Advertisement

What Color is the darn dress?!

Started by February 27, 2015 11:50 PM
81 comments, last by L. Spiro 9 years, 8 months ago


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..

Advertisement

Hang on, wait... are you trying to be funny?

No. I said I was in the past (here) and always am in real life.
When I’m trying to be funny, you’ll know it. My funny level—it’s over 9,000!!!

Because you're not. At all.

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.

If it makes you happy to do so, then by all means. I personally feel a lot better when making other people happy rather than by bullying them.


Thank you for avoiding ad honimens; they really degrade the discussion.
Eventually I might explain why this and a few other outbursts (such as when I called people monkeys for calling them “sprite-sheets” instead of “texture atlases,” even though I myself also call them sprite-sheets from time-to-time) occurred, but right now it would probably just seem like an excuse (besides the fact that I am simply not ready to publicly announce it yet), so if it comes at all it will be at a later time.
I’m very aware of how it makes me look, and since there is nothing I can do about it I have decided to slowly taper off and eventually disappear, rather than royally mangling my reputation and then disappearing anyway.

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??

That’s really all I wanted to say, how I wanted to say it.


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.

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!

Advertisement

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.

if you think programming is like sex, you probably haven't done much of either.-------------- - capn_midnight

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.

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.

It’s ironic that you cite reading my posts as your reason for claiming I don’t even know what humor is, when I am specifically aiming to make most of my posts humorless.

Let me try to make sense of this for you since you seem to be having problems with it.


I make candy and I make meatloaf. I always give the candy to community X (real-life people) and I always give meatloaf to community Y (online people).
Then one day I mention to Y, “Yes, I actually do make candy,” and one guy in Y goes, “But I’ve only seen your meatloaf, your meatloaf never tasted like candy to me even after 100’s of tastes, and I doubt you even fully get the concept of candy.”

Since I haven’t given you any candy, I don’t expect you to believe my claim that I make candy at face value, and in fact I bet lots of people have doubts, but the difference is they probably understand that they have never met me in real life, they know that they too change online, and so they probably just say the reasonable thing: “I’ve never seen it, but it’s possible, so I just won’t have an opinion until I have more evidence.”
You’re going out of your way to harbor hateful opinions and also to vocalize them.

You’re like those climate-change deniers in Washington who see their little neck of the woods and think it represents the whole world. They look outside and say, “It’s snowing, what climate change?!”. Except that I know you’re not that stupid, you’re just being willfully ignorant to satisfy your hateful outlook. Believing that L. Spiro is actually a nice guy who volunteers at animal shelters, helps old ladies with their fallen bicycles (this is Japan), and goes out of his way to make people laugh and smile goes against your world view. You may not have evidence that it is true, but you don’t have evidence that it is not true either, so you’re trying to apply the argument from ignorance because it’s better to you than admitting you might actually be wrong about L. Spiro.


It's not an ad hominem. It's an opinion.

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.


you passive-aggressively weasel out of calling me a prick

No, I didn’t. I stated my reasoning, perfectly and unapologetically.
It’s really very simple: I could call you a prick, because in my opinion you behave like one. However I know that people change online, and I am willing to bet we’d get along in real life.
There’s no veiled jab there. In order to make the point that I reserve my judgement of people until I meet them in real life, I’m not going sugar-coat my description of how you appear to me online just because you might try to twist it to your advantage, call it a passive-aggressive attack, and try to shut down the discussion.

Since once again you aren’t getting it, let me spell it out. There is nothing passive-aggressive about it, I am straight-out saying I think you behave like a prick online. And I know how people change online, so I’m not judging you based on my limited exposure to you.
That’s just called being rational.



You also tend to miss a lot of very important words, I assume not because you can’t read but because you are so clouded by your hatefulness that you simply don’t want to catch the important details.

I said I attempted to be more humorous. That means on a scale from 1-10, with 1 being my normal level of humor here, 2 and above count as being more humorous.
Behaving like a prick doesn’t mean you are a prick.
Applying an argument from ignorance doesn’t mean you are ignorant.
Etc., etc.


Very polite of you to insinuate that anyone who doesn't perceive the world the way you do is broken in some way, though.

Show me where I ever implied that.
Are you confusing “perceive the world the way it is” and “perceive the world the way I see it” just because in this case these 2 things happen to be the same thing?
I didn’t imply seeing the dress as blue or seeing blue pixels on the screen as correct because that’s how I see them, it’s correct because it is a blue dress and those pixels on the screen are blue.
This is what started this whole side and made phantom decide to affirm me as a prick, etc., and in-general have a bunch of shit thrown my way. Yet I never said that—it never even crossed my mind. I only thought, “The dress is blue, so how can people see it otherwise?”, and my post also makes it very clear who I was calling bonkers, and it wasn’t in any way implied that they are people who don’t perceive things as I do.

An apology would be a nice gesture if nothing else.



As for the Topic
Yesterday I mentioned that when I asked my coworker if he was up for games at 2:00 PM he immediately asked which colors I saw. I just answered and then quickly made jokes to get off the subject. He didn’t reply but he did show up for games at lunch.
During the play he started talking about it again, explaining how he saw white and gold.
Then another coworker agreed, and another.
So I took the chance to ask them how they were seeing white and gold, and according to their explanations I was correct. They are seeing blue pixels, but calculating white based on how they envision the lighting.

It turns out they know that they are doing the calculation into white, so no, I’d not call that bonkers. What I meant I would classify as “bonkers” (and I made this clear in the first post) is not that they see a white dress, it’s that they see white pixels, which is what it sounded as if some people were seeing. But even that isn’t a fair accusation to make since as dsm1891 mentioned there could be monitor issues, and later I also thought color-blindness might play a role.

Hodgman attributes his ability to see the colors for what they are to being engineered to be a graphics engineer. So am I, but so are the people at my office.
I think in my case it’s just that I trust the lighting in the shot. Blue lights aren’t exactly common, but blue dresses and over-exposed shots both are.


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

This topic is closed to new replies.

Advertisement