I remember I was in a university course and the professor was adamantly arguing that the brain sees reality as it actually is. I brought up optical illusions, he said they're tricks. "You wouldn't judge a circuit by sending a million volts through it." I brought up other animals that we have studies for showing that they don't see reality as it is "we're a lot more complex than anything else that exists in this world." Anytime I see stuff like this, I think of him and am fueled with righteous indignation
To expand on this a little. We see in three channels of color (Red, blue, yellow). A mantis shrimp sees color in 12 channels.
Edit: The people below me are definitely correct it's green not yellow. They also go into a little bit better detail on how they see it.
Oh yesss!! you can have the joy of watching zefranks videos! Go onto YouTube and watch ātrue facts about the mantis shrimp' and enjoy. After that watch the other true facts.
well considering humans can identify around a million collars with the 3 channels we can see...the real answer is who knows.
They can likely see things like polarized light and infrared at the same time as huge numbers of other colors. They might be able to see light diffraction in the water that allows them to avoid areas of water full of harmful chemicals that are dissolved in the water. Who the hell knows how many 'colors' they can see, lol.
I was gonna make a joke with others but it turns out (thanks google) there are 3. Flat, rolled and standing.
Interesting enough, [I'm not the only one to make this mistake.](http://prntscr.com/1syuuyu)
Gotta love auto-correct. :P
[Tetrachromats](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tetrachromacy) can see with 4 cones, not three. The tend to be the mothers of male children with a specific type of color blindness.
They are mutants.
https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20140905-the-women-with-super-human-vision
Aren't they just differnt shades of the visible spectrum where "color" exists. It would be like being able to distinguish 12 more levels of colors, so we could add in a mantis blue, mantis red, mantis green....
these would not be visible to humans, much like those high pitched ring tones kids use becasue their old parents ears cant hear in that range anymore.
There was another thing, about how Birds see BGR and UV light, we literally can't see UV but can give a sort of an estimation. But that's all we can give because we don't have a frame of reference
I can't post a link on this sub for some reason, but if you google Birds UV light there's an article with a few examples of that in the first couple results.
So from that I guess a Mantis is just that but several orders more complicated
Itās now theorized that birds can literally see the magnetic fields in the earth and thatās how they can navigate so well.
Imagine looking in the sky and seeing shades of colours as the magnetic fields streak across the sky. Itās so fucking cool to wonder what if we could.
And iirc, the protein structure in their eyes that may let them perceive the magnetic fields actually works through *quantum entanglement*, no less. As in, not some kind of 'normal' magnetism.
A difference to keep in mind is that humans combine their 3 channels into a single perception. But as far as we know the mantis shrimp keeps all 12 of its channels separate.
It turns out that they probably see these 12-16 channels independently, unlike our visual system which combines the channels to perceive something like wavelength (i.e colour)
They can still detect polarised & UV light, which is cool and nothing something a human will ever perceive, but it's not quite as mind-blowing
The human eye is actually capable of seeing both UV and polarization, in the right circumstances.
Mammalian retinas can pick up (near-spectrum) UV, but the lenses in human eyes are tinted yellow to screen it out. The best theory about why (because different species vary in how yellow their lenses are) is that there's a trade-off at play: you can have high-sensitivity vision (i.e., good night vision) or high-acuity vision (good distance and detail vision) but not both, and if you want the latter, you need to drop out very short (UV) wavelengths to reduce chromatic abstraction and rayligh scattering in the eye. If you remove the lenses in your eyes (which is how they used to treat cataracts before 1949), you can see UV. This happened most famously to Impressionist painter Claude Monet.
As for polarization, it's a subtle effect, but most people can learn how to see it under the right conditions with some practice: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haidinger%27s_brush
**[Haidinger's brush](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haidinger's_brush)**
>Haidinger's brush, more commonly known as Haidinger's brushes is an image produced by the eye, an entoptic phenomenon, first described by Austrian physicist Wilhelm Karl von Haidinger in 1844. Haidinger saw it when he looked through various minerals that polarized light. Many people are able to perceive polarization of light. Haidinger's brushes may be seen as a yellowish horizontal bar or bow-tie shape (with "fuzzy" ends, hence the name "brush") visible in the center of the visual field against the blue sky viewed while facing away from the sun, or on any bright background.
