>this image uses zero red pixels I'm sorry, what? How

Color constancy. During visual processing the brain attempts to control for differences in lighting, whether it be brightness or color, so you still perceive an object as its "actual" color (relative to your overall visual processing in general).

false, there is red in the pixels it is just much less intense than green or blue

t. used a loupe

>>9102109
Brown also contains red

File: 20170812_164727.jpg (4MB, 4032x3024px) Image search: [Google]

4MB, 4032x3024px

>>9102118
T.t.loupe

>>9102118
Liar liar liar

Open it with paint, zoom in real close and you will see there is no red.

File: 505982471.jpg (26KB, 612x612px) Image search: [Google]

26KB, 612x612px

>>9102123
pic related >>9102124

>>9102127
You're lying so what does it matter

>>9102128
It determines if you are gay or not, that's why it matters.

>>9102131
It's much like when you are in a desert and anything that looks like water looks like real water even if it is not. Fags think the same way with anything that looks like cocks, body parts or bodily fluids, hence the design of Apple products.

Anyways thanks for confirming that I'm not gay because I was able to see through it.

>>9102109
Also, don't try to see the lack of red by staring at it, that may screw with you. Try to use your peripheral vision instead.

File: redhist.png (703KB, 865x865px) Image search: [Google]

703KB, 865x865px

>>9102109

File: Br-1r8MIEAAEucT.jpg (45KB, 533x800px) Image search: [Google]

45KB, 533x800px

>>9102137
If you can see through your computer screen then you aren't seeing an accurate representation of the picture's colors. Therefore, you are in a super gay position until you view the image correctly.

And if we can say you are super gay now, just imagine what we can say later.

File: noredhist.png (688KB, 871x871px) Image search: [Google]

688KB, 871x871px

>>9102109
>>9102149

>>9102151
Also you are trying to find fault with me in much the same way people might perceive red in the photo, that confirms that it is in fact you who is gay, super gay be it.

>>9102154
Actually, i use xflux, which makes all my pixels redder, so the red is real, and so is my sexual preference for girlies.

File: Normal_Pastry.png (970KB, 857x857px) Image search: [Google]

970KB, 857x857px

>>9102109
Don't know what you're talking about. Looks like a normal picture to me.

>>9102160
Is that what you refer to your permanent drunk goggles as?

File: images (8).jpg (7KB, 226x223px) Image search: [Google]

7KB, 226x223px

>>9102187
Warned for activating my amaylidia.

next time...... picture very related

File: ar15.jpg (19KB, 301x200px) Image search: [Google]

19KB, 301x200px

>>9102201
Ok buddy, let's see who wins.

>>9102109
It looks red (warm) relative to the coolness of the background color. Color theory 101.

File: 1502581090116.png (901KB, 1295x857px) Image search: [Google]

901KB, 1295x857px

Yep, pretty fucking sure there is some red in that.

Fuck this gay thread OP you liar.

saged.

>>9102153
>>9102149
OP BTFO

>>9102109
If the statement "using zero red pixels" is equivalent to stating that the R component in the RGB color coding is zero, then the image do use red pixels and the first statement is wrong

>>9102241
Are you saying green is red?

>>9102247
Stop lying you fucking nigger.

https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/wnkq5n/this-picture-has-no-red-pixelsso-why-do-the-strawberries-still-look-red

>>9102248
you liar, stop lying liar

File: maxresdefault (3).jpg (198KB, 2013x1152px) Image search: [Google]

198KB, 2013x1152px

>>9102221
Last


Chanse

Kneel or Die

File: nuclear.png (86KB, 316x196px) Image search: [Google]

86KB, 316x196px

>>9102260
See you in hell, bitch.

>>9102251
Brainlet doesn't know how to examine colors with MS paint?

File: images (9).jpg (11KB, 300x168px) Image search: [Google]

11KB, 300x168px

>>9102264
you fool I was born in hell, molded by it.

i will escape againe and againe

>>9102109
if you turn the red channel down, you get it black. There is red in this picture.

