712
Who remembers this? (piefed.cdn.blahaj.zone)
submitted 1 year ago by to c/memes@lemmy.world
386 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 86 points 1 year ago (29 children)

am I part of the joke here??? It's clearly blue and black...

The objective fact is…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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 29 child comments
    •
  • [–] 19 points 1 year ago (11 children)

    Optical illusion innit

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 11 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    If anything, I'm more interested in how THAT color is being interpreted than the dress itself. Does it become shade to people because they perceive it relative to the dress? Because, I mean, we know that it is factually light. So how are people perceiving it to be the absence of light? Can you explain that bit?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago

    The brain doesn’t just read raw brightness; it interprets that brightness in relation to what it thinks is going on in the scene.

    So when someone sees the dress as white and gold, they’re usually assuming the scene is lit by cool, natural light — like sunlight or shade. That makes the brain treat the lighter areas as a white-ish or light blue material under shadow. The darker areas (what you see as black) become gold or brown, because the brain thinks it’s seeing lighter fabric catching less light.

    You, on the other hand, are likely interpreting the lighting as warm and direct — maybe indoor, overexposed lighting. So your brain treats the pale pixels not as light-colored fabric, but as light reflecting off a darker blue surface. The same with the black: it’s being “lightened” by the glare which changes the pixel representation to gold, but you interpret it as black under strong light, not gold.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] -1 points 1 year ago (8 children)

    Hey, just arguing with you in a different comment chain now. So, like, I see the optical illusion. But the background is clearly yellow in the picture? So I don't understand how your brain is interpreting that part? To me it seems like you're ignoring the background of the image for this point. Can you go more in depth on that part, specifically? Does that yellow light look blue to you?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (7 children)

    Looks like a sunny background and that the dress is in the shade

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 1 year ago (6 children)

    So the idea is that the dress is, what, covered in an exactly dress shaped and sized amount of shade? Or else why wouldn't we see shade anywhere else?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (5 children)

    Because shade works in 3D and it's not clear how far away the background is from this picture. But yes, 'dress shaped and size amounts of shade' exist; trees, could be on a shaded balcony, etc.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 1 year ago (4 children)

    Maybe I'm just an elevated being but I can clearly tell that the righthand side is a mirror on a wall and that the tan below it is where the floor meets the wall. Because of that, I can roughly make out the angle and know that we should be seeing some shade on the side if any existed in the first place.

    Does that make sense?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (3 children)

    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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    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?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 23 points 1 year ago (10 children)

    The lighting of the room is clearly yellow. The black stripes look to be a very glossy material, which when lit with yellow light reflects goldish. There's no way that lighting turns a white dress blue.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (3 children)

    What room? It looks like we're looking at the back of an object that's facing out into bright sunlight.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (2 children)

    Whatever the setting is, it appears to be bathed in bright sunlight. That's the important part.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (1 child)

    The front of it presumably is. But the back, that we're looking at, seems to be in shade.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 7 points 1 year ago* (3 children)

    See, it always looked to me like blue light (or maybe shadow) around the dress itself, where the only sense it makes to my brain is that the fabric is white.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 4 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    Whatever is to the right and behind the dress is definitely in bright yellow light.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (1 child)

    Behind the dress, yes. No one's disputing that. The difference between that bright light and the dress itself makes it look like it's in shadow, at least to some of us.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 42 points 1 year ago (4 children)

    "The phenomenon revealed difference in human color perception..."

    Yes, you're becoming a part of the joke. People LITERALLY see the dress differently. It doesn't matter what the objective facts are. TBH, it says a lot about humanity. Even when we have evidence that subjective experiences can vary, and even contradict each other, we still end up arguing over whose viewpoint is "correct".

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 5 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    That we’re curious problem solvers?

    Anyway, science has determined that my way is most based

    A study carried out by Schlaffke et al. reported that individuals who saw the dress as white and gold showed increased activity in the frontal and parietal regions of the brain. These areas are thought to be critical in higher cognition activities such as top-down modulation in visual perception

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •