Are you a brainlet /g/?!!! >pic related has ZERO red pix

File: 1488440513093.png (427KB, 547x705px) Image search: [Google]

427KB, 547x705px

holy fuck. i took a sample from the inner strawberry that really looks pink, made an oval, and you can see the oval changing color (or appearing to) once it leaves the bluey/aquaery color on the image.

hhow is this possbile!

>>59194891

>hhow is this possbile!

its explained in the article how its possible

File: 23-409-39.jpg (212KB, 942x477px) Image search: [Google]

212KB, 942x477px

>>59194860
Uhhhh

>>59194860
What red, OP?

What are you seeing that I don't

>>59194860
JOKES ON YOU, I`M COLORBLIND

File: c4a.jpg (23KB, 600x484px) Image search: [Google]

23KB, 600x484px

>>59194891

File: not_red_.jpg (739KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

739KB, 1920x1080px

It's not red but it certainly edges...

>>59194860
>>59194891
So if you were to open your eyes for the first time in your life and the first thing you see is this image, all you'd see is grey/blue strawberries?

File: redonly.jpg (90KB, 547x705px) Image search: [Google]

90KB, 547x705px

I'm not planning on opening the article, but here is a guess.
It does have red colour in it.

Neutral grey isn't technically red, but it does contain some red light (as a neutral colour contains an equal amount from each of the primary colours).

Look at the image as it's seperate RGB components, and you can see that the image still contains red. If it contained no red, the picture I posted would be black.

They've just filtered the image, and your brain is undoing the colour shift they've applied. This is helped because you know what colour strawberries are supposed to be.

>>59194993
No, Because of the hue of the blue, the strawberries look red despite being grey.

>>59194993

yes cause your brain doesnt associate red with strawberries ... you have learned it that way and it keeps interpreting it in such a way

idk if you can train this away

>tfw your own brain is a botnet

File: fixed.jpg (79KB, 547x705px) Image search: [Google]

79KB, 547x705px

>>59194996
I posted the wrong image.

>>59195003
that's not how this works. It's to do with the blue filter, and how our brain sees colors through different shades of light.

>>59195018
>and how our brain sees colors through different shades of light.

but only because we are used to it .. this is a big part of it

File: 320498308083.png (263KB, 547x705px) Image search: [Google]

263KB, 547x705px

>>59194996
>If it contained no red, the picture I posted would be black.
No, it would look like this.

>>59195018

its similiar to facial recognition in patterns that arent human at all .. we wil lrecognize it as such even though it is not

>>59194913
no pixel in the image has an R value ≥ B or G.

>>59195025
My post is referring to this image >>59195011
I accidentally left the G/B channels on while exporting.

I can see some of the grey if I really focus, but it's hard to convince my brain the ENTIRE strawberry is grey.

>>59194860
Amazing, so basically take an image with color apply a half transparent filter that overlays the whole picture but still makes the picture behind visible for us to understand. WOW MIND BLOWN.

File: 23098430803.png (47KB, 547x705px) Image search: [Google]

47KB, 547x705px

>>59195043
If you had a display without R pixels it wouldn't look like his pic. There's red in it.

>im colourblind
checkmate theists

File: 1488440513093.jpg (25KB, 547x705px) Image search: [Google]

25KB, 547x705px

wrong

>>59195079
no you nigga
anything that can be considered RED has to have RED more than BLUE or GREEN

A RGB value of [1, 255, 255] or even [254, 255, 255] is not Red.

>>59195001
>>59195018
This is what the article says:

>"If you imagine walking around outside under a blue sky, that blueness is, in some sense, color-contaminating everything you see," explained Bevil Conway, an expert on visual perception from the National Eye Institute. "If you take a red apple outside under a blue sky, there are more blue wavelengths entering your eye. If you take the apple inside under a fluorescent or incandescent light without that same bias, the pigments in the apple are exactly the same but because the spectral content of the light source is different, the spectrum entering your eye that's reflected off the object is different."

>Since all this color contamination from light sources isn't really useful (it would be super confusing if a ripe banana looked yellow in the morning but green at midday, for example), our brains have evolved to color correct. It allows the colors we see to look the same no matter the lighting.

>"In this picture, someone has very cleverly manipulated the image so that the objects you're looking at are reflecting what would otherwise be achromatic or grayscale, but the light source that your brain interprets to be on the scene has got this blueish component," Conway told me. "You brain says, 'the light source that I'm viewing these strawberries under has some blue component to it, so I'm going to subtract that automatically from every pixel.' And when you take grey pixels and subtract out this blue bias, you end up with red."

>Conway said this illusion is also helped out by the fact that we recognize the objects as strawberries, which we very strongly associate with the color red, so our brain is already wired to be looking for those pigments.

So we see red because we know that strawberries SHOULD be red. Or at least, we automatically filter out the blue and that cause grey to look red.

>>59195145
It's red, there is red. just that stupid filer renders software useless to display it. However we can see it through. If you truly want to explore this matter. You do it properly, as in with objects that we don't have "wired with predefined" colours.

>>59195142
worst kind of idiot rofl

File: RED.png (19KB, 512x512px) Image search: [Google]

19KB, 512x512px

>>59195202
you're literally implying that this is red

>>59194860
brian games

>there are actual brainlets in this thread right now trying to argue that a pixel is red if it has a non-zero red component, even if the overall hue is not red

I thought OP was joking, but /g/ really is more retarded than expected.

There are also a few kings-of-brainlets who are misattributing the effect.

>>59194860

Jokes is on you, OP.

Our screens today display white with RED, GREEN and BLUE lights.

So fact of the matter: if the pictures has ANY red values whatsoever (i.e. the color "white" or even the color #01FFFF) then there's physically a red light shining in your display and the picture has indeed a trace of red.