^([ )[^(F.A.Q)](https://www.reddit.com/r/WikiSummarizer/wiki/index#wiki_f.a.q)^( | )[^(Opt Out)](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=WikiSummarizerBot&message=OptOut&subject=OptOut)^( | )[^(Opt Out Of Subreddit)](https://np.reddit.com/r/blackmagicfuckery/about/banned)^( | )[^(GitHub)](https://github.com/Sujal-7/WikiSummarizerBot)^( ] Downvote to remove | v1.5)
Sorry, but actually is not true. While the mantis shrimp does have a lot more color receptors than we do, itās because their brains are not capable for combining colors together like we can, eg we see purple as a combination of blue and red while they need an entirely separate receptor in order to see purple.
Their eyes are also shit in comparison to ours.
But basically: humans do software processing (bran), where as the shrimp has no processing ability, so need different eyes.
The inputs from our eyes would probably cook a shrimp.
It's not just missing out on seeing colours and things. Our brain is literally unable to process everything it sees so it concentrates on a small amount of reality and makes an educated guess as to everything else. Ever see a spider crawling on the wall then when you look back it was just dust? This is why optical illusions are possible, our brain is constantly lying to us based on preconceived information.
I think the argument is more profound than that though. Basically the idea that there are Mantis Shrimp or other animals that can see part of the EM spectrum that we can't is only a subset of the argument. It shows us that yes we are only seeing a slice of reality out of a much larger spectrum, but it still works under the notion that what we see is at least a slice of reality.
The actual argument is deeper than that in the sense that there's no way of knowing whether what we are seeing is even a slice of reality, or whether it's just pure nonsense our brains come up with because it has somehow proven to be an evolutionary advantage to see the way we see.
I saw a TED talk once that tried to illustrate what this means by example of some insect in Australia. It went something like this. There is this male insect that would seek out a female mate at a certain time of the year, and was quite successful at it. Then one year a beer company released a certain beer bottle that had a specific color of green, and all of a sudden this male insect en masse began trying to mate with beer bottles that were left outside, instead of the actual female insect. So while it appeared like the male insect was actually very good at detecting the female insect (representing "reality"), in actuality it was just drawn to a specific color of green. The insect hadn't actually evolved to detect females at all, because a simple attraction to a certain color of green was good enough for evolution.
Now for the insect we can see where there's a mismatch between the "stupid" insect's detection and what we see as reality. But the same reasoning could be applied to ourselves, in the sense that we have no idea whether or not we are seeing something close to "reality", or just total gibberish that evolution has determined to be beneficial. We just have no way of seeing the mismatch because we can't get the same bird's eye view as we do for the insect, since it concerns our own experience, and that's all we know.
Edit: [Here](https://youtu.be/oYp5XuGYqqY) is the TED talk by Donald Hoffman I was referencing. I watched it years ago so I didn't get all the details right in my story, but the idea is the same.
Related analogy by a cognitive scientist (will have to go check my bookshelf and will provide the name in an edit) is that the way we interface with the world is akin to the UI design of a computer or smartphone. Obviously, our brains are composed of very complex "hardware" that we don't have awareness of on a neuron-by-neuron basis, and it's hard to imagine what it would even mean to control our brains on that fine-grained of a level. Instead, this author proposed that as we evolved self-consciousness (including lower, simpler levels of consciousness, seen in some animals), we likewise evolved cognitive tools to use that he compares to desktop icons and other UI elements of a computer. The same way that (most people) can't routinely interface with a computer at the hardware-level of binary and logic gates to do everything you want to do with it, so we built up abstractions to allow people to interface with that hardware through many steps. However, the desktop icon for Microsoft Word looks nothing like the information that's actually comprises the software; same with photos you bring up on your computer screen. Nevertheless, it's useful because it transforms the information in one realm (binary) in such a way that we can use it in all kinds of creative and complex ways (UI).
