What color are you seeing on this dress?

[Hervé]

Posted by Oouthere (here)
... the 4th saw the gold/white while viewing it simultaneously on the same monitor. This was confirmed from various angles/positions while looking at the monitor.

... is the 4th person taller than the other ones? That would be equivalent to changing the angle of viewing, i.e. from "above" or from "below" the perpendicular to the screen.

[Oouthere]

We changed height, angles, everything and no ones color perspective changed. The one that saw the gold/white thought we were playing a joke on them in the beginning.

[gripreaper]

I think the term "dress" is a metaphor for "duress" and the subliminal message that is being fed to the subconscious minds of the masses, is that the Annunaki are coming back real soon and that you can see planet X peeking out now from behind the sun, and that the magnetic disturbance which will occur from the drive-by of this planet will cause earth to pole shift and the elite will want to get off of earth and not go to their secret hiding places in the south, and those who are mercenaries for these elite who drink blood and sacrifice little children will still get to keep their tickets to their underground secret hiding places while we will be "dressed up" with nowhere to go and no one of us sheep will know the true color of what is happening.

You see, you have to read between the lines if you want to figure this crap out!

But since this is David Wilcock day at Avalon, I digress.....

[guayabal]

Posted by Hervé (here)

Posted by Oouthere (here)
... the 4th saw the gold/white while viewing it simultaneously on the same monitor. This was confirmed from various angles/positions while looking at the monitor.

... is the 4th person taller than the other ones? That would be equivalent to changing the angle of viewing, i.e. from "above" or from "below" the perpendicular to the screen.

hi Hervé, although in some cases the color shift produced by cheap TN monitors (the ones that shift colors when you observe from different angles, mainly vertically) can be a cause for the color shift of "the dress", it can't be the main reason. I have an IPS monitor (it reproduces colors accurately consistently across (practically) all viewing angles, if you have only used TN displays you have to see it to believe it) and I have seen the original "dress picture" in both of its "versions" (white/gold and blue/black), my mind sometimes locks it up on the white/gold version and other times on the blue/black (but lately only on the blue/black... maybe because now it knows it is the "correct" interpretation and it does not want to go back? :-S ).

[Earthlink]

hee hee heee

[Hervé]

MY guess is that it's all NASA's fault because they wanted this whole planet to believe Marsian skies were red and therefore found a way to automatically modify every monitor on Earth to paint Mars' skies in red instead of blue!

There!

[DeDukshyn]

Posted by Hervé (here)

Posted by guayabal (here)
[...]



[...]

The above picture gives a good example of what my post # 31 explains: get your face closer to your laptop screen or LCD PC screen and scroll the picture from top to bottom of your screen and notice the color change... or tilt your screen as Maia did, same result

It definitely has to do with the auto-white balance from our eyes. Different people have different thresholds for "white". Finding the white balance is complex, especially in a scene with multiple sources of light that each have different white colours - ask any videographer how frustrating it can be to achieve proper white balance sometimes (I have to deal with this a lot in both my profession and video / photog hobby). The tool they use is a white or grey card in front of the lens with all lights contributing, then setting it manually or allow the auto finder to find the balance on the card.

Our eyes don't have a card, and your brain has to adjust this constantly based on all the input from the whole scene, making it probably more likely for small variations between different peoples' eyes - depending on how the scene is interpreted. The brain has to look at the whole scene and determine how to white-balance it. Some peoples brains utilize additional info to help determine this, such as, "is the material colour diffuse or reflected? are the source lights for the scene of different colours?" etc. Which can help build the picture more accurately so the brain has enough to consider for setting that white-balance appropriately. It appeared to me that people with "calibrated monitors" did tend to see it as blue black more than people without. However, I now think that people with calibrated monitors have calibrated them because the do artwork or digital graphics, or photo works, and I think that it is the discerning eye of people with a bit more of an "artistic eye" that utilizes that little bit of the extra information I presented to get to the black blue result (the dress really is black-blue BTW for the doubters - the maker has confirmed this).

I did also catch my eyes in the moment of adjusting the white balance -- for a very brief moment, after having seen the black blue several times, I saw white and gold, but it very quickly switched to black- blue, and I never got the white gold back again. At this point I could tell my eyes were adjusting.

As for the tilting of monitor effect, that is probably going to shift the colours just enough to be able to invoke a eyeball white balance, hence some people seeing it change when tilting their monitor.

So calibration, and viewing do have some of an impact, but more along the lines of what info is being sent to the eyes, and is that enough data in that image for your eyes to be able to find the correct balance.

I have now spent way to much time on this thread, this ship has sailed (what happened in the mean time? ) ... but together with Carmody's, Herve's and a few others' fine posts, hopefully that helps explain it.

EDIT: I recently read an article saying that some people have a fourth cone in their eye (as opposed to three) and those people see the dress differently than people with only three cone variations in their eyes. This is NOT the whole story, considering that for many people, their eyes have seen it both ways; your eyes cannot simply have these extra cones one moment then not have them the next. So much for "experts" responses again ... There's definitely more going on than just the types of cones in peoples eyes - the varying white balance seems to fit the bill.

