Why is this still a thing
I can think of a comparable situation (and it's a better illustration imo):Spoiler (click to show/hide)
It is the light. It's quite simply, your eyes chromatic balancing adjusting for daylight, and erroneously interpreting this picture.I can think of a comparable situation (and it's a better illustration imo):Nope, people have altered the light around the dress but it does not work, and I personally saw the dress change color as I was watching it. It is NOT the surrounding light, might not even have anything to do with perception.Spoiler (click to show/hide)
man no wonder women take so long to get dress when their clothes change colours and shitFirst of all, sigging this.
It is the light. It's quite simply, your eyes chromatic balancing adjusting for daylight, and erroneously interpreting this picture.I can think of a comparable situation (and it's a better illustration imo):Nope, people have altered the light around the dress but it does not work, and I personally saw the dress change color as I was watching it. It is NOT the surrounding light, might not even have anything to do with perception.Spoiler (click to show/hide)
http://xkcd.com/1492/
http://www.wired.com/2015/02/science-one-agrees-color-dress/
No, you don't get to post a comic and call that evidence that it's the light. I have surrounded the dress in that blue color and I still see blue and black. I have seen the color change in real time without any lighting changes. You are wrong, plain and simple.
This is thus, factually and completely wrong.Why is this still a thing
Because no one can explain it! People have thrown out hundreds of explanations, but not have actually been demonstrated as working. I can't even think of a comparable situation.
Why is this still a thing
I can think of a comparable situation (and it's a better illustration imo):Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Nope, people have altered the light around the dress but it does not work, and I personally saw the dress change color as I was watching it. It is NOT the surrounding light, might not even have anything to do with perception.
No, you don't get to post a comic and call that evidence that it's the light. I have surrounded the dress in that blue color and I still see blue and black. I have seen the color change in real time without any lighting changes. You are wrong, plain and simple.
You, sadly, do not get to act condensing while you're denying reality. I mean, in the OP you mention seeing a video where you saw the dress changing, and guess what it did, it changed the background chromatic saturation.
I mean, you see that xkcd picture right? Both of the drawn dresses are the same colour, so unless you see them on both sides as the same, I consider my argument proven. It might not always work with the actual dresses, because your brain will try to maintain consistency of detail before giving up at random moments. The actual mechanic is described in the article.This is thus, factually and completely wrong.Why is this still a thing
Because no one can explain it! People have thrown out hundreds of explanations, but not have actually been demonstrated as working. I can't even think of a comparable situation.
The correct statement, is that you don't want to accept any explanation. Feel free to go on and believe, but don't try convince others without something approaching actual evidence.
Yep it's anecdotal, but I have explained a method to determine this for yourself. Surround the dress in different colors. All I can say is that it's still black and blue, but what I'm not saying is "I know the answer, it's X and anyone who disagrees is just mistaken".I can think of a comparable situation (and it's a better illustration imo):Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Nope, people have altered the light around the dress but it does not work, and I personally saw the dress change color as I was watching it. It is NOT the surrounding light, might not even have anything to do with perception.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anecdotal_evidence
You have no idea what video I was watching. There was not a background color change. If you want to check yourself, it was the REACT channel on youtube, very first few seconds once the dress appears. I also mentioned that after rewinding the video to look at it again, it was still black and blue. But no, you ignored this entirely and imagined a situation in which your explanation was true.
- And again, you do not get to post a picture of a comic manufactured to create an illusion and then say it applies to a real life picture! If you want to do this, surround the ACTUAL PICTURE in the different colors and use THAT to prove your explanation. But you cannot, because it doesn't work.
- An article saying that this is how it works does not mean this is how it works. There are many articles with many explanations. You chose one and stuck with it without evidence other than a hand drawn comic panel.And you have provided exactly zero evidence to the contrary.
Yep it's anecdotal, but I have explained a method to determine this for yourself. Surround the dress in different colors. All I can say is that it's still black and blue, but what I'm not saying is "I know the answer, it's X and anyone who disagrees is just mistaken".
Great! Show me! I would love to see the color(s) that make this work. But I have the sneaking suspicion that you are bullshitting and don't understand that "science" is not filled with assertions and no tests. Simply pointing to a common illusion and saying "this seems reasonable to me" is not science. Posting an image where the dress looks white and gold due to the background color is science, and if it works, I will gladly admit I am wrong.Yep it's anecdotal, but I have explained a method to determine this for yourself. Surround the dress in different colors. All I can say is that it's still black and blue, but what I'm not saying is "I know the answer, it's X and anyone who disagrees is just mistaken".
When I do it, it switches from blue and black to white and gold.
Therefore, your test fails when reproduced, unlike the thing you're arguing against. This is basically straight-up disproving what you're saying, just as the Pinwheel Galaxy was proven to be galaxy-sized when it was shown that one could not witness it rotate in a human lifetime. Calling someone else oblivious because their perception is not the same as yours is horribly presumptuous.
I mean, you see that xkcd picture right? Both of the drawn dresses are the same colour, so unless you see them on both sides as the same, I consider my argument proven.I see them both as exactly the same color. Well the stripes appear lighter/brownish gold in the left one, but there is no way in hell that resembles white.