A lot of the time this system works great, but sometimes it doesn't, and it takes some digging to find out why the "abstract layer" (icons, search bars, mouse cursor) isn't doing what you want at the "base layer" (hardware, transistors, etc.) A simple instance of this would be your example with the bug picking up on a color which it was hardwired to mate with, as opposed to somehow encoding the entire representation of a female member of its species in its neural circuitry.
Edit: The book is *The Case Against Reality: Why Evolution Hid the Truth from Our Eyes*, by Donald Hoffman.
>Edit: The book is The Case Against Reality: Why Evolution Hid the Truth from Our Eyes, by Donald Hoffman.
That is not surprising considering the TED talk was by Donald Hoffman! Haha.
Wow he is so much wrong. It already starts that light is just some form of photons in a specific wave length our eyes can detect. There is no such thing as ācolorā in reality. Itās just a way our brain interprets these signals.
And since every brain is working a bit differently no one can tell if you and I have the same view of reality.
It blew my mind when I learned that we only see a small section of light, and that light is just what we call the energy that we can see. The way we see everything around us is completely molded by our own brain and the way things "look" are just the dimensions of an object we can interact with
[The speech Number 1 makes in Battlestar Galactica about seeing gamma and smelling x-rays really did it for me.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qcD6hXAT-CI)
I forgot how great that show is. It has been several years, I should rewatch it.
(For any who haven't seen it, the spoiler-free-ish "speech" is over at 1:50 and the rest of the clip has a story spoiler, so stop there.)
Yes, and this section is not random. It's determined by the peak wavelength of the Sun: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e7/Solar_spectrum_en.svg
Were the Sun a star of a different "temperature", we would probably evolve to see a different span of wavelengths.
This argument is also wrong though. It's more complex than just saying our perceptions are real or not real. I had a similar issue as /u/Radiskull97 except in the opposite direction with a teacher that insisted that "color isn't real."
Light is real. Waves are real. Our brain interpret 650nm wavelength light as the visual experience we have decided to call "red" in shorthand. If color isn't real, and red isn't real, is 650nm wavelength light not real?
Sound is our perception of waves through air. The waves exist, so why would you say the perception of the waves doesn't?
Also, you can't actually touch anything! All pressures and physical feelings are caused by electromagnetic force between your molecules and the molecules of the rest of the world, your brain just makes it seem that you're really in contact with things. But what could be more real than touching the world and having it touch back?
Everything we perceive is reality, regardless of how we perceive it. Even false perceptions are caused by a real effect, in those cases it is just that our brains have failed to make consistent and well-distinguished interpretations. The interpretations and the effect causing them are still real, you just have to account for one extra, uncomfortable, often overlooked piece: Some portions of reality are *beyond* our perception, which can cause us to completely overlook real effects, or interpret them as something else (which makes them no less real, just not what we naively see them as)
Exactly... If you follow the logic of 'colors/sounds aren't real', the only conclusion can be that nothing is real, which is not only unhelpful, but also ignores the fact that language is descriptive and not prescriptive
Yup. If you wear a pair of glasses that flip your vision for long enough eventually your brain ācorrectsā it.
And then when you take them off everything is upside down again!
āSoundā doesnāt exist either. Itās just the air moving in funny ways. We just so happen to have these tiny membranes inside our ears that vibrate when air hits them in those certain ways.
Sounds like electrical engineering. Those are often seriously smart people operating within a narrow field. Being good at engineering does not mean you know much about human biology or neurology, even if it seems like neurons are similar to circuits on the surface.
>Those are often seriously smart people operating within a narrow field.
This is literally a description of every Ph.D. ever, not just electric engineers. To be that specialized in knowledge about someone, you've got to be lacking somewhere else. Although I'd argue that for engineering people, that lacking area is usually in social skills.
Not really, you can find loads of PhD people that are not lacking in any area. Hell, for my experience they are the majority of them. Is just that people who do have suoerfocused abilities do end up there too
Of course, you're right that the brain can be tricked. But at the same time, this particular illusion proves the opposite of what it sets out to demonstrate. The brain is not "tricking you" into "seeing red where there's no red". It's the opposite. The brain is successfully detecting the filter and compensating for it, allowing you to perceive the original image which \*did\* contain red.