>>9102123
Hit that shit with the eyedropper tool. It's all shades of green.

File: Captur123124e.png (176KB, 769x953px) Image search: [Google]

176KB, 769x953px

>>9102149
>>9102153
>>9102241
>>9102245


Fucking rekt dumb science bitches

>>9102628
You just proved there's red in the picture.

File: x.png (21KB, 1326x567px) Image search: [Google]

21KB, 1326x567px

>>9102124
1600%, top left berry, looks like red to me

File: 1502581090116.png (837KB, 857x857px) Image search: [Google]

837KB, 857x857px

>>9102109
This is your image with no red pixels, doesn't look so red now, does it?

>>9102875
Kinda looks a little red tho

>>9102875
facebook """scientists""" BTFO

>>9102169
Shit looks like a tasty tart desu

File: IMG_0271.jpg (98KB, 727x701px) Image search: [Google]

98KB, 727x701px

>>9102284
I AM DEATH INCARNATE

>>9102201
Right in the sarcophagus

>>9102782
>>9102875
You're confusing having a nonzero R in an RGB value with having red. The picture used RGB values that had nonzero Rs, but it didn't include any pixels colored #FF0000. Basically, this:
>>9102628
And to answer OP's question, it's because of this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Color_constancy
Your brain corrects for different sorts of lighting, so you interpret non-red as red if the picture you're looking at looks similar to how a red colored object would appear in a room with a certain different colored lighting like blue. The different colored lighting in real life would make a red object look not red and your brain corrects for that and successfully equates a red apple in a blue lit room with a red apple under normal lighting, which is a mechanism that can be exploited for optical illusion purposes in a way analogous to how you can be tricked into thinking there's depth in a flat picture.

File: muh pixels.png (5KB, 104x152px) Image search: [Google]

5KB, 104x152px

looks like there's a lot of red actually

>>9103079
PHEW
I was waiting for some idiot to say this
With this logic, there is also zero green pixels, and zero blue pixels, because even the blue with 255 has green and red
You Can Say This For Most Pictures

Anyone who falls for this pop-sci scam should facepalm immetietly

>>9103079
>You're confusing having a nonzero R in an RGB value with having red. The picture used RGB values that had nonzero Rs, but it didn't include any pixels colored #FF0000
There's no #00FF00 or #0000FF either, so using your reasoning there is no blue nor green either. The statement "there is no red" is simply not correct unless the red channel of all pixels are zero. Having a nonzero R in an RGB value [math]\textit{does}[/math] mean that red is present in the picture, albeit the red is arbitrarily close to zero.

To me it seems you are aware that the pixels of the picture are not commonly referred to as red and thus you draw the conclusion that there is no red in the picture. Am I correct?

File: illusion.png (337KB, 901x474px) Image search: [Google]

337KB, 901x474px

>>9103317
>>9103404
You're using an autistic as fuck definition for what counts as red. None of the colors in the right side image are something anyone would call "red" except to try to win an argument. You're literally arguing that cyan is red because it has a nonzero R value. I shouldn't have brought up #FF0000 because that leads to the same autistic nitpicking that we're dealing with now, but the basic point of that Akiyoshi Kitaoka optical illusion is to show how color constancy makes cyan shades of color appear to look like red shades of color. You don't need to completely eliminate the red channel of the constituent components of color to have an illusion that makes cyan shades of color appear to look like red shades of color.

File: giphy (1).gif (343KB, 500x351px) Image search: [Google]

343KB, 500x351px

>>9103472
>You're using an autistic as fuck definition for what counts as red
the picture is sensationalized to have "no red pixels"

That is why i am being autistic as fuck about it. Following that logic, it also has no green or blue pixels. I understand the illusion, its the same concept as pic

>>9103488
>Following that logic, it also has no green or blue pixels.
It contains cyan shade pixels which is a color somewhere between green and blue, it doesn't contain red shade pixels. Forget about the #FF0000 thing, the point is there are shades of color generally agreed upon as falling under the classification of red shades or cyan shades. It's not an absolute thing, it's just a made up category, but there's more or less disagreement about what counts as a given shade depending on where you go in the color spectrum, and in this case, the red shades in the first example are pretty uncontroversially red and the cyan shades in the second example are pretty uncontroversially cyan.

