.com/xA9DV3x.jpg Comparison: http://i.imgur.com/VLb9XQO.jpg Exactly the same colors used on both. wow to me the one on the left looked photoshopped to appear white and gold because that's what i see 23r3gaf | ||
|
MarlieChurphy
United States2063 Posts
On March 06 2015 14:36 JieXian wrote: wow to me the one on the left looked photoshopped to appear white and gold because that's what i see 23r3gaf If you take your left hand and make an L shape around her dress swap back and forth between 2 images you can actually see that the dress is the exact same color while the background is getting more or less lighting filters put on. And that's how this optical illusion tricks the brain into thinking the colors are different than they actually are. | ||
| ||
|
|
CranKy Ducklings
RSL Revival
herO vs Gerald
ByuN vs SHIN
Kung Fu Cup
Cure vs Reynor
Classic vs herO
IPSL
ZZZero vs rasowy
Napoleon vs KameZerg
OSC
BSL 21
Tarson vs Julia
Doodle vs OldBoy
eOnzErG vs WolFix
StRyKeR vs Aeternum
Sparkling Tuna Cup
RSL Revival
Reynor vs sOs
Maru vs Ryung
Kung Fu Cup
WardiTV Korean Royale
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://housebeauty.net/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/Appealing-Dark-Wall-and-Bright-Lighting-inside-the-D-House-with-Brown-Wooden-Floor-and-Wooden-Ceiling.jpg)
