Tutorial Doctor: "Regardless of how many videos I have seen, and scientific explanations I still am still not seeing the acclaimed royal blue and pitch black in that photo."
Hodgman: "The only way I've been able to see dark blue and black ... How can so many people not see the pixel colours? Of all the sites posting about this, why is it always black/blue vs white/gold? The JPEG itself unquestionably contains light blue and brown. Is there really an illusion here and I've just spent so long deconstructing graphics that I'm trained in only seeing literal pixel colours without further interpretation? Or maybe lots of people are viewing on bad monitors in direct sunlight??"
I'm not sure many people have said "pitch black", "royal blue" or "dark blue", rather the option is "blue and black".
I say "black" in the more general sense, not strictly a total absense of color - e.g., if someone is wearing a faded black t-shirt, I'd still call it "black" rather than the "dark grey" it may have turned into. I can see brown pixels, but there is no magic RGB value where brown becomes black. For the blue, I can see a range of shades - also bear in mind there have been different versions of the photo with different brightness levels.
I was first asked what colour is the dress, not what colour are the pixels, so I would have taken lighting into account. But I can see the brownness, and even almost golden pixels at the top (depending on the version of the picture), as well as a range of blue pixels.
For people who see gold and white - what would you say is exactly what you see?
The interesting thing is people who have said they saw it as one, and then the other - often noting what a surprise this was to them. So this doesn't simply seem to be an issue of interpreting the question differently, nor deciding to describe the colours differently - rather, what they perceived actually changed.
mdwhMember Since 27 Feb 2006
Offline Last Active Today, 08:31 AM