Who remembers this?
-
My arguments haven't even touched on those areas
can you stop being annoying? I'm not gonna fall for your troll bait, so if you keep being annoying, I'll just block you lmao.I know, hence - lacking in understanding.
You fell for my troll bait 40msgs ago
-
I know, hence - lacking in understanding.
You fell for my troll bait 40msgs ago
for sure bro, you're really trolling me
-
No because it's your subconscious, otherwise you'd have no problem understanding why it's was ambigious. (Same applies for elevated beings - they can grasp differences in human colour perception).
And either way, even if your assumptions were true you still don't know the angle of the sun, potential coverings, etc. You can't predict the shade without that info so the logical choice would be to use the colours the pixels display.
The potential coverings would have to be exactly the shape of the dress because of the sleeves, no? We would see the shade passing underneath? Like onto the obvious clothing rack underneath the left sleeve?
-
On my phone the background of Lemmy (not the photo) is black. And what is clearly gold in the photos doesn't look anything like black.
I know the dress is blue and black and that's what pisses me off. I can't even see blue and black if I try.
I don't get it. It's clearly white and gold. How can anyone see black and blue?
-
The potential coverings would have to be exactly the shape of the dress because of the sleeves, no? We would see the shade passing underneath? Like onto the obvious clothing rack underneath the left sleeve?
No because you can't see the floor underneath.
Looks like a fence with holes in it to the left, can see the sun through the holes in the distance.
-
It sounds like you're agreeing with me that color perception relies on context, not just the color code of the pixel on the screen.
wrote last edited by [email protected]Right. Since we have no context, the dress is white and gold objectively. Assuming context of the color of the light is incorrect, we don't have it. The dress is actually black and purple but the image is doctored to be white and gold. So it's white and gold. The image is not the object. We're talking about the image, not the object.
Zooming up on the checker, it's objectively gray. Zooming out, it's objectively white. The only correct interpretation is the shadow darkens the image. But in the dress picture, we don't know what the color of the light is, so it's not comparable.
-
It's funny how people will keep barking about it even when you slap them in the face with color picker which is mathematical display of the color. There is no "how brain is seeing things". It's literally WHAT THE COLOR IS. To call white with faint blue tint "blue" and what is clearly a "gold" shade can't possibly be black. If photo was heavily manipulated through photo editing or lighting, that doesn't prove anything at all. Or the question was stupid. No one was really asking "what color is the dress", they were asking what colors are on the photo. And photo has no relation to the real dress because of light conditions manipulation or even photo editing.
wrote last edited by [email protected]This is the color picker in the image you replied to. Do you really think the colors on the left are white and the colors on the right are gold?
-
No because you can't see the floor underneath.
Looks like a fence with holes in it to the left, can see the sun through the holes in the distance.
Interesting.
Anyway, skill diff! See ya!
-
This post did not contain any content.
Thants so cool i finally got to see both color version and how my brain blends between them.
For anyone wondering how, I am in a dark room with the phone (darkmode lemmy) and it was looking white gold to me.
But when I squish my eyes to darken the incoming screen light and blocking of the right light background with my thumb I could make it fade into blue with black stripes. -
You missed the whole point. If I take a white dress and then shine a blue lamp on it, then take a photo.The pixels will be 100% blue, but would that mean the dress itself is blue?
If I showed you a picture of a green surface, and asked you what color it is, would you say that it's white and that there's probably green light shining on it?
-
I'm usually pretty good at shifting between the two ways to perceive optical illusions. But for this one I cannot see anything but white and gold. Even knowing that it's actually blue and black, I still see it as that.
Having seen (briefly) what you see, I get it.
-
This post did not contain any content.
Always saw it as white/gold first but after a few seconds I perceive it as blue/black and then it stays that way.