0/10 thread, try harder next time

File: output1.webm (141KB, 956x748px) Image search: [Google]

141KB, 956x748px

awwwwwwwwwww

animooted

>>59195273

The whole problem boils down to the assumption "this pic has zero red pixels".

This is a very bda way to put it, because what does red mean in this context? If you printit out and look at it? Who tells you my trash monitor doesn't have a tinge of red?


And that happens when noobs try to trigger people with pseudo scientifical sentences without understanding the subject..

>"P = NP" for N=1

>>59195278
true patrician right here

it boils down to the question, what IS red? Or at least, what is red in this context?
If an RGB pixel has values of R0.0000000001%, G100%,B 100%, is it "Red"? It has a nonzero value at the designated Red slot, but not a very large value.

>>59194860
>MUH OPTICAL ILLUSIONS

how is this even related to /g/?

File: Optical_illusion_greysquares.gif (53KB, 540x420px) Image search: [Google]

53KB, 540x420px

Stand back

File: identical_colors_big.jpg (45KB, 872x600px) Image search: [Google]

45KB, 872x600px

>>59195539
A and B (not the letters themselves) are the same colour

File: spiralillusion.gif (29KB, 512x512px) Image search: [Google]

29KB, 512x512px

>>59195551
These spirals are the same colour.

That's all I have on hand sadly but more are around.

>>59195539

OK, so when does it switch the colors?

They start as the same but at the end they are different..

>>59195663
is this bait?

>>59195683
yes

>>59195317
>>59195426
>but what IS red
If I calibrate my monitor so red looks blue and blue looks red, these posts still look retarded.

>>59195426
We just don't know.

>>59195829
lol

>>59194860
>what is adapting to white point

>>59195426
Red is a wavelength of light.

>>59195663
They aren't different the shadow makes the light square a similar color to the non-shadowed dark squares.

>>59194860
Stupid human tricks.

>>59195426
Is it bad that I read this in Micheal Stevens voice?

>>59194860
>motherboard.vice.com
This is a shill thread

>>59196658
And, as always, thanks for posting.

File: 1486461243833.png (115KB, 1591x1018px) Image search: [Google]

115KB, 1591x1018px

>Claims there's no red
>There's red
You're not fooling anyone.

>>59197536
>H=84
>red

>>59194860
>you're a brainlet if your brain can understand and add extra information
OK
You do realize that intuitives are more intelligent than sensors, right?

>>59195539
Now THIS is some black fucking magic.
Much more impressive than OP's shitty image.

File: ACTUALLY no red pixels.png (759KB, 1440x809px) Image search: [Google]

759KB, 1440x809px

>>59197536
yep, it's a scam

>>59197547
the red component is there and it's non-zero, the delta between areas with more or less red creates that effect

here is an image ACTUALLY without RED components, but it wouldn't be interesting enough for fucking vice to create a click-bait article with it

I mean, guys, fucking vice
"hey look at this funny twitter feed"

get some dignity

>>59197754
The original statement is not
>not a single pixel has a non-zero red value in its RGB representation

The original statement is
>not a single pixel is red

For each pixel, if you look at its color, and no matter which (sane) classification of its color you use, you'll end up with the color being classified as not red.

This shit is the same thing about that dress if it was black/blue or white/golden
fucking idiots stop with this stupid shit

>>59197773
This is much less impressive than dress, though. Dress actually divided people into two groups. This one is just "lol no red looking pixels".

>>59197788
Yeah, two groups again. The ones saying "NO RED LELELEL" AND "THERE IS READ LOOK HERE HURFDURF".
It's obvious there is red and the whole thing is done just to get peoples attention.

>>59197772
>if you put "ALMOST RED" pixels on a "TOTALLY NOT RED" background, they may "seems" RED
STOP THE FUCKING PRESSES

>the original statement didn't >imply anything
the original statement is a shitty clickbait article, any fool reading it would believe that the image does not actually have reds at all.

>>59197799
No, no, absolutely not.

Both groups here see the same picture and are just arguing about terminology. One group foolishly defines red color as "has non-zero value in its RGB respresentation", the other has sane definition.

With dress, you'd actually see different colors. I would not believe it, but I actually did see the dress as white gold at first, and then saw blue and black.

>>59197830
None of pixels are almost red. If you classify each pixel as any of three colors - red, green or blue, none would end up classified as red. If you add more colors that you can classify pixels, you still won't get any pixels that end up classified as red.

File: 1468934906241.jpg (20KB, 306x306px) Image search: [Google]

20KB, 306x306px

>>59197846
>No, no, absolutely not.
>Both groups here see the same picture and are just arguing about terminology. One group foolishly defines red color as "has non-zero value in its RGB respresentation", the other has sane definition.
>With dress, you'd actually see different colors. I would not believe it, but I actually did see the dress as white gold at first, and then saw blue and black.

>>59197849
I don't get it, frog.

Everyone sees red. That was the whole point of the shitty article that you stole from digg faggot

>>59197772
Well, that is retarded, because it's clearly red.

>>59197846
>None of pixels are almost red.
Yes they are, look at the fucking pixels in your favourite tools.

>If you classify each pixel as any of three colors - red, green or blue, none would end up classified as red
Did you actually read ANYTHING of my post or your autism solicited you to reply just for the sake of it?

>>59197869
Would you like to point to a single pixel in that image that's red?

>>59197873
I did. I checked. Each has G or B components greater than R, or is gray.

I read your post entirely.

Please by all means, like the other poster, point me to a single pixel in the picture that's closer to red than it is to green or blue.

>>59197888
>Would you like to point to a single pixel in that image that's red?

All of them? There is not a single pixel that isn't part red.

>>59197888
>I did. I checked. Each has G or B components greater than R, or is gray.
So, you're actually retarded. Congratulations! Now check the dictionary definition for "almost" and REREAD my fucking posts before committing suicide.