[guayabal]

Posted by DeDukshyn (here)
[...]
I recently read an article saying that some people have a fourth cone in their eye (as opposed to three) and those people see the dress differently than people with only three cone variations in their eyes. This is NOT the whole story, considering that for many people, their eyes have seen it both ways; your eyes cannot simply have these extra cones one moment then not have them the next. So much for "experts" responses again ... There's definitely more going on than just the types of cones in peoples eyes - the varying white balance seems to fit the bill.

thanks DeDukshyn... agree... but before you go let me add to your conclusions :-)

The role of overexposure of the picture is not to be neglected in "the dress": the overexposure of the picture makes it harder for the eye-brain to do the auto-white balance and sometimes gives up and presents the white/gold version. But when the eye-brain does the auto-white balance the change of color perception (to blue/black) is too pronounced and from this change we can say that eye-brain did a leap by doing an auto-exposure correction too!

And "finally" a note about the role of judgment of the two kinds of observers:

* When the observer sees white/gold, eye-brain interpretation has lost and what is being seeing is the colors of the picture literally. The observer is more technically objective as he will be able to recognize immediately that the picture does not represent reality at all.

* When the observer sees blue/black, eye-brain interpretation has won and what is being seen is the colors of what the picture is about. The observer won't be as sharp judging the picture technically but he will be able to tell way better what the picture is representing.

[DeDukshyn]

Posted by guayabal (here)

Posted by DeDukshyn (here)
[...]
I recently read an article saying that some people have a fourth cone in their eye (as opposed to three) and those people see the dress differently than people with only three cone variations in their eyes. This is NOT the whole story, considering that for many people, their eyes have seen it both ways; your eyes cannot simply have these extra cones one moment then not have them the next. So much for "experts" responses again ... There's definitely more going on than just the types of cones in peoples eyes - the varying white balance seems to fit the bill.

thanks DeDukshyn... agree... but before you go let me add to your conclusions :-)

The role of overexposure of the picture is not to be neglected in "the dress": the overexposure of the picture makes it harder for the eye-brain to do the auto-white balance and sometimes gives up and presents the white/gold version. But when the eye-brain does the auto-white balance the change of color perception (to blue/black) is too pronounced and from this change we can say that eye-brain did a leap by doing an auto-exposure correction too!

And "finally" a note about the role of judgment of the two kinds of observers:

* When the observer sees white/gold, eye-brain interpretation has lost and what is being seeing is the colors of the picture literally. The observer is more technically objective as he will be able to recognize immediately that the picture does not represent reality at all.

* When the observer sees blue/black, eye-brain interpretation has won and what is being seen is the colors of what the picture is about. The observer won't be as sharp judging the picture technically but he will be able to tell way better what the picture is representing.

Yup totally agree, that all aligns perfectly with the way I see it - referring to what info the brain uses to determine the white balance. It is a rather large combo of factors affecting our eyes ability to white balance properly - even four variable cones as opposed to three may also help give people with four types of cones a slight edge in getting enough of that info for a correct white balance, so even there, there may well be a factor.

Your earlier post was one of the ones I couldn't think of when I mentioned "previous fine posts" ...

[DeDukshyn]

Posted by DeDukshyn (here)

Posted by guayabal (here)

Posted by DeDukshyn (here)
[...]
I recently read an article saying that some people have a fourth cone in their eye (as opposed to three) and those people see the dress differently than people with only three cone variations in their eyes. This is NOT the whole story, considering that for many people, their eyes have seen it both ways; your eyes cannot simply have these extra cones one moment then not have them the next. So much for "experts" responses again ... There's definitely more going on than just the types of cones in peoples eyes - the varying white balance seems to fit the bill.

thanks DeDukshyn... agree... but before you go let me add to your conclusions :-)

The role of overexposure of the picture is not to be neglected in "the dress": the overexposure of the picture makes it harder for the eye-brain to do the auto-white balance and sometimes gives up and presents the white/gold version. But when the eye-brain does the auto-white balance the change of color perception (to blue/black) is too pronounced and from this change we can say that eye-brain did a leap by doing an auto-exposure correction too!

And "finally" a note about the role of judgment of the two kinds of observers:

* When the observer sees white/gold, eye-brain interpretation has lost and what is being seeing is the colors of the picture literally. The observer is more technically objective as he will be able to recognize immediately that the picture does not represent reality at all.

* When the observer sees blue/black, eye-brain interpretation has won and what is being seen is the colors of what the picture is about. The observer won't be as sharp judging the picture technically but he will be able to tell way better what the picture is representing.

Yup totally agree, that all aligns perfectly with the way I see it - referring to what info the brain uses to determine the white balance. It is a rather large combo of factors affecting our eyes ability to white balance properly - even four variable cones as opposed to three may also help give people with four types of cones a slight edge in getting enough of that info for a correct white balance, so even there, there may well be a factor.

Your earlier post was one of the ones I couldn't think of when I mentioned "previous fine posts" ...

Ps ... it's black and blue though

[gripreaper]

New updates in this very important subject: Here they are:

The age and sex of the viewer has an influence on what they see. Here is a chart which illustrates this:



And also the demographic home life you come from, your childhood residence:



So, the evidence is pointing to environmental influences in contravention to genetics, because the genetics of the retina's ability to differentiate when influenced by different color of light, as well as intensity, does not negate the environmental influence of how old you are, what sex you are, and where you lived as a child.

The debate still rages on as most people still don't know what color the dress is.