Who remembers this?
-
Don't forget Laurel and Yani!
i hear Laurel at high volumes and Yanny at low volumes, and if i turn down/up the volume little by little i can hear the same one across all volumes ( brain resets after a few seconds of not listening)
-
The whole argument around it is not how we perceive it but how camera perceived it in a flawed lighting condition.
That's like taking a shitty 2 Mpix photo with a potato from 2003 and truncate it to 8 bits and then claim broccoli is fucking blue because the camera had no fucking concept of a tone mapping or color temperature and captured it as blue.
Also if you put color picker on it it'll be in the white spectrum and barely register a mild hint of blue. And if the dress was blue, then you're one shitty ass photographer and has nothing to do with our actual eyes. You can make a blue dress look almost white. Anyone who ever had aquarium with beautiful metallic blue fish and used wrong lighting and turned them into bland beige silver color will know what I'm talking about.
It's not as simple as that. There actually is a human perception element. Take a copy and ask a few people what they see. Even while you are all looking at the exact same thing, people can disagree. It can even happen to you where the colours flip.
-
The dress is a bistable picture, similar to the Spinning Dancer, which you can consciously reverse the direction of spin with some practice.
To see the dress as blue-black, I first look at the black dress in the bottom-left corner, then shift gaze to the main dress when colour is established.
To see the dress as white-gold, I first look at the sunny regions on the right, then move gaze across, when the main dress goes to white-gold.
-
It may help to cover or mask the opposite region, when focusing on one side.
-
For detail, 10 years ago I saw this as white-gold and did not change from that perception. Did not know what all the fuss was about this dress.
Today, I saw it as white-gold initially, but 10 minutes later, after two friends saw it as blue-black, I also saw it as blue-black and could not shake it.
Your comment caused me to scroll back up to try to force the white and gold (love the spinning dancer) but as soon as I got there the dress was already white and gold despite the black and blue I had initially seen.
Wild.
-
-
This post did not contain any content.
This is flicking between white and gold and black and blue each time I scroll past it.
-
Not even the brighter version looks white and gold to me. It's so obviously blue and black, y'all are insane.
I understand doubting the white but seeing black in that gold was what I could never buy. To me it seemed like light blue-grey with matte gold.
-
Because no one has posted the other photos:
And this is a photo of the same dress taken under proper lighting:
No way, really ? I really thought it was always white and gold. This cannot be the same dress, I do not trust my eyes anymore
-
I'm still convinced this is the biggest troll. It's clearly white and gold
I've always really liked this explanation image you can find on Wikipedia page for it. Essentially, people who see white and gold are mistaking the lighting to be cold and blue-tinted, rather than warm and yellow-tinted.
The portions inside the boxes are the exact same colors, you can easily check this with a color picker.
-
I can literally switch between perceptions with this exact image. Itās sort of like that āare there six cubes or tenā illusion. Depending on how I look at it, I can see either one.
Exactly. Or that silhouette of a spinning ballerina. I can switch the direction that she is spinning at will as well. There's nothing to go by because it's a perfectly flat, projected silhouette without any shadows, so anybody is free to interpret the rotation however they like.
-
Not even the brighter version looks white and gold to me. It's so obviously blue and black, y'all are insane.
wrote last edited by [email protected]When i first opened the image, it was undeniably white/gold to me, and I could not trick myself into seeing black/blue. After looking at the HQ image above, now I can not see white/gold anymore.
Edit: After writing this comment, it is back to white/gold.
-
Not even the brighter version looks white and gold to me. It's so obviously blue and black, y'all are insane.
Let's do this again!
Seriously WTF??? It's freakin white.and.gold.
-
Not even the brighter version looks white and gold to me. It's so obviously blue and black, y'all are insane.
Iām with you. This viral moment never made sense to me cuz I can never see anything else even with my wildest imagination.
-
Ok this one is crazy, because I hear whatever Iām consciously thinking of. āBrainstormā, āgreen needleā, ābrain needleā, āgreen stormā. Itās actually tripping me out.
Btw I still hear ālaurelā every time. I can hear āyannyā in the background if I really focus, but I always hear ālaurelā as well.
Craziest one that's worked on me seeing both. Only hear yanny, no concept of laurel
-
The dress is a bistable picture, similar to the Spinning Dancer, which you can consciously reverse the direction of spin with some practice.
To see the dress as blue-black, I first look at the black dress in the bottom-left corner, then shift gaze to the main dress when colour is established.
To see the dress as white-gold, I first look at the sunny regions on the right, then move gaze across, when the main dress goes to white-gold.
-
It may help to cover or mask the opposite region, when focusing on one side.