>>59197830
Why are you this butthurt at an optical illusion? You have some serious fucking issues. Please seek help my dude

>>59196513
red is a perception of an electromagnetic spectrum which doesn't have to monochromatic, so can't be described with a single wavelength.

>>59197905
>part red
I didn't ask about its parts. I asked you to pick a single pixel and evaluate what color it is. Pixel has a single color. Find me a pixel with a color that you'd look at separately from all other colors on hte picture, and say, "yep, that color is red."

>>59197907
Show me a single pixel that's almost red please.

File: red.png (1MB, 1536x863px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1536x863px

how about removing all red

>>59197940
You removed red components in RGB representation of each pixel, which is something completely unrelated to original statement that not a single pixel is red.

>>59195306
exactly, but what do you expect from garbage being published on vice

File: 715.jpg (93KB, 633x960px) Image search: [Google]

93KB, 633x960px

You know, the simple explanation aside, you have to admit this is just a shitty photo

>>59197977
The original statement is true. Not a single pixel is red, no matter which sane method of classifying colors you would choose. If, for each pixel, you would choose what color it is from a set of four option - red, green, blue or colorless, you won't evaluate a single pixel as red.

>>59198019
It's an amazing photo. Seeing people argue in real life about what color they see on the picture before them, on same surface, it is a priceless experience.

>>59197933
>Pixel has a single color
If you are tech illiterate.
Pixel has 3 colour combined make 1 colour, this is how RGB system works and this is the system that I use for my monitor, I do not have another way.

File: pepe suicide.jpg (110KB, 901x883px) Image search: [Google]

110KB, 901x883px

>>59198019
>you'll never have a vaginal orgasm
>you'll never see this as white/gold

>>59198083
You'd only consider pixel as something with three color components, red, green and blue, if you are a complete beginner. RGB is not the only way to define color. There is CMYK, there is HSL, there is LAB. No matter which technique you'd use to represent color, the picture will still look the same, and not a single pixel's color would be classified as red.

>>59198083
>make 1 colour
Most people think that single and 1 are synonymous. Crazy, I know

>>59194860

And the fucking strawberries don't appear red either. They're pink.

>>59198019
it's a photo that shows, sRGB to be a crappy way to represent colours and shouldn't be used in digital format, ever.

File: .png (10KB, 224x242px) Image search: [Google]

10KB, 224x242px

>>59194860
it actually has red in it.
Really it's automatic color correction by the brain, therefore if you DON'T see red you're a brainlet

>>59198123
your argument pretty much boils down to "but we have other names for this colours"

well, my counter argument is simple, there is red in the pixel.

>>59194860
>pic related has ZERO red pixels
Fake news. Pic related have R > 0.

>>59194860
>What is white-balance
Ever looked through a window in a lit room at night? Everything looks yellow. Yet, inside, you will not see it like that.

In comparison to the background, yes it is red. Everything has a cyan filter above it. Subtract it and you will be left with the original colors.

>>59198129
It looks the same and is just as confusing in any color format. The confusion is called by the brain of the observer, not by colors.

>>59198135
This may be a difficult for you to process, but please do try.

Those two statements are not the same
>this color has non-zero value in its red component it its RGB representation
>this color is red

>>59198117
Did you miss part where I said
>system that I use
and
>I do not have another way

>>59198162
if it has any R it's red. cucked

File: IMG_20170302_080102.jpg (2MB, 2448x3264px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 2448x3264px

How can pixels be real when our eyes can only see Truth

>>59198162
>how sRPG works
Instead of changing hue of the colour it changes colour instead, very useful in analogue TVs not so much in Digital world.
F stops of 5 max.
>how Adobe RGB works
It makes colours change hue and not change the value of original colour
F stops of 15+

This is common fucking knowledge.

>>59198174
see >>59195221

>>59198170
Yeah, like I said, you are a complete beginner, so it is strange to me that you would be so admaant about your clearly faulty opinion.

>>59198174
RGB(1,255,255) has red but any sane human being would classify it as teal, not red.

File: 1397111079643.jpg (31KB, 640x475px) Image search: [Google]

31KB, 640x475px

>>59198162
A color is more than its RGB value.

>>59198209
How is thois related to what I wrote? Please do elaborate.

>>59198019
i just see white and gold
what is the big deal

>>59198207
>complete beginner
Oh god, you think if I do something in YPbPr I will actually output in YPbPr? are you retarded?

>>59198238
Just because its RGB value hasn't a dominant red value doesn't mean it can't be red. It depends on the whole picture. In the OP, you can clearly see a red color. Because your brain white-balances out the cyan overlay.

>>59198244
Some people see black and blue. I can't see white and gold, though initally I saw it as white and gold. Show the picture to some people in real life and you'd be surprized by what they see.

>>59198251
Your statement in >>59198083 is faulty as it implies that RGB is the only way to define color.

>>59198255
We are talking about the color of each pixel of that pixture individually, not in context of colors of other pixels.

>>59198287
And that is your mistake.

>>59198270
No you fucking retard, its not only way to define colour nowhere did I state that, it's the only way I CAN DO IT WITH THE OUTPUT I HAVE

How fucking stupid are you?

>>59198298
Color exists outside of its representation, Even if you only have three RGB values, those are enough to define a color, and that color does exist outside of its RGB definition, and can be represented in multiple other color formats.

>>59198295
The original statement talks about color of pixels. A pixel has color, and the color of pixel is not influrenced by color of nearby pixels. If you change a color of a single pixel and the color of a nearby pixel changes, your system is broken.

>>59198345
RGB is coming out of my output, don't give a fuck, I have RED in my output, if it's enabled I see fucking RED

>>59198366
With your definition, >>59195221 is red. You may believe whatever you want to believe, but to any sane observer, it would be absolutely clear that you're incorrect.

