/sci/ - Science & Math

>>15780997
no but it's terrifying how this dress is supposed to be blue like the sky. And black like charcoal. I couldn't see it. I wonder how many things I can't see but assume that I can.

We aren't on the same page about anything in this world. It's a coin toss if people can understand what you're saying and seeing

>>15780997
yesn't

>>15781013
This is resolved super easily. It's not clear from the image whether the dress is in the light or not. People claiming it's totes just blue and black or totes just white and gold and calling the other side retarded are the dumbest. It's ambiguous from the visual information provided by the image.

>>15780997
In different inertial frames? Yes, the frequency can change
In the same inertial frame? No, it will have the same, definitive, energy
>>15781016
You can take sample hex codes for the picture across the dress. Some of the black parts do take lighter hexcodes (shitty lighting) but it's always blue

>>15780997
That depends on how you define colour. Wavelength can be objectively measured, but different cultures distinguish shades differently. So, in conclusion, >>15781014

>>15781030
Are you an engineer?

>>15780997
you gotta be a retard to see the super bright background and not realize the dress in the foreground is blue and black. black looks gold in glare. the blue is still blue even ffs

>>15781030
Why do we think the camera is not biased?

>>15780997
I don't know how to see white and gold. I saw it ONCE a few years ago and never again

>>15781060
same

>>15781030
>hex codes
Irrelevant. The question is what colors are on the dress. You did not understand what I wrote.

>>15780997
https://www.dailymotion.com/video/xl7eh1

>>15780997
what do you mean "relative"

>>15781013
I understand Anon.

>>15780997
I can mentally switch between white/gold and black/blue just as I can mentally switch the rotating ballerina. But I initially saw it as white/gold and it took me a lot of focus to begin seeing blue/back.

>>15780997
got cousins, aunts, uncles. dont think any of them are color

>>15780997
>warm bright incandescent light is the major bright part of the image
>camera auto whitebalances for it to make that section of the image white
>the dress is now cooler in temperature(blue)

This while "discussion" is about the low IQs being unable to think logically.

>>15781538
Fake

>>15781046
it could be biased, but its the only data set we have to work with. so we have to decide if we trust our sensor or not a d go from there

>>15781036
Not that anon but I'm an engineer and that's exactly what I did when the dress first popped up a few years ago. You've got us pegged correctly as often being overly literal about things. Since much of our (as in society as a whole) day is spent under artificial lighting, the CRI can vary greatly even for "white" light, causing some things to appear to be a different color than they would be with full spectrum lighting. In that context, is it really wrong to say something is a different color due to only certain wavelengths being available to be reflected into our eyes? A red shirt under a green light won't look red, so is it red or muddy brown?

>>15780997
Yes. Color is something that doesn't "exist" until observed by something able to process said frequency of light.

>>15781116
Retard

>>15781013
>>15781016
>>15781030
>relative = subjective
holy cringe, color is subjective, not relative. meaning it is an emergent property of mind and matter interacting. A colorblind person doesn't change anything about mind-independent reality.

>>15780997

Color is fixed, but internal interpretation of the color is variable.

>>15781060
When I look at the thumbnail, I see white and gold. When I look at the top half, I see blue and gold. When I look at the bottom half, I see blue and black.

I really don't understand how you could see white and gold and the right answer is blue
>>15782728
If this picture explains it, how are people seeing a dark background when the background is clearly bright af

>>15782533
>implying wavelength is subjective
>implying dyes are subjective
>implying cone responses are subjective
>implying rgb codes are subjective
Pseud.

>>15782786
>how are people seeing a dark background when the background is clearly bright af

Some perceive the image as, she is in a dark room with camera facing a bright outside.
Therefore the brain adjusts the perception of the color accordingly.

>>15781116
The hex codes are entirely relevant, because it shows that the same colors can be interpreted in different ways depending on context (or perceived context: whether this is on the bright or dark side of the dress in this case), which demonstrates that the light is not relative but the perception of color (which is a purely mental phenomenon) is.

>>15782795
See above, retard.