Shit like this is why I sometimes think art should be mandatory. how can you be STEM and not understand how Color constancy works. Literally the first thing you learn when you learn to draw in color.

>>9103492
So basically you are drawing lines based on feeling and calling it an argument.
"Shade pixels" and your "Made up catagory" is you grasping at straws.

Good for you, but you can have cyan without red, and if you remove red from the picture, it does not look red.

No red pixels is completely fallacious.

What is the definition of 'red'? What is the scientific explanation of when 'red' occurs and when 'red' does not occur in an image? Remember, this is a goddamned fucking SCIENCE board.

File: 150266591615182 (2).png (672KB, 857x857px) Image search: [Google]

672KB, 857x857px

this image does not contain a single blue pixel


yet the strawmanberries appear blue,
how is tihs possible?

File: 150266591615182 (3).png (673KB, 857x857px) Image search: [Google]

673KB, 857x857px

>>9103752
and these, green

what has science done!?!?

>>9103728
>So basically you are drawing lines based on feeling
That's exactly what colors are, lines drawn based on feeling. Or if you disagree, give me the physical / scientific explanation for why "red" should be defined as 780 to 622 nm. What happens at 780 nm that makes light suddenly become "red" in an objective and absolute sense?

Everyone stfu. The red-looking parts in the OP pic are gray pixels. Obviously gray has red in it (in addition to blue and green), but that's not why you're seeing the color red.

>>9103766
im only responding to tell you i read your post and its so retarded the high likelihood you are trolling along with the possibility you are actually that stupid eliminate any motivation i would have to answer your misdirection.

in any case, there is red wavelengths in the picture, and that is why it appears red, there is no other reason

>>9103783
See:
>>9103779
That's all I'm really trying to get you to understand, summed up better than I was wording it.

>>9103795
I completely understand what you are trying to say, it's just wrong.

You see the red because it is there. It looks more intense because of the color around it, that's all there is to it.

File: cones_graph2.gif (22KB, 444x350px) Image search: [Google]

22KB, 444x350px

>>9102116
Also your brain can only work on the information it's sent by your eyes. There's lots of overlap in cone's response spectra so colour perception depends a lot on relative signal strength rather than what's actually there.
Lots of blue can be interpreted as equal blue/green, then high green gets interpreted as red.

>>9103797
Grey isn't red. I'm going to take the word of the professor who published this over yours, sorry.

>>9103863
There is no grey in that image.

Plus, you don't need to apologize for being an ignorant sheep.

>>9103863
Doesn't matter if Einstein himself said it. Look at >>9102875 if you want to see it without any red

You're objectively fucking retarded

>>9102109
You do realize that on your screen, there are red subpixels actually being lit, right?

That's because the wave function of those clouds include the frequency of "red"

The point is not that the strawberries *look red*, but that they *look REDDER than their environment*. This is true for both the original and the modified image, and this is because the strawberry pixels have a higher R value in the RGB color space, than the pixels of their environment. Those who can't comprehend this are fucking retards.

File: 1502667891238.png (27KB, 444x350px) Image search: [Google]

27KB, 444x350px

>>9103810
>Also your brain can only work on the information it's sent by your eyes. There's lots of overlap in cone's response spectra so colour perception depends a lot on relative signal strength rather than what's actually there.
>Lots of blue can be interpreted as equal blue/green, then high green gets interpreted as red.

You are fucking stupid and you know nothing about science! You can't even read a simple diagram made for retards. What the fuck are you, some kind of artist?
The "lots of overlap" doesn't mean no nothing because you doesn't see with the separate cones.
"High green" doesn't "gets interpreted as red", because as shown in pic related (yours, corrected), at around 550 nm both the red and the green cones are activated, and to a small extent even the blue, and these all send a response to the brain, which always calculates the *ratio* of the signal from all three cones. The RGB mixture in this ratio is the perceived color you retard, the brain doesn't select randomly one cone.
This is true for the other case on the pic, too. The 510 nm wavelength is not perceived as "blue/green" (ie. either this or that [it could even be red, according to your half cooked theory]), but the mixture of all three cone signals.

