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!
Part of the reason it can be hard to tell is because we cannot see a source of the ambient light shining onto the part of the dress we see. The reason I see white and gold is because my brain defaults to the back lighting being sunlight and the overhead being shaded by tent. Not uncommon at rennaissance fairs and the like. But if you see this all as in door lighting it’s much easier to imagine bright overhead department store lights or something.
So no, no one is stupid for seeing it one way or the other.
Nah, it’s actually possible to see each version. There are actually three: white and gold, blue and black, blue and brown. It’s like those “magic eye puzzles”. It just kinda pops into place when it happens. Depending on the lighting in your room and what colors your eyes have recently been looking at, your eyes will see it differently. It has partly to do with how what you “see” is a hodgepodge of signals all being processed into one “image” and the way we process color.
You are correct tho, objectively the image is a specific RGB value and has a defined “color”. That whole divergence between what it is and what it appears to be is the very subject of all those research papers.
I believe one of the ways to easily defeat this trick is to put the dress on a person. The skin tone will act as a known reference point for the rest.
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”.
Part of the reason it can be hard to tell is because we cannot see a source of the ambient light shining onto the part of the dress we see. The reason I see white and gold is because my brain defaults to the back lighting being sunlight and the overhead being shaded by tent. Not uncommon at rennaissance fairs and the like. But if you see this all as in door lighting it’s much easier to imagine bright overhead department store lights or something.
So no, no one is stupid for seeing it one way or the other.
Nah, it’s actually possible to see each version. There are actually three: white and gold, blue and black, blue and brown. It’s like those “magic eye puzzles”. It just kinda pops into place when it happens. Depending on the lighting in your room and what colors your eyes have recently been looking at, your eyes will see it differently. It has partly to do with how what you “see” is a hodgepodge of signals all being processed into one “image” and the way we process color.
You are correct tho, objectively the image is a specific RGB value and has a defined “color”. That whole divergence between what it is and what it appears to be is the very subject of all those research papers.
I believe one of the ways to easily defeat this trick is to put the dress on a person. The skin tone will act as a known reference point for the rest.
So what color was his skin?
Brown?