-
For detail, 10 years ago I saw this as white-gold and did not change from that perception. Did not know what all the fuss was about this dress.
Today, I saw it as white-gold initially, but 10 minutes later, after two friends saw it as blue-black, I also saw it as blue-black and could not shake it.
Yeah it sas white and gold initially, then i consciously thought of it as blue and black, and now i cannot go back to white and gold even with your instructions...
It definitely seems to be a conscious focus on contrast that defines its colors
-
-
I could understand gold, but where the hell do you see white on this picture?
White clothes under shade looks blueish
-
No, two people can be looking at the same screen and perceive it differently.
Yes I know, I'm not denying that
-
I still donāt see either. It looks blue and gold to me
THANK YOU
This is the first time I've seen this take upvoted.
-
I've always really liked this explanation image you can find on Wikipedia page for it. Essentially, people who see white and gold are mistaking the lighting to be cold and blue-tinted, rather than warm and yellow-tinted.
The portions inside the boxes are the exact same colors, you can easily check this with a color picker.
wrote last edited by [email protected]Yeah, this is the best explanation for why this 'controvesy' happened.
Certain background lighting conditions and colors can significantly alter the color and luminance of certain objects in that lighting environment, which otherwise, in less extreme lighting environments, look different.
Even just understanding basic color theory can show you how to make a color pallette out of either mutually complimentary colors, or highly contrasting colors... and how humans largely, (though apparently to differing extents and by different means), interpret a total color space by comparing and contrasting the colors within that space to each other, as opposed to against some objective reference point of all possible colors.
The other part of this explanation is that...
People were not talking about the same image.
Someone would argue one way, another person argues another way, and then someone else would do some kind of photoshop job to argue for one side, and their explanation and reasoning and justification would get lost, and ok now you have multiple images spreading around and being argued over by the same population that would...
... in 5 years, essentially start a civil war over the idea of whether or not it makes sense to wear a mask during an epidemic of a virus transmitted in the aerosolized spittle from sneezes, coughs, and even just breathing.
But yeah, when this was an ongoing thing, I'd have multiple different people in different camps... sending me actually different images, and it took a while to figure out which one was the actual original origin image.
Which of course I had to do on my own, but critical thinking and basic research skills, an impulse to verify the base assumptions of a claim or argument... many people do not know how to do this, or only selectively do it with things that challenge their pre-existing notions.
-
This post did not contain any content.
10 years? No way
-
am I part of the joke here??? It's clearly blue and black...
The objective fact isā¦it is a blue and black dress. Other photos of the same dress show that.
But I cannot, for the life of me, see how anyone can possibly get that from this photo. Sample the RGB values all you want and it clearly is not black in this photo. The exposure and white balance have messed around with it so much it is incomprehensible to me how anyone can see it as blue and black.
wrote last edited by [email protected]I dunno. Itās clearly a blue and black dress in a washed-out photo.
I guess Iām just used to seeing washed-out photos, and mentally adjusting the āwhitepoint/exposureā (Iām not a photographer) in my brain or whatever.
I have washed out Polaroids from my childhood, so. I donāt think thereās any great mystery here.
-
Yeah, this is the best explanation for why this 'controvesy' happened.
Certain background lighting conditions and colors can significantly alter the color and luminance of certain objects in that lighting environment, which otherwise, in less extreme lighting environments, look different.
Even just understanding basic color theory can show you how to make a color pallette out of either mutually complimentary colors, or highly contrasting colors... and how humans largely, (though apparently to differing extents and by different means), interpret a total color space by comparing and contrasting the colors within that space to each other, as opposed to against some objective reference point of all possible colors.
The other part of this explanation is that...
People were not talking about the same image.
Someone would argue one way, another person argues another way, and then someone else would do some kind of photoshop job to argue for one side, and their explanation and reasoning and justification would get lost, and ok now you have multiple images spreading around and being argued over by the same population that would...
... in 5 years, essentially start a civil war over the idea of whether or not it makes sense to wear a mask during an epidemic of a virus transmitted in the aerosolized spittle from sneezes, coughs, and even just breathing.
But yeah, when this was an ongoing thing, I'd have multiple different people in different camps... sending me actually different images, and it took a while to figure out which one was the actual original origin image.
Which of course I had to do on my own, but critical thinking and basic research skills, an impulse to verify the base assumptions of a claim or argument... many people do not know how to do this, or only selectively do it with things that challenge their pre-existing notions.
Yeah that would never happen a war. Imagine of 3 groups of people worshipped the same God, just prayed to him on the floor, to a wall, and to the ceiling.- I'm sure they would get along and be super harmonious.