Nope, people have altered the light around the dress but it does not work, and I personally saw the dress change color as I was watching it. It is NOT the surrounding light, might not even have anything to do with perception.The experiences you are presenting here do not contradict the (completely correct) claim that it is based on the surrounding lighting. I'm not even sure how you could suggest it's nothing to do with perception unless you think the dress is literally magic.
There is no reason for this to exist other than one or two people denying the fact that it's a damn optical illusion and we know how it works. Could we just lock this and move on?Agreed, moving on.
Nope, people have altered the light around the dress but it does not work, and I personally saw the dress change color as I was watching it. It is NOT the surrounding light, might not even have anything to do with perception.The experiences you are presenting here do not contradict the (completely correct) claim that it is based on the surrounding lighting. I'm not even sure how you could suggest it's nothing to do with perception unless you think the dress is literally magic.
When your brain sees an image like that it tries to automatically take into account the lighting of the image and correct the colours to what it thinks they should be in reality. You can see a clear example of this in the optical illusion that you're quoting - A and B are the same colours, but your brain sees them as different because it thinks one of them is in a shadow.
Now, due to the overexposed nature of the dress photo the lighting is ambiguous. There are multiple interpretations your brain could arrive at - it could be a gold/white dress if it's dark, or a black/blue dress if it isn't.
When your brain is presented with an ambiguous situation like this it is sometimes possible for it to go back and forth on interpretations. Consider the vase/two faces picture, or this rather famous spinning lady (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Spinning_Dancer.gif). If you try hard enough you can switch back and forth between the two interpretations - that doesn't mean that magic is going on, it just means that the image is effectively presenting your brain with a puzzle that has two solutions.
You'll have to go into detail on what you mean by "people have altered the surrounding light and it does not work" by providing examples where it has not worked for you, but it could just mean your brain was set in one interpretation and refusing to change it when you viewed those images. Alternatively it could just mean those particular graphics were poorly made and do not in fact go far enough in making the image unambiguously one lighting level or the other.
Fact: The illusion you are talking about exists.There is no reason for this to exist other than one or two people denying the fact that it's a damn optical illusion and we know how it works. Could we just lock this and move on?Agreed, moving on.
Fact: The illusion you are talking about exists.
Fiction: The illusion has been presented with the dress to show this happening.
You are the one here that is declaring your hypothesis is right without any decent evidence. If the same standards were followed for all scientific studies done so far, we would be decades behind.
Ok I will make this clear. Unlike the illusions, I cannot see both situations. I have seen white and gold only once, not in a situation where surrounding light would have an effect and had it change before my eyes. Take the dress and surround it in whatever color you like, it does not change color (don't know if this is the same for white/gold to black/blue people). The only thing anyone has done, is post pictures of these illusions without actually demonstrating that this happens with the actual picture of the dress.
you see that xkcd picture right? Both of the drawn dresses are the same colour, so unless
you see them on both sides as the same, I consider my argument proven.
That is the image from the OP on the left, next to the image from the OP color inverted on the right. To those who see the dress on the left as white and gold, do you also see the color inverted dress as also white and gold? Does that not seem peculiar?
2) For those who see white and gold, look at the image in the OP. Now either tilt your monitor or stand up and adjust your angle of view to the screen. As you approach 180 degrees, does the white and gold definitely change appearance to blue and black? Now, perform the same test with the xkcd image. Does this same color-change phenomenon not occur?
a thing I tried was taking RGB values from both colors in the picture and painting full screens of them.Really?
When shown those colors alone, without the background of the picture or lightning effects... people who used to see them as black and blue kept seeing them as black and blue. People who saw them as white and gold kept seeing them as such. Sadly, I only tried it on people who knew what I was doing, so it is not really that impartial of a test.Still, it seems odd that this illusion is entirely based on background contrast. I am among people who don't see any dramatic change in dress color as the background changes(not that I don't see any change, but not enough to turn gold into pitch)
you see that xkcd picture right? Both of the drawn dresses are the same colour, so unless
you see them on both sides as the same, I consider my argument proven.
Regarding the xkcd explanation, while I acknowledge that phenomenon, I believe it may be insufficient in this case. I present two pieces of evidence:
1) http://i.imgur.com/Ktscov0.png
That is the image from the OP on the left, next to the image from the OP color inverted on the right. To those who see the dress on the left as white and gold, do you also see the color inverted dress as also white and gold? Does that not seem peculiar?
Both images remain yellow to bluish white regardless of viewing angle.
2) nope. whatever effect you are looking for, I am not seeing it.
*tilts laptop screen*
mind=blown
I'm pretty sure you're just getting into polarization effects on the display that have nothing to do with the picture now.Yeah, I suspected that. In fact, I'm quite certain that is the case.
Interestingly enough, it's white and gold, but with the bands switched. Not what I see when I tilt the screen... I have no idea what is going on. Could the negative of the picture have to do with why people see white and gold?It's completely logical for it to be white and gold with the bands switched. After all, what many people see as gold, is actually black, thus when inverted becomes white. What many people see as white, but is in reality blue, becomes yellow when inverted. The illusion itself is completely lost in the inversion.
EDIT: Wait....do people who see a white and gold dress see the negative in blue and black???Not that I know off. No logical reason for that to happen.
There totally needs to be an SCP for this dress.
There totally needs to be an SCP for this dress.
There totally needs to be an SCP for this dress.
No, not it does not. (http://www.scp-wiki.net/log-of-anomalous-items) (check the history of the page)