Originally Posted by Aliens
is a great and fun test. The wife and I have had our differences in what we see when it comes to color. She "thought" what she was seeing was correct, and in her mind I was always wrong. I skunked her in this test.
So you’re good at taking tests. So am I. Got a perfect score on the computer version, just like I did with color pegs way back when computer screens were all monochrome.
Meanwhile, back in the real world, a friend and I were riding water taxis around Baltimore’s Inner Harbor, and we had a map showing all the taxi routes in different colors. But to me, two of the colors seemed like nearly identical shades of magenta, while my friend thought I should have my eyes check because to her the difference in color was glaringly obvious.
So I wouldn’t divorce your wife over her “inferior” color perception. You never know when you might need her to correctly read a map for you.
Originally Posted by dattier
I've never heard of Radiolab before, but I've heard enough now never to watch it, whatever it is, nor to trust anything from Kevin Loria.
Well, watching radio is generally boring, and also dangerous while driving, but I actually tuned in to the middle of this show while driving one day, and once I started listening, I couldn’t change the station or turn it off. It was really quite fascinating stuff.
Originally Posted by dattier
Anyhow, as a person who has seen off-white and bronze in all images of that dress (except the video of it on ABC News two nights ago,
And yet you question the idea of people being unable to perceive blue…
I’ll give you this though:
Originally Posted by dad1153
No one could see the color blue until modern times
By Kevin Loria, BusinessInsider.com - Feb. 27, 2015
. . .
A researcher named Jules Davidoff traveled to Namibia to investigate this, where he conducted an experiment with the Himba tribe, who speak a language that has no word for blue or distinction between blue and green.
When shown a circle with 11 green squares and one blue, they couldn't pick out which one was different from the others — or those who could see a difference took much longer and made more mistakes than would make sense to us, who can clearly spot the blue square.
But the Himba have more words for types of green than we do in English.
When looking at a circle of green squares with only one slightly different shade, they could immediately spot the different one.
So doesn’t this suggest then that they could readily distinguish blue from that slightly different shade of green? (And presumably the many other shades of green they have words for as well?) And if it’s only one particular shade of green that looks to them like what we call blue, doesn’t that suggest that this is more a matter of where one draws perceptual boundaries in labeling than an inability to see a basic color, per se?
Originally Posted by VisionOn
The entire argument can be brought to a decisive end by opening the image in question in an image editor or by using a simple tool like Color Picker which will measure the values of every pixel you are see on your screen.
If your computer is telling you in hard numbers what color you are looking at and you see something differently then you are simply wrong. If it looks different to the original on another computer then the person who uploaded that image was wrong.
Nope, sorry, you are simply wrong.
Human vision is not designed to measure light frequencies or intensities, but rather to provide a more or less constant representation of the world.
You can see this very clearly in Adelson’s “Checker-shadow illusion”:
Photographic and video reproductions, meanwhile, take advantage of our trichromatic perceptual system to create color simulations that we perceive as matching “real” or “natural” colors, but in fact, do nothing of the sort. Indeed, if our eyes processed the visible light spectrum the way our ears do the audio spectrum, none of us would see anything on a TV or computer screen but a cacophonous mess of red, green, and blue light, not necessarily matching the “color” of anything natural at all.
The dress issue is not about the color calibration of people’s screens. People look at the same image on the same screen and see different colors, depending on whether or not their brains compensate for the lighting depicted in the photograph and/or the washed out and generally poor quality of the image. Those who compensate “correctly” see the dress more like it “really” “is”; those who don’t may well be seeing something closer to those “hard numbers” you talk about.
Originally Posted by thefrain
I may not be understanding the initial debate. Is this what the dress looks like in person or what it looks like given a photographed image?
The real world question was the about color of the dress, not qualities of the picture. Honestly, only here in AVS could we turn this into a debate over pixel values and such.
Live long and prosper.