File: 1488386549172.png (671KB, 857x857px) Image search: [Google]

671KB, 857x857px

From /sci/ with love

>>59198397
Yup, it's part red.
What is wrong with that?

>>59198145
Thats a faggot argument. Thats why everyone is mocking you

>mfw this is literally a shitty semantic debate with people changing the meaning of their words every other post which results in a perpetual disagreement
holy fuck i hate this place so much, it's like high school in here

>>59198404
No blue in the picture btw

>>59198408
Here's what's wrong: you're trying to demonstrate that the original statement is wrong. Original statement says that no single pixel is red. If original statement said that not a single pixel is part red, your statement would have meaning. But original statement does not say that, so even though you are correct that pixels are part red, it does not help you demonstrate the original statement to be incorrect.

>>59198415
>everyone
>Literally 1 guy

Your argument is "MUH FEELS"
my argument is "Muh DATA"

File: sunset.jpg (266KB, 1024x502px) Image search: [Google]

266KB, 1024x502px

>>59198345
>A pixel has color, and the color of pixel is not influrenced by color of nearby pixels.
Only partially true. How it will be perceived depends heavily on the surrounding pixels.

The grass is clearly green. But the pixels are mainly yellow/red.

>>59198443
Im not who youre arguing with. Im here to laugh at your autism

>>59195145
> is also helped out by the fact that we recognize the objects as strawberries,
>HELPED OUT
I.E. Not the predominate reason.
You fucking retards.

>>59198439
>no single pixel is red"
you can take picture of a red bicycle, and it's still going to hold true, because no pixel will be red, all of them will be mixture of colours to make a hue of red.

>>59198443
My argument is common sense actually. A fucking child knows the difference in red orange and purple

>>59198474
do tell, difference in red orange and purple without using colours, I'll wait.

>>59198207
That's an extreme case and not way near the strawberry picture that it has 120 fucking red on it and it looks like red, therebefore it has red on it, end of the story.

>>59198485
1 of them is a mixture of multiple wavelengths. 2 are completely different wavelengths.

>>59198452
A pixel's color is strictly defined, and how it's perceived is not related to what pixels color is strictly defined as.

>>59198464
If you have to classify each pixel as one of four: red, green, blue and colorless, you'd end up classifying a lot of pixels in that picture of a red bike as red. In OP, not a single pixel would be classified as red with those 4 options, and if you add more colors as options, not a single pixel would be classified as red still.

>>59198508
I don't get it.

>filter entire image
>small section has fuck huge red values on r,g,b scale
>rest of image does not
>hurr it's not red durr
say it with me
equi-vo-cation

>>59198507
Point me to a single pixel on that picture that's closer to red than it is to green or blue, please.

File: photoshop_inferior_to_gimp.jpg (84KB, 977x372px) Image search: [Google]

84KB, 977x372px

Can we take a moment to point out how much better GIMP is than Photoshop?

>>59198404
This picture has no blue though

>>59198518
not a single pixel has greater red value than blue or green. Not a single pixel is closer to red than it is to blue or green.

>>59198516
>t. brainlet

>>59198510
Why? If there is 125red and 70green and 50blue is that red any more? I don't think so.

>>59198524
ctrl+shift+L in photoshop.

>>59198270
No way its blue and gold

>>59198552
If your only choices are red, green or blue, then your example is red. there is no such pixel in the OP image.

>>59198560
It's not, but some people do see it this way.

File: wow it's fucking nothing.jpg (70KB, 248x252px) Image search: [Google]

70KB, 248x252px

>>59198535
>not a single pixel has greater red value than blue or green. Not a single pixel is closer to red than it is to blue or green.
Yeah, this is objectively true. My point is that it's not particularly revelatory or interesting—it just meaningless ifuckinglovescience-type bullshit.
>wow if you filter an image with shit tons of blue it's still easy to perceive which area has huge amounts of red in it
>b-b-b-but individual pixel itself in isolation isn't red!

>>59198567
Oh I get, You think that dominant colour is the colour, You can have that opinion, but I disagree with it.

File: New canvas.jpg (94KB, 2000x2000px) Image search: [Google]

94KB, 2000x2000px

>>59198521
>>59198521
Here I did this for you, point me a single pixel on this picture that's closer to red than it is to green or blue, please. This Picture has no red on it

>>59198524
Which one of the two does a correct chromatic adaption and only that.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chromatic_adaptation#Von_Kries_transform

DESU it looks like photoshop does chromatic adaption and gimp does chromatic adaption + fuck up my contrast.

>>59194860
i'm not colour blind like you

>>59198641
>photoshop clearly does a worse job in restoring the original colors
>"i.-it's supposed to do that! the other picture is actually wrong!"

>>59198577
http://www.color-hex.com/color/98b5b6

Look at all this red in the deepest "reds" of the image

>>59198485
But were literally talking about color. The fact that youre discarding that is beyond me

>>59198721
did you even read what I said?
>wow if you filter an image with shit tons of blue it's still easy to perceive which area has huge amounts of red (on the r,g,b scale) in it
>b-b-b-but individual pixel itself in isolation isn't red!
no shit.

>>59195663
It switches when the tile on top hits it. It turns lighter.

>>59198567
Why are those your only options?

Nice technology thread, OP.

File: apple_red.png (38KB, 788x406px) Image search: [Google]

38KB, 788x406px

>>59198641
Fucking lol

>>59198088
But I see it as white/gold because I'm a man and understand lighting dynamics.

>>59198699
Cram up the contrast to 11 in PS as a separate step after and see what happens then. The original image doesn't have that much contrast. White balance correction shouldn't affect contrast.

It might very well be that GIMP still produces better results and actually uses the good formulas. I don't even use either though.

