I never joined the discussion about the dress (I was actually removed from technology pretty much until after the whole debate died down, after which I experienced another interesting phenomenon).
But what is fascinating to me is that the day following the debate, I saw the image in Wired [1] and for the life of me could not possibly see black and blue no matter how hard I tried.
I just now read this article, looked at the image at the bottom, then tried to find the original Wired image, and now cannot see white and gold. The influence is so strong that part of me almost thinks it's not the same image.
It sort of reminds me of when I first figured out how to "see" those stereograms, and how once you know how to see one of them, seeing any of them is easy.
I had the same effect. One day I see gold and no matter how I try I can not make it black.
The next day, with the exact same image and background, the parts that were gold are now solid black, and I can not understand how they can possibly be gold.
I can understand how different eyes might see it differently, but how my own vision changed, and so completely, I don't understand.
I had an interesting experience with it. When I originally saw it, I could only see the blue-and-black. However, I had the image on the screen when I moved to grab something and went beyond the viewing angle of my screen, and it appeared gold-and-white. I then sat back down, and the dress stayed gold-and-white while the rest of the screen returned to normal. Fun times for the brain.
I loved Blit! I used to subscribe to Interzone when Blit was published. Those Interzone anthologies were excellent. Whoever owns the rights should sell them as ebooks if they don't already. (EDIT: this is I think the third mention of Blit on HN)
This has been covered on HN before (IIRC that's where I first read about it), but my favorite vision color "trick" is the McCollough Effect, mostly because of how long it lasts (weeks in my case, YMMV):
I know it's slightly off topic but I've been fascinated with the idea of blind people having 'optical' illusions. Eg does the cafe wall illusion (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Café_wall_illusion) work if you're blind and investigating a real cafe wall with that pattern using your fingers? Or are there other things that _do_ create perceptual illusions because of the different way blind people experience the world?
I suspect people seeing white/gold live/grew up in sunny climate with blue sky, sea?, maybe blue walls/wallpaper in their bedroom. Basically people primed for seeing things illuminated by blue tinted light.
So the popular hypothesis is that the dress is black and blue.
I have now seen so many different sites and authors try to explain the phenomenon, all based on the "proof" that some random woman named Caitlin McNeil who first offered the disputed picture originally claiming she saw it as white and gold in the picture, saw it some days later in person, said it was definitely black and blue and offered a picture of an indisputably black and blue dress that appeared to be identical or at least too similar to be able to tell a difference definitely.
The issue to me is that I'm seeing sites like Wired and I fking love science explain how the dispute is possible based on optical illusions and ultimately say that the dress is black and blue because of the other image and the claims of a dress manufacturer with no credence to possibility that the dress in one picture may be different than the dress in the others and that dressgate might just be an elaborate hoax.
The thing is, you can just as easily explain why the dress is white and gold and appears blue and black to some people given the intense back lighting in the disputed image implying sunlight in the background and the effects of reflected UV light can play on shaded white objects (think black uv lights) or effects like solarization that can happen in digital imagery.
The thing is, I'm sick of hearing the dress is blue and black because "science", when science hasn't been involved in anyone's "proof" of the effect. What you have is a hypothesis. Want to make it a viable theory? Take the black and blue dress or one of the identical ones from the designer claiming that's their black and blue dress and recreate an identical image that appears white and gold with the same tonal qualities and environmental lighting. Until someone does that, I don't think there's any reason to continue "proving" why the dispute exists with non-science or arguing about this nonsensical bullshieza as it has become a gargantuan distraction from reality whether or not it was originally meant to be.
The main article describes differences in perception of colours due to surrounding colours. It's a well-researched topic in science. I learned stuff like this in my neurophysiology degree over 20 years ago.
Dismissing it as "'because science'" and demanding that there be an invalidated null hypothesis before you can draw on scientific knowledge is just being wilfully obstructive. Do you really re-do all your basic experiments before you conduct the one that rests on them?
Because it didn't really matter what color the dress really is. The fact of the matter is, based soley on the photo, some people see it as blue and black and some see it as white and gold. Never mind the fact the manufacturer didn't make a white dress. The important thing is how people see the dress in the photo. Personally I think it is difficult to say what the dress color is, because the lighting is so poor. But I would lean toward white and gold. But other people, with no other knowledge of the dress see it has blue and black.
Okay, I'm probably going to get marked down for this, but... with that whole "the dress" thing, am I wrong to think it's not just Photoshop and/or the dress coming out different colours in the image depending on the light?
Now does everyone seeing that see bronze and light blue on the left, and dark blue and black on the right?
Supposedly these are images of the same dress. If anyone suggests they're seeing the colours differently on this example, I'll be genuinely surprised, but at the moment I find that unlikely.
EDIT: ...and the downvotes have started. How predictable.
In the "classic illusions" everyone (or at least the vast majority) of people will describe what they are seeing in a similar manner (an "illusion").
Then, when given an "aid" (such as hiding part of the background) they will "flip" and describe what they are seeing in a different manner ("reality").
There is no such "aid" for the dress (or at least I haven't seen such).
It is thus not an "illusion". It is a segmented perception of reality, where reality is this one specific image discussed.
It demonstrates that given a specific set of colors on which there is no argument (see wired RGB image), a composition of those same colors can still be perceived differently, but consistently, by segments of the population. They see a different "truth".
BTW my 10 people sample had 5 blue eyed people in the black/blue camp and 5 green eyed people in the white/gold camp.
The bronze and lighter blue you are seeing are a result of the incredibly washed out image - there's a ton of light. Almost any black object will appear gray or bronze or colored under a lot of light, even if it looks like true black in darker environments.