-
The claim mixes up how perception works and what people actually mean when they talk about top-down processing. White and gold viewers aren’t saying the pixels are literally white and gold—they’re saying the colors they perceive match most closely with that label, especially when those were the only options given. Many of them describe seeing pale blue and brown, which are the actual pixel values. That’s not bottom-up processing in the strict sense, because even that perception is shaped by how the brain interprets the image based on assumed lighting. You don’t just see wavelengths—you see surfaces under conditions your brain is constantly estimating. The dress image is ambiguous, so different people lock into different lighting models early in the process, and that influences what the colors look like. The snake example doesn’t hold up either. If the lighting changes and your perception doesn’t adjust, that’s when you’re more likely to get the snake’s color wrong. Contextual correction helps you survive, it doesn’t kill you. As for the brain scan data, higher activity in certain areas means more cognitive involvement, not necessarily error. There’s no evidence those areas were just shutting things down. The image is unstable, people resolve it differently, and that difference shows up in brain activity.
White and gold viewers aren’t saying the pixels are literally white and gold—they’re saying the colors they perceive match most closely with that label
I think all of the white-gold people are really condescending, explaining how their perception is correct and how blue-black people don't understand the image. Also, if they explain how the image looks white-gold enough, that the blue-black people will be wrong.
-
Were taking about the pixels on the screen, not the real dress though, the colors on screen are what you see and theyre gold and blue-white
Show me the white here. I thought gold was like a yellow orange, not a brown-grey color
-
This post did not contain any content.
Were people just stupid or something and not capable of knowing when the ambient light and camera is affecting the colour of the image?
WTF is this about people getting exact pixel colours?! The question is what colour is the dress, not the colour of the picture in which the dress is depicted!
Using pixel colour to determine the colour of a dress is like saying Martin Luther King had grey skin because the photo he's depicted in is in black and white!
-
White and gold viewers aren’t saying the pixels are literally white and gold—they’re saying the colors they perceive match most closely with that label
I think all of the white-gold people are really condescending, explaining how their perception is correct and how blue-black people don't understand the image. Also, if they explain how the image looks white-gold enough, that the blue-black people will be wrong.
explaining how their perception is correct and how blue-black people don't understand the image.
Well the ones that do understand the image by definition won't need it explained. There's no 'correct', if we're talking pixels/digital representation, it's white-gold (or light-blue and brown if we're being pedantic), if we're talking about what the physical dress is, it's blue and black.
If it were a white and gold dress and the light was reversed to shadow it'd likely be the other way about; some people would interpret it as the pixels displayed (blue and black), and others would subconsciously revert it to white and gold.
-
This post did not contain any content.
I still see both colors alternatingly.
-
Were people just stupid or something and not capable of knowing when the ambient light and camera is affecting the colour of the image?
WTF is this about people getting exact pixel colours?! The question is what colour is the dress, not the colour of the picture in which the dress is depicted!
Using pixel colour to determine the colour of a dress is like saying Martin Luther King had grey skin because the photo he's depicted in is in black and white!
So what color was his skin?
-
Were people just stupid or something and not capable of knowing when the ambient light and camera is affecting the colour of the image?
WTF is this about people getting exact pixel colours?! The question is what colour is the dress, not the colour of the picture in which the dress is depicted!
Using pixel colour to determine the colour of a dress is like saying Martin Luther King had grey skin because the photo he's depicted in is in black and white!
People were distributing edited versions of the dress image just to fuck with people. I'm convinced that trolling was the root of the entire "debate".
-
You can sample the colours and see it’s white with a very light blue tinge and gold.
People who see it as blue and black are (correctly in this case) auto-correcting for the yellow light as the dress itself is black and blue.
Whereas people who see it as white and gold are (subconsciously) assuming a blue shadow and seeing the pixels as they’re displayed.
wrote last edited by [email protected]You selected the brightest highlights on the dress. I selected more average colors here.
I also included WHITE AND GOLD next to the selected colors, so you can see what they actually look like. Are you really saying that blue is white and brown-grey is gold?