>>59198739
You're the one who said that how the human visual system works is meaningless bullshit

>>59198794
I wonder why even apple is the archetype of red. They could write firetruck or whatever.

>>59198839
>You're the one who said that how the human visual system works is meaningless bullshit

>be a smug, pretentious idiot
>reveal yourself to be stupid
ok

>>59198839
Science is for faggots

>>59198727
Wavelength is still a definition of colour, you can't describe colour without describing colour.

That was the point, if he wanted to be cheeky it was his prerogative, still did exactly what I asked him not to.

File: 1487471676589.png (171KB, 443x485px) Image search: [Google]

171KB, 443x485px

>>59198633
This is what the original picture is doing in a nutshell, there's literally nothing impressive about it.

>>59198861
>be a smug, pretentious idiot
>reveal yourself to be stupid
Projecting so bad it hurts

>>59198878
I dont get why you posed the question in the first place

>>59198886
says the guy who responded to what I said by reexplaining the thing I already openly acknowledged

tl;dr: you are stupid

File: file.png (314KB, 547x705px) Image search: [Google]

314KB, 547x705px

>>59194860
this is clickbait

kill yourself nigger

>>59198040

That meme was just a marketing stunt by Roman Originals.

Enjoy being used.

>>59198907
Ya im stupid for not calling this color red
http://www.color-hex.com/color/98b5b6
Good luck with your aspergers

>>59198906
Because different people see colours differently, for some people Cyan is shade of Blue, for others it's shade of Red

and his whole post is pretty much just someone trying to explain their own bias to others

File: 1488465127709.jpg (190KB, 2000x2000px) Image search: [Google]

190KB, 2000x2000px

>>59198633
> point me a single pixel on this picture that's closer to red than it is to green or blue, please

Challenge accepted. See arrow.

>>59198975
>Ya im stupid for not calling this color red
Holy shit, you are too stupid for this CONVERSATION and the underlying concepts, not because of the fact that that color is not red
>STILL stuck on this
I was just joking around before but you are legitimately fucking retarded

>>59198878
>you can't describe colour without describing colour

Ahhh, finally, a truly insightful observation emerges.

>>59198613
>>59198768
Those are not your only option. You can add as many colors as you want, and for each pixel you's choose not from 4 but from, say, 12 colors, and still not a single pixel would end up being the color that is called red.

No, I do not thing that dominant colour is the colour.

>>59198577
I do agree with you that the picture is not impressive, but the original statement that not a single pixel is red is true, which is all I care about in this situation.

>>59198699
Photoshop does the same when do auto levels, which you do by pressing ctrl+shift+L.

Some portion of that image looks red because it the most red on the r-g-b scale. Any given point is objectively not "red" as we'd use the term normally, but It appears to be red because it's contained within an image where everything shares the same color filter. tl;dr: Humans can visually perceive red and when things are "more red" relative to their surroundings, they look more red. Wow. Shocker.
>clickbait

>>59199142
see >>59199145

File: Screen Shot 2017-03-02 at 10.05.20 AM.png (40KB, 758x166px) Image search: [Google]

40KB, 758x166px

reddit figured this out yesterday and /thread'd after just a few posts while you idiots are going to have 300+ posts without consensus

File: facepalm.png (103KB, 229x229px) Image search: [Google]

103KB, 229x229px

>vice

>>59199153
Not a single pixel in the image has greater R component than G or B component. The statement that not single pixel is red is correct - no matter which way you'd choose to label pixels' colors, not a single color would end up labeled red. You may claim that you misunderstood the statement, but it's not incorrect and it's not ambiguous.

>>59199282
I didn't disagree with you and I wasn't engaging you in conversation up until the post to which you're replying bud

>>59199188
>contain red
>is red
Those two are not the same.

>>59199282
Correction: no matter which sane way you'd choose. If you ready to say that >>59195221 is red because it has non-zero R component, then yes, you'd come to conclusion that some pixels are red - but in that case you're simply insane.

>>59199311
>Those two are not the same.
Do you want a gold star for deducing this or something?

>>59199304
Why would you reply to me then?

>>59199316
I'll settle with you admitting that you can't disprove the original sentence with your reedit post.

>>59199329
>I'll settle with you admitting that you can't disprove the original sentence with your reedit post.
I never attempted to disprove the statement you insufferable buffoon. What's it like to be both autistic and dumb?

File: fedora not bad.jpg (200KB, 900x822px) Image search: [Google]

200KB, 900x822px

>>59199329
>Why would you reply to me then?
because you're being a cunt and missing the point that most normal people are making (nobody is trying to disprove ur precious logical point, dipshit)

>>59199377
So pray tell, what did reddit figure out yesterday exactly?

>>59199400
I'm talking to people who started this conversation by claiming that original statement is incorrect.

File: a.webm (230KB, 1140x944px) Image search: [Google]

230KB, 1140x944px

>>59198524

File: trump wrong.gif (1MB, 480x287px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 480x287px

>>59199414
>I'm talking to people who started this conversation by claiming that original statement is incorrect.

>>59198019
It's clearly fucking blue and black.
I don't know how any retard could think this is white and gold.

>>59199462
Print it and show it to some people you know, you'll be surprised by results. This is caused by the brain incorrectly determining lighting conditions in the picture, and has little relation to general mental capacity.

>>59198209
They're not the same color at all.
I checked in gimp.

File: shockhorror.png (228KB, 420x357px) Image search: [Google]

228KB, 420x357px

>desaturate red from everywhere
>now where it's more red it still looks red, even though the red is less than gree/blue

yeah, totally magic guys

like what the fuck did you expect when you reduced the maximum brightness of any red whatsoever?

>>59199551
>bumped the thread
great, now we get to listen to this autist >>59199414 continue his broken record routine and talk about how it's not actually red

>>59199572
Truth hurts sometimes.