The original image can't be changed to match the original just by adjusting the white balance because it has an extra red hue added to the black regions. That could be due to the fabric not reflecting colors evenly, which is not exactly unheard of, but I've been been wondering if that's an artifact from the way the camera processes the raw sensor data to determine color. It's easy to imagine a horribly lit and exposed scene like this one hitting a pathological failure in some sort of adaptive color processing algorithm.
The issue isn't what color the dress is, but what color people when they see the photo. Some see white and for and some see blue and black, from the same photo. Yes, it is a horribly lit photo. Bit the issue is different people perceive the color differently. Never mind that the rgb colors in the photo tend towards white and gold. The fact remains people perceive the same photo differently. What amazes me is some people actually see different colors after reading about the dress, or seeing a better photo of the dress.
[+] [-] jader201|11 years ago|reply
But what is fascinating to me is that the day following the debate, I saw the image in Wired [1] and for the life of me could not possibly see black and blue no matter how hard I tried.
I just now read this article, looked at the image at the bottom, then tried to find the original Wired image, and now cannot see white and gold. The influence is so strong that part of me almost thinks it's not the same image.
It sort of reminds me of when I first figured out how to "see" those stereograms, and how once you know how to see one of them, seeing any of them is easy.
[1] http://www.wired.com/2015/02/science-one-agrees-color-dress/
[+] [-] ars|11 years ago|reply
The next day, with the exact same image and background, the parts that were gold are now solid black, and I can not understand how they can possibly be gold.
I can understand how different eyes might see it differently, but how my own vision changed, and so completely, I don't understand.
It's like these images that trick a neural network: http://www.wired.com/2015/01/simple-pictures-state-art-ai-st...
[+] [-] jdmichal|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] pavel_lishin|11 years ago|reply
http://www.infinityplus.co.uk/stories/blit.htm
http://www.lightspeedmagazine.com/fiction/different-kinds-of...
http://ansible.uk/writing/c-b-faq.html
[+] [-] DanBC|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] georgemcbay|11 years ago|reply
http://www.cheswick.com/ches/projects/me/
[+] [-] niccl|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ars|11 years ago|reply
The eye does not transmit "dots" of color to the brain, but rather processes images very much.
Some of the "layers" that are transmitted are edge, motion, and color. So motion illusions happen in the eye.
[+] [-] rasz_pl|11 years ago|reply
I suspect people seeing white/gold live/grew up in sunny climate with blue sky, sea?, maybe blue walls/wallpaper in their bedroom. Basically people primed for seeing things illuminated by blue tinted light.
[+] [-] JohnHammersley|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] figseed|11 years ago|reply
I have now seen so many different sites and authors try to explain the phenomenon, all based on the "proof" that some random woman named Caitlin McNeil who first offered the disputed picture originally claiming she saw it as white and gold in the picture, saw it some days later in person, said it was definitely black and blue and offered a picture of an indisputably black and blue dress that appeared to be identical or at least too similar to be able to tell a difference definitely.
The issue to me is that I'm seeing sites like Wired and I fking love science explain how the dispute is possible based on optical illusions and ultimately say that the dress is black and blue because of the other image and the claims of a dress manufacturer with no credence to possibility that the dress in one picture may be different than the dress in the others and that dressgate might just be an elaborate hoax.
The thing is, you can just as easily explain why the dress is white and gold and appears blue and black to some people given the intense back lighting in the disputed image implying sunlight in the background and the effects of reflected UV light can play on shaded white objects (think black uv lights) or effects like solarization that can happen in digital imagery.
The thing is, I'm sick of hearing the dress is blue and black because "science", when science hasn't been involved in anyone's "proof" of the effect. What you have is a hypothesis. Want to make it a viable theory? Take the black and blue dress or one of the identical ones from the designer claiming that's their black and blue dress and recreate an identical image that appears white and gold with the same tonal qualities and environmental lighting. Until someone does that, I don't think there's any reason to continue "proving" why the dispute exists with non-science or arguing about this nonsensical bullshieza as it has become a gargantuan distraction from reality whether or not it was originally meant to be.
[+] [-] vacri|11 years ago|reply
Dismissing it as "'because science'" and demanding that there be an invalidated null hypothesis before you can draw on scientific knowledge is just being wilfully obstructive. Do you really re-do all your basic experiments before you conduct the one that rests on them?
[+] [-] chrismcb|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|11 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] ZenoArrow|11 years ago|reply
Take this example... http://assets-s3.usmagazine.com/uploads/assets/articles/8371...
Now does everyone seeing that see bronze and light blue on the left, and dark blue and black on the right?
Supposedly these are images of the same dress. If anyone suggests they're seeing the colours differently on this example, I'll be genuinely surprised, but at the moment I find that unlikely.
EDIT: ...and the downvotes have started. How predictable.
[+] [-] ronilan|11 years ago|reply
In the "classic illusions" everyone (or at least the vast majority) of people will describe what they are seeing in a similar manner (an "illusion").
Then, when given an "aid" (such as hiding part of the background) they will "flip" and describe what they are seeing in a different manner ("reality"). There is no such "aid" for the dress (or at least I haven't seen such).
It is thus not an "illusion". It is a segmented perception of reality, where reality is this one specific image discussed.
It demonstrates that given a specific set of colors on which there is no argument (see wired RGB image), a composition of those same colors can still be perceived differently, but consistently, by segments of the population. They see a different "truth".
BTW my 10 people sample had 5 blue eyed people in the black/blue camp and 5 green eyed people in the white/gold camp.
[+] [-] abroncs|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] clay_to_n|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] acdha|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] chrismcb|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] gohrt|11 years ago|reply
http://web.mit.edu/persci/people/adelson/checkershadow_illus...