>>15782786
You have it backwards, which isn't actually illustrated by that image: we see it gold and white because we're interpreting the bright background as meaning we're seeing the dark side of the shadow. Blue and black people are (correctly) interpreting it as being bright and hence washed out.

Is sound relative?

https://twitter.com/BFriedmanDC/status/1289283118730534912

>>15781276
I first saw it at white and gold but now it's black/blue just like you. I wonder if there's anything science behind that change.

>>15780997
Yes it's relative to your eye organ.

>>15780997
you just colorblind

>>15780997
the nonsense around this is entirely due to the washout of light proving the dress is in fact white and gold. if you see the dress by itself it's obviously blue and brown, but your brain corrects for the over-exposure and fixes the colors. case in point, i've never encountered anyone who sees the attached as white and gold.

>>15780997
Might depend on the definition of relative. If chromophores determine color and your body has a set that corresponds to responses to outside waves, looks like it.

>>15781060
I've seen two versions of this image side by side. One blue and black and the other white and gold.

>>15781060
>>15781078
Because it's blue.

>>15782885
Why would a concave impression cast a shadow?

>>15786080
I remember when i saw white and gold, it definitely did not look like the one in the left.

>>15781060
What do you see? Is this some kind of a bait?

>>15786080
Dumbass.

How people can see anything other than black and blue is beyond me. Is there a way to trick your eyes to see it as white and gold?

>>15786181
What are you trying to show me, dumbass?

>>15786182
what part of it is black? ffs do you know what black looks like? it is gold or yellowish or light brownish or whatever. it is not even close to black. It is a light color.

>>15786211
That part is, in actuality, black and you have been fooled by a trick of the light

>>15784751
>i've never encountered anyone who sees the attached as white and gold.

Hello... its me... I see white and gold

>>15786705
Look at the right arm. its free

>>15784751
Like, really? I could swear on my mom's tits I see white and gold.

>>15781030
So... this confirms it's light blue and brown/gold, right?

>>15787826
No, and you are naive for thinking it does

>>15786705
This is cool. Very trippy since I can switch it at will, though I will say I default to one direction of spinning.

>>15781016
Exactly. I see it as white and gold because there's light behind it so that means you're seeing it in darkness.

>>15788853
If there's a bright light, the side of an object facing AWAY from that light will be dark, as in the side of the dress you are seeing in the image.

>>15781016
it's literally blue and black. the pixels are blue and black and the real life dress is blue and black. if you see white and gold you're defective.

>>15781060
>>15781078
thats fucked up cause i also saw it once and never again. how is that a common experience

>>15780997
>Is color relative?

It's not that color is relative, but our brains if analog signal processors that use "relative" light levels for color identification.
Google "Checker shadow illusion" to see another example that proves this.

I always see blue and black, except one time I saw white and gold but I think it was some article that was demonstrating what that looked like. Something I don't understand is why people question if other people's perception of colors is different, for instance red to me looks like another person's blue. I get that it's a matter of qualia and no one can know what colors look like to someone else. But considering how people consistently find color combinations pleasing to look at, I just see it as unlikely.

>>15782786
>>15782728
>People who live in sunny places see former
>People who live in dark and cloudy places see the latter
makes sense to me

>>15780997
In order to believe that the dress is white but is in shadow you'd have to think that shadows are sky blue. That's my take away from this. People think shadows are somehow blue.

>>15780997
Color doesn't exist. Color is just a fabrication of the mind which doesn't exist in the physical world.

>>15780997
if they teach you what you see is blue red green as color then you will take this as base of your color cone vibration

Is this some kind of a psyop? How can anyone confuse dark and light colors? I don't see any dark colors in that picture. It is definitely gold and white. Well "white" could have a bluish/grayish tinge to it but it is still a light color. How can you possible see black? like pitch black? #000000? When it is a light color?? Makes no sense. This must be bait.

>>15790499
The dress is literally confirmed to be black and blue lmao

>>15790564
The actual dress doesn't matter. We talk about the image on the screen.