>>59199595
it does when some sperglord folds it 9000 times into a truthkatana and bashes you over the head with it

>>59198019
i still can't see that as blue and black

>>59199632
You only had to agree right away and I wouldn't have to repeat it to you. Otherwise, you could come up with counterarguments to what I was saying, to prove me wrong, which you didn't.

File: 1467282996258.jpg (57KB, 485x459px) Image search: [Google]

57KB, 485x459px

>>59198829
>having a defective brain that decieves you
The dress was confirmed to be black and blue by the way.

>>59199665
>You only had to agree right away and I wouldn't have to repeat it to you
What don't you understand about the fact that I never denied what you are saying? This is pathetic.

>>59199642
you might be extremely blind

File: Screen Shot 2017-03-02 at 10.38.48 AM.png (4KB, 26x24px) Image search: [Google]

4KB, 26x24px

>>59198019
>>59198088
>>59198829
>>59199678
>it's totally black guise hurhurhur

>>59199683
You were taking part in conversation that started by people claiming the original statement to be false. Don't join it, or clarify that you do agree with original statement when joining.

>>59194891
How Can Our Eyes Be Real When Pixels Aren't

File: DrinkBleach.png (817KB, 1280x1024px) Image search: [Google]

817KB, 1280x1024px

>>59194860

>>59199708
>You were taking part in conversation that started by people claiming the original statement to be false. Don't join it, or clarify that you do agree with original statement when joining.
You should try not making so many assumptions and acting like a braying jackass in an effort to prove how logical you are. You're like a dumb little kid. Are you even old enough to be on 4chan?

>>59199733
you're right in practice but in autismworld the statement is technically correct on some granular level therefore REEEE

File: Where_can_I_buy_TheDress_blue_and_black_[1].jpg (78KB, 900x685px) Image search: [Google]

78KB, 900x685px

>>59199707
Literally a brainlet.

File: a.png (37KB, 424x360px) Image search: [Google]

37KB, 424x360px

>>59199733
look, full red channel!
white confirmed red

>>59199761
It's a shitty photo and the color in the photo is gold. Run it through a color picker bud.

File: pen.jpg (69KB, 600x300px) Image search: [Google]

69KB, 600x300px

>>59199781
>Hello Mr. Artist, what color would I have to add to go from the teal-ish color in this corner of the picture to the color of the strawberries in the center?

>GREEEEEEEEEEE

>>59199783
>actually admitting that you're a brainlet
Please stop, have some dignity.

>>59199742
I'm only proving statement in OP to be true, nothing else.

>>59199414
>So pray tell, what did reddit figure out yesterday exactly?
They almost instantly came to the conclusion that because the pixels in the center contain significantly more red than the surrounding pixels, it's easy for us, as creatures who can physically perceive the color red, to identify those pixels as more reddish than the surrounding area.

Retard.

>>59199822
>I'm only proving statement in OP to be true, nothing else.
We all know it's true, though. That's not the issue here.

>>59199841
Some don't.

>>59199828
What conclusion?

>>59199852
>What conclusion?
Is English not your first language?

I like optical illusions

>>59199852
>Some don't.
the only people who have been participating in this thread for the last x minutes all agree on this statement

>>59199866
I hate them.
They make me feel stupid.

File: pepe brain computer.png (205KB, 659x525px) Image search: [Google]

205KB, 659x525px

>>59199852
>>59199865
>>59199866
>>59199876
tfw to smart to identify different posters on 4chan

File: C5uoTwUVAAAmtt4 (1).jpg (146KB, 1120x692px) Image search: [Google]

146KB, 1120x692px

>>59195176
>>59195145
>>59195001
>>59194996

Have you ever seen this banner in person? Do you know what color it's supposed to be?

>>59199865
>They almost instantly came to the conclusion
What conclustion did reddit come to?

>>59199876
How it that in any way relevant?

File: a.jpg (31KB, 500x400px) Image search: [Google]

31KB, 500x400px

>>59199866
i'm can't decide

>>59199889
*too

>>59199927
>What conclustion did reddit come to?
you are illiterate

File: fixed.jpg (205KB, 1120x692px) Image search: [Google]

205KB, 1120x692px

>>59199922

>>59199927
>How it that in any way relevant?
Because that's who you are actively engaging in conversation, retard.
>w-well someone said something earlier therefore I am going to pretend you agree with them for no apparent reason even though you've made it fairly clear otherwise
If English is your first language, you need to be sterilized for the good of mankind

>>59199922
The entire point of the Vice post was to shed light on the fact that we can ignore these kinds of filters and understand what colors something really is
>because we can perceive colors individually
>WOW

>>59199852
>>59199927
>someone this stupid is using /g/ with me

They [...] came to the conclusion that [...] it's easy for us [...] to identify those pixels as more reddish than the surrounding area.

File: vjmsh8mv.png (10KB, 547x705px) Image search: [Google]

10KB, 547x705px

>>59199828
The conclusion is incorrect. Pixtures in the middle have way more red than surrounding ones, yet you do not see them as reddish.

Also even if your reasoning was correct, this conclusion can;'t be drawn from posts cited.

>>59200073
>The conclusion is incorrect. Pixtures in the middle have way more red than surrounding ones, yet you do not see them as reddish.
What are you on about? How can you deny this? You're arguing against the entire point of the tweet, which is to demonstrate color constancy. Go edit the wikipedia article if you think it's wrong.

Jesus dude, I think you just want attention or something. You seem to think you're extremely smart, but you're a complete idiot.

Gonna stop replying now

>>59200073
>and to illustrate my point, I will include this image which is completely consistent with what you are saying, ...