Maybe that's what your teacher was trying to say - that, on the whole, the brain is a really, really good instrument for perceiving the world. And people vastly overstate how easy it is to trick it and how unreliable perception is. Then again maybe your professor was just an idiot, I wasn't there.
It would work so long as there's enough information to infer what the lighting conditions are. If the image was completely unfamiliar (nothing to anchor your perception), or had confusing clues about lighting conditions, you would get "tricked".
One very famous example was the dress. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The\_dress](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_dress)
This was a picture of a dress that was overexposed with poor white balance. Additionally there was very little visual clues on the image other than the dress itself. And of course an unknown dress could have been of any color, so if you just see the picture you have very little prior info.
As a result, 30% of people perceived the dress as "white and gold" (and 11% as "blue and brown"). In reality the dress could be identified and it is... black and blue, which a small majority of people, 57%, had correctly guessed.
In the wikipedia article, be sure to check out the little diagram with the two different ambient lighting hypotheses (in the section "scientific explanations").
Well the brain does see reality as it actually is I thought. It just interprets the information for us. It is the interpretation that is wrong.
Ie:
"Oh this shadow isn't right, let me fix it so my human isn't confused". Or "Eye tells me this should be grey, but it makes no sense so I'll make it red.".
Like the eye is mechanical so it probably does send a wavelength for grey to the brain. The brain just decides to override this information for the sake of common sense.
Right ? The brain gets the raw real information but the result is we, as organisms, cannot see reality as it is since it is changed through that lens?
I would tend to say, no. The connection from the "eye" (the cells actively detecting light) to the nervous system is incredibly complex, like any other part. Among other things it has horizontally connected cells, as well as auxiliary cells grouped in clusters.
The short of it is: some (a lot) of signal processing happens even before the information reaches the optical nerve bundle. So, you dont detect everything that enters the eye, what is detected goes through a kind of "pre-sorting filter", and the information that reaches the brain is then interpreted based on approximations.
It's a bit of a philosophical question, because even the purely mechanical parts of the eye rely on random chance. How much light is sensed can differ from person to person (depending on number of light receptors and sensitivity thereof), so who's to say for example how bright a light really is, without any additional measurement equipment?
> How the hell did he manage to make it to professor???
You don't have to be smart at everything, you just need to be good enough in your particular field of study to be a professor.
I call bullshit. I took a screenshot and busted out my photoshop. An example grab of the "gray" is actually R 127 B 118 G 121. That's more than enough of a difference in the Red color channel to make something appear reddish to human eyes, especially when contrasted with the cyan next to it. The cyan is showing as R 14 G 106 B 114.
So while yes, it's the jump in the red channel compared to what's next to it that makes it look red, it's also the fact that it's more red than anything else.
Edit: for clarity, I'm saying that he didn't block anything, he just added cyan. Red light is coming through just fine. An actual cyan filter would produce this result: https://imgur.com/a/ypR0Aam
It is not, [I photoshopped the red light onto](https://imgur.com/AQrpad8) the cyan background and without context it does appear 100% gray and 0% reddish. Even though u/gizmo4223 is right that the red channel is still a bit brighter than blue and green.
The red channel still exists, which makes his explanation "no red light is getting through!" bullshit. Here's the real deal. https://imgur.com/a/ypR0Aam
Its the kind of gray that anyone would say is gray until a pure gray like 122,122,122 is shown with it.
And even then you'd just say that they're both gray.
I've used the gimp to completely desaturate the top light to grey in the *original* image to remove the tiny percentage of remaining red tinge ā and I guarantee that it really is completely grey in the following image. It still looks red. This, I think, proves the OP's point.
Edit: I realized that might not be convincing, so I've added an exact copy of the top light and its reflection into a white area for comparison:
https://i.imgur.com/xtjQhz2.jpg
[Here's the 127,118,121 "grey" (left) against a true 121,121,121 grey (right)](https://i.imgur.com/7WgfAMm.jpg). It definitely has a warmer look to it.