>>15780997
yes, relative to some material of the eye or brain, hence why some people are labelled as colour blind

>>15790811
We are talking about the real-world object represented by the image on the screen. If we're just talking about the picture itself, though, here's your answer: >>15781030
Those are the actual colours in the image.
Just curious, have you had your autism diagnosis yet?

>>15784751
It's white and gold. Or, greyish/blueish white and gold. Which is objectively true.

>>15791306
>We are talking about the real-world object represented by the image on the screen
In this case, camera does not accurately/unambiguously communicate the real-world context (is the dress in the shade or not). So what's the correct answer? Assuming the context and correcting for it, or objectively look at the provided image?

>>15790499
Ma'am you're not supposed to be on the internet.

>>15791627
Looking up the actual dress. You're objectively wrong about it.
But absent that, sure, we can either assume context, which is what gave rise to the controversy due to its ambiguity, or we can point out the actual colours of the pixels of the photograph, which is entirely uninteresting. But don't pretend to be objective when you're saying things like "that shade of blue looks white to me". Objectively (insofar as colours can be objectively called), it is a light shade of blue in the photograph. When you call that white, you are in fact assuming the context.

>>15788912
the one on the left doesn't look white/gold. it looks blue/black and washed out.
where is the blue light that tinges the fabric blue supposed to be coming from in the white/gold interpretation. "more yellow in the bg" doesn't imply more blue in the fg without a reason for it.

>>15780997
gold and white

>>15788853
Than explain why in the example given here >>15782728 you can only see the dress as blue and black if there is bright light in the background

>>15782728
Hey White and Golders, which of the two anime dress pics, left or right, looks more like the original pic in the middle?

why would the dress be in a deep, blue shadow in the middle of an otherwise daylit shop

you can literally see cast shadows on the dress, from itself, from where it's in the light. under the sleeve

>>15793246
The "white" of the dress matches the white on the right dress, but the "gold" matches the "gold" on the left image

>>15780997
I remember the exact night this shit happened. Seems like yesterday

People who see it white and gold have some (minor) brain damage. It'll become more noticeable as they get older.

>>15794693
They're the same colours. It's an optical illusion. >>15782728

>>15780997
first I was like
>yes, I remember this! It's obviously white and gold!
Now I've seen the dress pictured in better lighting again and can't unsee the blue and black (even began suspecting anon had edited it for this thread).
Wonder how long it will take to unsee the black and blue again.

>>15794028
Overexposure

>>15794709
I'm aware, but he's asking which it looks like to us

>>15780997
yeah. that's the capture.

>>15780997
yes. different animals see things in different ways. Some human cultures that do not have a concept for a certain color don't perceive it. The mind is powerful. We evolved to see certain colors brighter because they meant something to us like "we can eat this thing" "or this thing dangerous"

>>15780997
my balls nigger, relevant.

>>15781046
It's not biased when you first see the meme
I hear the meme on le ebin Roblox forum.

>>15784751
I assume this is bait, but I'll bite anyway. That looks white and gold to me.

>>15781030
those are the colors I see. But the fact that some can see black and blue is insane.

>>15796137
>those are the colors I see
Those are the colours everyone sees, genius. The question is, what is the actual colour of the dress in real life?

>>15788912
The left one is still clearly blue though

>>15780997
Subjective experiences about colour certainly are relative.

>>15797323
It looks like blue is reflecting on a white dress. Like it's facing a blue wall with blue light bouncing onto it.

>>15793246
The dress looks like it's in shadow. So the brain interprets it to look like the right.

>>15797323
The left one is as white as snow to me.

>>15781013
>>15780997
It's nothing relative, just a lack of contextual perception in people who think it's gold and white. It's been shown that if you do not process the background (extremely overexposed) mentally you'll not see it as black and blue.

>>15781016
It's not ambiguous, your brain just isn't working with all the information available and is most definitely an experience of the individual.

With the rise of AI this image has been used to test for contextual awareness - given a model which weighs the background and other non-subject data heavier, it will yield the black-and-blue result roughly 3 out of 4 times. A simpler model which focuses primarily on the primary subject, while disregarding contextual information, will yield white-and-gold close to 100% of the time (98%+).