File: 1482860438161.jpg (8KB, 250x238px) Image search: [Google]

8KB, 250x238px

>>59194860
>vice posting
>not a brainlet

pick one and only one

>>59200121
Here is a literal quote from the post I'm replying to:

>because the pixels in the center contain significantly more red than the surrounding pixels, it's easy for us, as creatures who can physically perceive the color red, to identify those pixels as more reddish than the surrounding area.

I'm demonstrating that he is incorrect by providing a picture with conditions described by him.

>>59200140
Yes, it is consistent.
>pixels in the center contain significantly more red than the surrounding pixels
The condition you posted is fulfilled.

File: Reality.png (960KB, 1120x692px) Image search: [Google]

960KB, 1120x692px

>>59199922(You)
>>59199922(You)

File: no green pixels.png (6KB, 250x238px) Image search: [Google]

6KB, 250x238px

>>59200160

>>59200268
Can someone confirm that there are no green pixels in this picture?
I want to post it on reddit for karma.

>>59200287

yep .. no green pixels in photoshop

mind blown!!!

brainlets btfo!!!

>>59199957
The only poster I actively engaged in conversation with was the one who posted about reddit coming to conclusion. The rest were responses to people who replied to me initially.

File: 1488086132451.jpg (37KB, 629x639px) Image search: [Google]

37KB, 629x639px

>>59200160

ITT: /g/ learns about the human brain's ability to distinguish color and value in different circumstances.

>>59195145
No, we correct colors because all values are off.
It is a linear filter.
You can see that there is a blueish filter, so you correct it by viewing it as everything would be more blue that normal.
It is similar to when there is a shade. We don't think the color is different, we can see that there is a continuation in the colors.
It is why it is hard to solve what color a thing is based on a single image.
Humans without context and machines give bad answers in these situations.
If you read colors as rgb, a shade will completely change the color of an object, where hsv is more robust, but still far from perfect.

>>59199885
A lot of your brain is used to handle vision and connected to the information you get from vision.
If anything, it is a brilliant system that is incredible hard to reproduce.
A lot of things we cannot currently do with robots is because vision is so hard.

The usual "flaws" that gets pointed out by optical illusions is because the system is made to make sense of the input.
If the input doesn't make any logical sense, then we get tricked.
It is how we can study the system without tearing it apart.

>>59194860
>if you see red
There is red on that picture, retard. There aren't pure red pixels.
You have sub-nigger levels of color theory comprehension.

>>59195306
Thanks. Fu**ing fake texh news

What the fuck IS """"RED""""???????
A COLOR THATS R VALUE IN RGB MODE IS HIGHER THAN THAT OF B AND G
OR A COLOR THATS R VALUE IS NONZERO????

>>59199733
>>59200121
>>59199828
>>59199188
>>59198518
>>59201504
>>59195306
I don't know how you retards managed to become so fucking stupid. You must have to try.

There is not a single fucking pixel in that image that has a red value greater than the green or blue values. You would never perceive the color of any one of those pixels to be red without the surrounding pixels affecting your perception.

I challenge any and all of you to find me an RGB value where the R value is less than the G and/or B values and have the result be any shade of red. It will not happen in this reality.

You people are either fucking retarded or illiterate to the point where you can't comprehend the original tweet (he said there are no pixels that are red in color, not that no pixel had any red element).

>>59201715
According to a twitter response, "Red is majoritary on the pixel 447, 705 (Red=190, Green=180, Blue=189)"
so eat a dick, nigger.

>>59201715
Take your meds, because you've some serious autism right there. It's clear to anyone that there's no single "preponderant" or "totally" red pixels, and an image with pixels featuring preponderant reds would probably look less red or even non-red if immersed in a totally red scenario. You're so focused on yourself that you can't comprehend what others are telling you, that is: it's a totally clickbait article. ex multis,
>>59197830
>>if you put "ALMOST RED" pixels on a "TOTALLY NOT RED" background, they may "seems" RED
>STOP THE FUCKING PRESSES

You're pretending to "educate" everyone but, honestly, it seems you're the one with some slight mental impairment.

>>59201760
>According to the twitt...

End yourself fucking illiterate faggot.

File: cone.jpg (38KB, 500x378px) Image search: [Google]

38KB, 500x378px

>>59201715
LCD screens separate pixels by color. If a pixel has even a single red value then there is a physical object which is displaying a purely read light-wave.

And if you want to get technical about how we perceive light on a physical level, even that is irrelevant; our red-detecting cones are easily getting triggered.

There are red pixels in that image. We see red in that image. It's not even an optical illusion, it's just Twitter not understanding optics.

>>59201850
Prove it wrong then.

>>59201850
>to the
illiterate nigger.

>>59199524
>>59198209
that's a troll image, anyone posting is seriously is retarded

>>59195011
I see red in this image

>>59202914
Get your eyes/brain checked.

>>59202914
Brainlet detected

>>59195142
>i totally didn't make this definition up on the fly to reinforce my "claim"

File: red.png (1KB, 500x500px) Image search: [Google]

1KB, 500x500px

>>59195221
you're literally implying that this is red

>>59194948
HAHA WE ARE THE SUPERIOR BEINGS

File: REDlets, when will they learn.png (3KB, 500x500px) Image search: [Google]

3KB, 500x500px

>>59203388
do you see RED in this image? The RED writing is using a colour sampled from the strawberries. Still, there are no strawberries. Still you see a red-ish grey. Because there's red. If there were no reds, you wouldn't see red at all.

>>59203773
There is no red, it's gray. The brain can detect when there's a constant colour added to the entire image and accounts for that, giving you both a feeling that this thing is red, and also allowing you to perceive what the added colour is. Gimp can do the same thing.

It's handy for looking through semi-transparent things.