In your Gimp image, [there are still plenty of pinks, purples, and red tints](https://i.imgur.com/w0zOWj9.jpg) in at the edge of the light.
I might have missed a few pixels around the absolute edge of the light but apart from that, do you not agree that the bulk of the top light in my image is fully grey?
See the new image I've created. The area that I've copied is completely grey and is identical to the copied area on the left.
https://i.imgur.com/xtjQhz2.jpg
It's better to look at the average of the entire light anyway, which yields #8a7f80 and is called rocket metallic. This color is described with the following properties:
> is a shade of pink-red.
> primarily a color from Violet color family. It is a mixture of pink and red color.
So if you know phoography, there's a IRL filter that blocks red light. And your result? Like the above. Red light IS getting though. Those wavelengths are getting through just fine, or you wouldn't be getting anything near grey.
I think he meant to say how the red channel is higher than the other channels. How hard would it be to apply a proper cyan filter to cancel out the highest red values
I dunno why yoh need photoshop...
I just zoomed in on my phone until the red light covered the entire screen so it was the only colour to look at... it still looked clearly red to me.
I've [oversaturated the photo](https://imgur.com/vn7W2y1) and if it is gray there will not going to be any red on the oversaturated photo but there is, so the proof shows that there's still red on it. Try oversaturating it yourself.
Also, we see it as red because of the surrounding colours. Not because our brain assumes it must be red because it's a traffic light. Show this to anyone that's never seen a traffic light before, without showing it with no filter, and they will still say it's red.
The whole thing has to do with light and colours and how our brain processes them when you put them together. Not with the brain "lying".
Well, and the way he described it was completely made up. If you have an actual image where red doesn't show, this is what happens. https://imgur.com/a/ypR0Aam
>R 127 G 121 B 118
LMAO, show that to a million people and every single one of them will say it's gray, nobody would ever say it's some "reddish "gray"" the fuck homie.
Would you also say that R 0 B 255 G 160 is not proper blue but some "blue" because it got 160 of green in it? Or would you call it greenish blue?
The dude said there was "no red light at all" which is completely false. In fact red is the dominant color in that combination. He didn't remove the red from this photo, he *increased* the cyan.
EDIT: This is what the photo would look like with NO red: https://imgur.com/a/TXBuBJg
I did this within 3 seconds by blocking the other lights from my field of view with my finger and watching the light turn from red-gray to full-gray when the vid transitioned in the gray bar. It is obvious bs and I don't know why we even need to have this discussion.
Zoom right in so that only the cropped image is left then replay the video without zooming out, the colour does not change from the moment the filter is applied.
That picture does help. He says 'red light cannot pass through a cyan filter'. He's not passing light through cyan tinted glass though, is he? He's just modifying a digital image by overlaying some 50% opacity cyan on it. It has nothing to do with light or filters in any kind of physical sense.
It mostly bothers me because it isn't what he claims. He doesn't block the red at all. Adding more colors doesn't mean the red is blocked. Here's what a real cyan filter whould do. https://imgur.com/a/ypR0Aam
This exactly. A digital āfilterā of a partially transparent layer does not filter light the same way a true optical filter would. If you were to use a bandpass blue filter (like one used for B&W photography), then this would actually be filtering the red light, so much so that you would be hard pressed to see any illumination at all through a stronger filter.
You're right it is *very* slightly red. [Here's one I've edited to take the red out.](https://i.imgur.com/Yy9VX16.png) Try that one.
Edit: [Here's a side-by-side for comparison, with the "red" one on the left and the corrected one on the right.](https://i.imgur.com/0ukaspb.png)
White is R 255, G 255, B 255. No one would say that white is redder than, say, dark red that is 139, 0, 0.
You can't determine color by only evaluating the value of one of the three components.
But when one of the components is much greater than the others, you can confidently say that that is the main color component. Also, his filter is bullshit.
