Levi is white, not blue.
I really wish I could upvote this response. GG Lenny, GG.
Levi is white, not blue.
I really wish I could upvote this response. GG Lenny, GG.
throw table_exception("(? ???)? ? ???");
its fucked up...
I understand the camera making the blue&black dress become white&gold due some filter/adjustment/whatever.
But I dont understand ppl's brains undoing that..
If I think about it, the only way a brain would do that is if:
#1 what affected the camera, making it producing the pic, also happens to human eyes
#2 since it happens to humans, some ppl's brains associate the effectt when they see the pic, and they automatic reason on the color... But to that happen the brain need to know that that pic is under the same effect... Makes me wonder if you remove or change the background on that picture (that is clearly fogged with too much light), ppl would still see it blue and black..
No. I said I was in the past (here) and always am in real life.Hang on, wait... are you trying to be funny?
You’re not qualified to make that assessment. In fact it’s incredibly irresponsible of you to presume you are. I’d call you a prick, but common sense tells me I’ve never actually met you in real life and people change online (for example I become a humorless robot, the literal opposite of myself in real life), so for me to throw around ad hominems as you are simply wouldn’t make sense.Because you're not. At all.
…
That’s really all I wanted to say, how I wanted to say it.The pixel colours are light blue and brown.
In reality the dress is very dark blue and black...
But i don't understand how people can't see light blue and brown.
The only way I've been able to see dark blue and black, or white and gold in that picture, is to view it on a shitty monitor at beyond the recommended viewing angle so that the colours saturate.
The "optical illusion" apparently doesn't work for me.
How can so many people not see the pixel colours? Of all the sites posting about this, why is it always black/blue vs white/gold? The JPEG itself unquestionably contains light blue and brown.
Is there really an illusion here and I've just spent so long deconstructing graphics that I'm trained in only seeing literal pixel colours without further interpretation? Or maybe lots of people are viewing on bad monitors in direct sunlight??
I restore Nintendo 64 video-game OST’s into HD! https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCCtX_wedtZ5BoyQBXEhnVZw/playlists?view=1&sort=lad&flow=grid
The discussion this dress has garnered just exemplifies what is wrong with humanity—it’s just another excuse for people to put barriers between each other, etc.
Daily, I play 2 coworkers in Super Smash Bros. For Wii U at 2:00 PM after lunch. I play Ganondorf (hence the reference below).
L. Spiro 12:58 PM
2:00 PM?
Mario Kart 8?
New Super Mario Bros. U?
Square Enix Employee #1298172 12:58 PM
black and blue or gold and white?
L. Spiro 12:58 PM
Black and blue…
Like everyone’s eyes after a fight with Ganondorf!!! GO GANONSMASH!!!
He didn’t reply.
Sigh.
Since he is a friend this is no big deal—he’ll probably be up there to play games at 2:00 anyway, but just wanted to show me his “disapproval” that I’m not in the same camp as him.
We have enough—too many in fact—reasons to draw lines between each other.
I just don’t get why some people jump at the chance to add one more, especially when it’s so trivial.
L. Spiro
I restore Nintendo 64 video-game OST’s into HD! https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCCtX_wedtZ5BoyQBXEhnVZw/playlists?view=1&sort=lad&flow=grid
The discussion this dress has garnered just exemplifies what is wrong with humanity—it’s just another excuse for people to put barriers between each other, etc.
I think its more that people are just way bored with their lives and have nothing better todo. This was the most interesting discussion I had all day.
I trust Photoshop. Whatever it says MUST be the truth.
No one expects the Spanish Inquisition!
Tutorial Doctor: "Regardless of how many videos I have seen, and scientific explanations I still am still not seeing the acclaimed royal blue and pitch black in that photo."
Hodgman: "The only way I've been able to see dark blue and black ... How can so many people not see the pixel colours? Of all the sites posting about this, why is it always black/blue vs white/gold? The JPEG itself unquestionably contains light blue and brown. Is there really an illusion here and I've just spent so long deconstructing graphics that I'm trained in only seeing literal pixel colours without further interpretation? Or maybe lots of people are viewing on bad monitors in direct sunlight??"
I'm not sure many people have said "pitch black", "royal blue" or "dark blue", rather the option is "blue and black".
I say "black" in the more general sense, not strictly a total absense of color - e.g., if someone is wearing a faded black t-shirt, I'd still call it "black" rather than the "dark grey" it may have turned into. I can see brown pixels, but there is no magic RGB value where brown becomes black. For the blue, I can see a range of shades - also bear in mind there have been different versions of the photo with different brightness levels.
I was first asked what colour is the dress, not what colour are the pixels, so I would have taken lighting into account. But I can see the brownness, and even almost golden pixels at the top (depending on the version of the picture), as well as a range of blue pixels.
For people who see gold and white - what would you say is exactly what you see?
The interesting thing is people who have said they saw it as one, and then the other - often noting what a surprise this was to them. So this doesn't simply seem to be an issue of interpreting the question differently, nor deciding to describe the colours differently - rather, what they perceived actually changed.
http://erebusrpg.sourceforge.net/ - Erebus, Open Source RPG for Windows/Linux/Android
http://conquests.sourceforge.net/ - Conquests, Open Source Civ-like Game for Windows/Linux
The quality of the photo itself is a big contributor to the conundrum. I wouldn't count on many people agreeing on how to get accurate information from a a photo taken by someone that looks like she hasn't upgraded her phone since 2006.
New game in progress: Project SeedWorld
My development blog: Electronic Meteor
You’re not qualified to make that assessment. In fact it’s incredibly irresponsible of you to presume you are.
Of course I am. Everyone is. Funny is subjective; I've probably read 100s of your posts and never once been even mildly amused.
In fact, it's far more "irresponsible" (I think the word you're actually looking for is "presumptuous") for you to assert you are funny. That's for others to judge, not you.
I’d call you a prick, but common sense tells me I’ve never actually met you in real life and people change online (for example I become a humorless robot, the literal opposite of myself in real life), so for me to throw around ad hominems as you are simply wouldn’t make sense.
It's not an ad hominem. It's an opinion. I do not find you funny, and from reading your posts, I doubt you even fully get the concept of humour, depsite the fact that you said to you "came to the lounge to show your humourous side"
I personally feel a lot better when making other people happy rather than by bullying them.
Yeah, in the same breath as you passive-aggressively weasel out of calling me a prick and in the same thread where you called people "bonkers" for not seeing the world the way you do. You're a regular saint.
I don’t get why you keep missing the important memo I’ve sent out multiple times now: I don’t come to the forums to be funny. I come here to help people with technical issues, and for a very brief period I showed a bit of my lighter (not necessarily humorous, just lighter/more humorous) side.Of course I am. Everyone is. Funny is subjective; I've probably read 100s of your posts and never once been even mildly amused.
In fact, it's far more "irresponsible" (I think the word you're actually looking for is "presumptuous") for you to assert you are funny.
These 2 things aren’t mutually exclusive (in fact overly strong opinions often lead to ad-hominem attacks), and creating a false dichotomy is just an insult to all the readers who know better.It's not an ad hominem. It's an opinion.
No, I didn’t. I stated my reasoning, perfectly and unapologetically.you passive-aggressively weasel out of calling me a prick
Show me where I ever implied that.Very polite of you to insinuate that anyone who doesn't perceive the world the way you do is broken in some way, though.
I restore Nintendo 64 video-game OST’s into HD! https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCCtX_wedtZ5BoyQBXEhnVZw/playlists?view=1&sort=lad&flow=grid