File: RED again.png (3KB, 500x500px) Image search: [Google]

3KB, 500x500px

>>59203388
>>59203773
moreover, we can do that starting from yellow too. yellow is literally red+green.
I have not edited the green levels in the, I've just dimmed the lightness

>>59203846
No, it's not gray. It contains reds, and other colour components too. The brain would not give you a "feeling that the thing is red" if red was literally absent. You see only something that is there. Sure, your brain "account for a constant colour in the image", stop the fucking presses.

>>59203893
>No, it's not gray. It contains reds, and other colour components too. The brain would not give you a "feeling that the thing is red" if red was literally absent. You see only something that is there. Sure, your brain "account for a constant colour in the image", stop the fucking presses.
Of course not, since that would be black+constant colour. Red+cyan = grey. That's why when you remove the cyan overlay, the resulting colour is red. If you don't, it's fucking grey, end of story. Almost any colour "contains" red, it doesn't make them red.

File: clickbait.png (369KB, 1561x880px) Image search: [Google]

369KB, 1561x880px

Uh... there is most certainly red

File: Noreds.png (277KB, 530x511px) Image search: [Google]

277KB, 530x511px

>>59204172
Here's what it would actually look like with no reds.

>>59204172
>>59204230
people already pointed this out, but the others now grasping for straws.

> no fully red pixels
lol

your brain accounts for the fact that there's a greenish tint and "white balances" the photo.

>>59203773
Wow, it's literally red.

File: 1449963022023.png (53KB, 680x441px) Image search: [Google]

53KB, 680x441px

blind spot of your optic nerve

I don't know much about nothing but don't you see it as "red" because the strawberries have more red RGB component than the surrounding pixels?

>>59204666
The blindspot happens on my 16:9 monitor but not my 4:3 monitor, any idea why this is?

>>59204666
>mfw blind in right eye

>>59204691
If your monitors are in different positions, then you'll be looking at them for different angles and the blind spot will move.

ITT: Retards that can't differentiate red pixels and pixels with part red in it

>>59204666
wtf I'm literally blind now?

>>59204720
ITT: Brainlets who does not understand that a full pixel is not monochromatic.

>>59194860
>>59204666
Humans were a mistake.
New and upgraded sentient species when?

>>59204666
why does this image need le anime man and le steel ball??

File: ss+(2017-03-02+at+09.44.30).jpg (8KB, 93x613px) Image search: [Google]

8KB, 93x613px

>>59204776
guise xD these pixels are red because they have a bit of red in it, just like almost any other color the planet xDD

That's nice. Retard.

>>59194860
pixel 211,171 has #66525e
if you try to saturate that you get #ffceec, which is clearly a reddish pink.

>>59201889
Not him but the original picture is 634x634

>>59194860
Literally define "red".

File: image.png (963KB, 659x639px) Image search: [Google]

963KB, 659x639px

I took a picture of my screen with my phone, to see how a camera sees the image.
Are you telling me this is not red? It's clearly red as fuck.

this board is so fucking stupid

why do i still come here

>>59194860
brain is autocorrecting for the haze/filter over entire image

zoom in...

>>59206594
>took a picture of my screen with my phone
>clearly red
pretty good bait

File: 1373353360221.jpg (215KB, 836x601px) Image search: [Google]

215KB, 836x601px

all color is relative
learn some fucking colour theory kiddos

http://www.huevaluechroma.com/

>>59199761
the white and gold is in the top left corner

>>59195278
/thread

>>59197958
except every pixel in the image is displayed by three different pixels on your screen, one of which only outputs red light. If there is any red in the original image, it will be active.

File: 1486752609006.png (16KB, 809x808px) Image search: [Google]

16KB, 809x808px

>tfw color blind

I don't know what color i'm seeing anyway.

>>59194860
>Lieberman
Shalom!

>>59194860
I thought of them as a pile of gray pebbles and they become gray pebbles .

>>59207202
>I don't know what color i'm seeing anyway.
sure you do, you see what you see
it's just not the same as what most others see

>>59207316
Best chart.

>>59198019
>mfw I see blue and gold

File: zoom-2017-03-02-152518.png (68KB, 1235x688px) Image search: [Google]

68KB, 1235x688px

>>59199707
I know. Almost everyone thinks the dress is either "black and blue" or "white and gold". I am one of the extremely tiny percentage of people who sees it a third way: blue and gold. (Actually, I would call it a "kind of brownish goldish color".) In other words, I see the colors as they actually are in the photo pixels.

The the most amazing to me is the large percentage of people who are actually unable to see the blue color, despite the photo containing plenty of almost-perfectly white pixels (mainly in the upper right and lower right corners) to directly compare the blue pixels against.

Pic: it's a representative blue pixel color from the dress that many people claim is "white" and are unable to see as blue (R=108 G=125 B=172).

>>59195025
what the actual fuck
every time I enlarge this picture everything else that is outside it will look very red
will see the effect just by hovering my eyes over the small image too

>>59198531
bullshit
those grapes are the bluest grapes I have ever seen

>>59207316
>6. Notice how quickly the figure disappears when you look directly at it.
Kek, that one really tickled my sides.

>>59194860
>pic related has ZERO red pixels
according to GIMP, at least one pixel has greater than zero red value

>most monitors are RGB value
>post a picture "without any red"
>see reds anyways because it wouldn't have space without a red value
scummy clickbait

>>59207316
i had to have my fiancee hold me i started laughing so hard i was crying

>>59199050
yeah but it's touching the green and blue balls so

>>59195306

it really is amazing how people believe in a fucking picture on the internet

File: red pixels.png (287KB, 500x500px) Image search: [Google]

287KB, 500x500px

>>59197888
Check 'em.

>>59204666
Spoopy/10

File: red.png (581KB, 1062x822px) Image search: [Google]

581KB, 1062x822px

Oh

>>59198019
I see blue and gold.

When this was relevant I saw it as white once, but never again for some reason.

>>59197754
this makes me want to eat cyan colored strawberries. yum