File: 1502678846996.png (44KB, 444x350px) Image search: [Google]

44KB, 444x350px

>>9104049
>calculates the *ratio* of the signal from all three cones. The RGB mixture in this ratio is the perceived color
That's what I said. Except perceived colour is altered depending on how the rest of the image is interpreted >>9103488.
Equal blue/green signals can have green either higher or lower than a constant red signal. For blue strong and green weak most the green cone activity will be (interpreted as) from red light.

>>9104210
I have no idea what you are talking about, but you are so confident of your "system", that I'm starting to doubt myself.
There's only one wavelength where the blue and green responses are equal, that's at 500 nm, the intersection of their curves.
There's no constant red signal. That would show up on the diagram as a horizontal line.
What does the green hump you just draw represents?
What are those intervals represent?

File: Capture.png (458KB, 1056x897px) Image search: [Google]

458KB, 1056x897px

>>9102109
>this image uses zero red pixels
fully read, you mean... i.e
>255, 0, 0 RGB

Because if I remove every other channel, you can see many pixels have some amounts of red (didn't bother to read the thread, sorry if I missed something)

>>9104306
You missed everything!

>>9104314
Every step that i take is another mistake!

IVE BECOME SO NUMB

Cant you see that you are smothering me?!

>>9104314
ye, reading now...

>>9104318
jej

File: 1502410267120.gif (393KB, 1000x548px) Image search: [Google]

393KB, 1000x548px

>>9103795
everyone understands what you're saying, faggot
what we're mad at is the lie and clickbait in your original post
hang yourself using a rope with no red pixels

>>9102109
You know they're strawberries. And you know strawberries are red. So you fill in the colour yourself. Colour =/= light wavelength. Colour is a subjective psychological phenomenon.

>>9104525
You can *objectively measure* their fucking redness compared to the background.

>>9102109
ITT: We misunderstand how color works.

>>9104525
>You know they're strawberries. And you know strawberries are red. So you fill in the colour yourself.

See:
>>9103752

Your explanation is incorrect.

>>9102123
There are no pixels for which R is the largest value.

>>9105180

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red

"Red is the color at the longer-wavelengths end of the spectrum of visible light next to orange, at the opposite end from violet.Red color has a predominant light wavelength of roughly 620–740 nanometers"

>>9105180
The only areas that look red have red sub pixels in them

>>9104049
Color perception is not via absolute RGB values sent down the optic nerve. Cone varieties are not evenly distributed in orderly clusters, are not equally sensitive, and will compare and merge signals prior to transmission. The eye isn't just a sensor, it does pre-processing as well.

Generally the brain works more with luminance than chrominance.

ITT: autism. Seriously, just let this thread die. "There isn't a single pixel where the value of red is greater than any of the other two values" and this is simplified in the sentence there is no red in the picture.

Sage to let stupid people be stupid if they want to.

>>9103755
Holy shit those look exotic as fuck.

>>9105641
No you're saging because you are the retard trying to get the last word, which you can have, as long as it's you admitting you're wrong. There is red in the picture, that is a fact.

>>9106143
>Any color with an RGB value containing R>0 is red.
So to clarify, you're arguing that the color yellow is red?

>>9106151
No, im arguing the strawberries look red because of red subpixels.

Are you actually unironically dumb or something.

>>9106166
You wrote:
>There is red in the picture, that is a fact.
Which can only be true if you're under the impression any color with an RGB value containing R>0 is red.
>the strawberries look red because of red subpixels
That's not even true. Yellow has max R in its RGB and using lots of yellow wouldn't make your picture look red. It's a color constancy illusion.

>>9106175
This shit is a strawman.

