[Boffo97]

Apparently it's the "What color is the dress?" thing all over again.

I see grey and teal, but for the curious, here's a link to a story with an answer.

[SudenKapala]

Since I live under a dead horse a stone the ice mantle of Europa, I don't even know that dress thing.
I think I see

green light

. I am too lazy to imagine "other" options, so I picked

the option with pink

. Gonna check now.
Weird, this. Internet is weird.

[SudenKapala]

451: Unavailable due to legal reasons

We recognize you are attempting to access this website from a country belonging to the European Economic Area (EEA) including the EU which enforces the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) and therefore access cannot be granted at this time. For any issues, contact webmaster@omaha.com or call 402-444-1000.

Can somebody PM me the explanatory text? Or at least the correct colours of the shoe? I'm dying of curiosty here.

[AllenGould]

Can somebody PM me the explanatory text? Or at least the correct colours of the shoe? I'm dying of curiosty here.

Here's a science article on it:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/co ... appearance

(scroll down to the two circles for the important example)

The tl;dr is that the color you see is partly a matter of cognition (in addition to "wavelength hitting eye"), so the colors surrounding the object affect what color you "see".

[Tim]

The linked article wasn't very insightful.

A badly lit photo at really low digital quality ends up with a completely misleading spectrum of nearly grey color data. The question is how much your brain instinctively compensates for context in interpreting colour.

The original shoe is pink. But in the image, the colour is represented digitally with a blue/green grey. The "white" trim has higher brightness and saturation... ending up a dullish teal colour.

Looking at the horrible quality image your brain will compensate by "white balancing" to the baseline grey teal. Because white is now teal, the shoe's teal in the grey-er direction can be interpreted as the correct pink. In context there is also a wood coloured stool and skin coloured hand to affirm this comparison but we're primarily using the white laces to "white balance."

[SudenKapala]

Thanks for explaining.

My original post / poll answer was made from my phone. I always have the "comfort view" (filter against blue light emanating from screen) on, so I forgot about that. (Also, I'm used to its distortion; so that helps re-interpreting, because all white is a bit yellow -- which already proves your mentioned baseline calibration theory.)

Looking at this now, from my TV with natural colours, it really is as clear as day to me, what colour the shoe is. No contest! But even with the phone's blue filter (giving the impression that the photo was made under green light!) it wasn't hard to choose. (I just thought that maybe, maybe there was an optical illusion because I suspected it couldn't be such a simple task.)

So if that compensation system in our brain -- which I had not read about, but by experience have often been consciously aware of -- works so well, then how is this an interesting puzzle? Everyone will see it correctly, right? (Except those, maybe, with deficiencies -- and they know that, too.)

[SudenKapala]

But there's much more to this, that you didn't mention. I'm surprised that you didn't pick up on that (you seem to be smart enough):

It may be an elaborate conspiracy for people who want to show their new shoes and dresses, and who crave veiled comments on their colour scheme. They have developed an algorithm that translates the guessed colours into either "that looks great on you" or "that doesn't emphasize your natural beauty".

We must stop this hidden society, and teach the people that they can just ask for honest feedback, and that such won't kill them.

[AllenGould]

The linked article wasn't very insightful.

It does go into a lot more technical detail than most people need (unless you're a psych nerd like me), which is why I pointed folks to the obvious example.

Edit: And I just realized I can grab the relevant image and post it directly. The center dot in both circles is the same color - we just see it differently because we contrast it against the outer circle.

[SudenKapala]

Haha, that comment also spoke to me; I was writing the following comment, but then ended up shaving a yak. (Turned out to be a dead horse yeti.)

The linked article wasn't very insightful.

With that, you hopefully mean either "in this context" or "it was so long and technical that it was virtually impossible to read on a weekday let alone a sunday, and hence could not possible give me insight", right?
Because otherwise that comment would have made me feel dumb

, if my IQ tests hadn't shown otherwise

.

And hey, that image with the circles... On my TV, it's also clear as day that the centre colours are the same. Most often, these kind of optical illusions will work on me, or I can even see that they would work even if I know what they entail. Here -- zip; I really see it's the same colour. Does someody else also not have their internal wiring tell them differently?

[Tim]

The linked article wasn't very insightful.

It does go into a lot more technical detail than most people need (unless you're a psych nerd like me), which is why I pointed folks to the obvious example.

Yeah, I was challanging the insight of the original local news article. You posted that a couple minutes before I did .... I just submitted unedited anyways, figuring I wasn’t being too redundant. The science paper is interesting.

(Happened again with Kapala’s Post ... yeah I meant the local Omaha News article that the EU posted asked about —- he wasn’t missing much there)

(Édit - which was you, something I couldn’t determine in the context of the phpBB posting interface from my phone.)

[SudenKapala]

(unless you're a psych nerd like me)

Nice. Are you a pro? I consider myself an amateur Anthropology enthusiast, which includes psychology-101, and an interest in

Former imaging systems technician. Enjoys horseback riding, singing, whisky and coffee. Always late. Agnostic. Interested in culture, religions and psychology.

and even a tiny hint of archaeology.

The operative word in all of the above (except 'technician' and 'late') being, 'enthusiast' (i.e., amateur).

Also, the 'late' has subsequently (my current card persona stems from 2014) come to refer to the infamous
"writing too much for too long, someone posted in-between, which makes me look... well... late"-effect
which now seemed to have happened to Timo for once (or twice) -- so I deeply sympathize.

[AllenGould]

(unless you're a psych nerd like me)

Nice. Are you a pro?

Oh, not even close. Was a minor to complement comp-sci. But cognition/perception is a field that overlaps hugely between the two (one term I had two classes that were 90% the same theory, just approached from opposite directions).

[SudenKapala]

Opposite? Elaborate.

[AllenGould]

Opposite? Elaborate.

Oh, it's like 20+ years in my past, I don't even remember the names of the two courses anymore.

[SudenKapala]

And hey, that image with the circles... On my TV, it's also clear as day that the centre colours are the same.

But now, on my phone, with AND without the blue filter, it's not clear (e.g., the optical illusion now works as supposed to). Can it have sth to do with distance...?