Refer to the thread if you dont think red sub-pixels make it look red. Some kind anon removed the red for you brainless sheep.

It's the same with green and blue as i showed earlier also.

File: yellow.jpg (109KB, 1251x702px) Image search: [Google]

109KB, 1251x702px

>>9106200
You're right, this picture looks really red even though it's just red sub-pixels, pretty amazing.

File: Captur1421423123e.png (5KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

5KB, 1280x720px

>>9106200
Regardless, what OP said is true. There isn't a single red pixel.

pic related: It's the color red (1, 0, 255)

>>9106207
>>9106206
I understand you're upset, but perhaps use that anger to question the views you cannot support and only stubbornly parrot it to save face on an anonymous blog comment section.

File: baby_crying_iawp3j[1].jpg (90KB, 448x300px) Image search: [Google]

90KB, 448x300px

>>9106215
>they made me look like an idiot
>I have no argument

>>9106218
Ironically that has been your mo for the last few posts.

File: fghj2[1].jpg (37KB, 690x446px) Image search: [Google]

37KB, 690x446px

tl;dr
there's not a single pixel in op that has red component greater than green or blue.
Trying to be pedantic about definition is a waste of time.

In any case even when color balance is disrupted your brain tries to adjust, as long as you can recognize the objects that you see. Same as using tinted glasses or display temperature changers like f.lux.

>>9106215
He's right though. You're not picking up on the supposed redness in them at all. It's not on the red wavelengths of the visible spectrum. Removing all the red channels also changed other colours which are not perceived as red. Taking the "red" in isolation will not let you perceive it as red. Other colours with a non-zero but still non-dominant R value are not perceived as red. Conclusion: it is not the "red sub-pixels" which make the strawberries look red. It may be the case that the shade of cyan which they actually are has an RGB value with R > 0 but it is not the cause of the illusion. Knowing the RGB value of that colour cyan does not let you explain how it works.

>>9106215
>>9106791
Additionally, the original claim was about red pixels, not red sub-pixels or RGB values, and there is not a single pixel in that image which, if viewed in isolation by a non-colourblind person under normal lighting conditions, would ever register as red.

File: 15025810901162.png (943KB, 857x857px) Image search: [Google]

943KB, 857x857px

>>9102169
ahhaha, you beat me to it

>>9102109
oh look, this thread again. We disproved this months ago fag

>>9106791
>>9106802
This is called handwaving. Also whatever the fallacy where you make up shit like
>if viewed in isolation by a non-colourblind person under normal lighting conditions, would ever register as red.

and call it a fact, dispite it being a figment of this anon's imagination.

>>9107261
>This is called handwaving.
Well, it's nice of you to point out what you're doing. But I don't see how anything I said is incorrect.

>>9107267
That's a condition called low iq. Nothing you said made cohesive sense, and most of it did not make sense in general. Probably made sense to you, but again, that's called having a low iq.

>>9107288
You don't understand what I'm saying therefore I have the low IQ. That's fantastically well-reasoned. I don't even see how you could have a problem with it but you're not going to refute anything I don't see what your sad posturing is supposed to accomplish.

>>9107328
What's ironic and sad is you are the one posturing. I haven't even thought twice about it but you are repeatedly making senseless replies, I thought you were either misdirected or trolling so I was having fun being derogatory while trying to show you my point of view. You show complete stubbornness, almost like you subconsciously omit parts of posts that you can't refute.

That is empirical proof of an idiot. So say whatever you will next, I won't respond, this is akin to disproving God to the pope.

>>9107373
>I haven't even thought twice about it
Yet here you are.
> I was having fun being derogatory while trying to show you my point of view.
Which you haven't done.
>You show complete stubbornness
Thanks, pot.

t. kettle.
>almost like you subconsciously omit parts of posts that you can't refute
Which of the zero points you made would you like refuted, son? I've already showed you mine.
>So say whatever you will next, I won't respond
Can you really resist? But I was having such fun being derogatory.

>>9106215
No, you're the one visibly upset here.

>>9107379
>>9107384
kek