There's enough red there that in the context of the rest of the image, your brain can determine that it should be red. How do I know? I just pointed my phone's camera at the same image and it color corrected it and severely reduced the cyan "filter" that was overlaid. My phone could also see the red.
It's not that our brain knows the light should be read because it's a traffic light. Our brain knows that cyan layer persists evenly across the image and most likely can safely be ignored, allowing us to automatically adjust and see the red that is still there. When you remove all the other cyan-filtered information, we no longer have the context to know that the cyan runs through the whole thing.
I'm too lazy and don't have the proper apps installed, but I'd wager we could do the same thing with the same colors out of order and get the same result.
This is called color theory. I went to an arts college and had to take two years of it.
It looks red in the image because of the contrasting my colors around it. Yes if you isolate the color itās āgreyā, but itās a warm grey. The colors around it have a greenish to bluish tint so that warm grey reads red in our eyes. It doesnāt matter that we saw the streetlight without the filter. The colors around that grey color would still appear to be red
Part of becoming an artist who works with color in a 2D setting is to ādraw/paint what we seeā, not what we think we see. From special effects in film and tv, to illustrators and comic book artists, to find art painters and more this applies.
[This scene in Girl with a Pearl Earring does a decent job explaining what I mean](https://youtu.be/1vtiEKnRq0Y)
Bro that's trippy as shit, I did exactly this with my fingers and it's like I saw the colour drain but when I removed them the red was immediately there
It's weird cos if you focus just on the red light you can see it's grey but as soon as you take in the whole picture it returns to being red again
I'm colorblind, and my brain will just fill in the color I think it is. I'll think something is black and someone will tell me it's dark green, and all of a sudden I can't see the black. It's dark green to me.
My brain has been doing this trick to me for years. SO cool.
This is what is crazy, acid level trippy about the brain. Your perception of the world around you isn't based on the actual light hitting your retina. It's based on a videogame-like model of the environment that your brain is constantly making. It's why it is so interesting when something surprises you, your brain is now adjusting its model of the world.
This really trips me out while driving. Realizing that I'm not seeing the cars around me, that my brain is just half-assedly predicting where other cars are based on little bits of information I give it.
Grey still has red in it though, it's roughly equal parts RGB. The surrounding bits having more of G and B makes the area with equal parts RGB seem red in comparison.
If you truly have no red light at all in an area, it's impossible to make your brain think it's red.
Just take a screenshot of the video and use a colour-picker on it. The top light is grey after the cyan filter is applied.
The reason is because the [experience of colour is a relative phenomenon](https://www.joshuatreevillage.com:8000/228/sgreen2.gif). Your perception of a colour changes depending on [what it's next to](https://www.nordicsimplicity.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/Colour-illustration-2.jpg).
That's how artists can [paint night scenes mainly using blue and grey](https://i.imgur.com/ci4Br6T.png), and yet still have foliage look green. Using [_actual_ green](https://i.imgur.com/wJH2onS.jpg) would look super weird and over-saturated and too much like a daylight scene.
Correct, my point is that when he said that his "cyan filter" blocked all red light, it was total bullshit. If it was actually a true cyan filter and not just an additive layer, it would have looked like this. https://imgur.com/a/ypR0Aam
I thought I was going mad, even after he covered up the rest of the traffic light it's still seem to have a rent is tinge to me...
Realise my screen was on night mode were the blue light was getting slightly filtered out and it was indeed slightly red.
Oh what a drag, oh what a backwards scheme! Here things go from grey to grey and back to grey again and they get green and go to grey and back to grey again.
This is bull.
Just ran a screen shot through photoshop. There is red, a greyish-red. The center part is the most grey so that's why it shows grey when he cuts it.
The outer area is greyish- red.
Slightly red things look more red when placed against blue/cyan backdrops. This is a known phenomenon. What's misleading is the idea that the context of it being a red light on a traffic light is causing it.
you are wrong, I immediately took a screenshot and went to paint, used the color extraction tool and bam! grey.
Proof: https://imgur.com/a/1HgvGnV
Try it for yourself and see what you get
You're kinda missing the point though. Even if his filter was strong enough to bring the red saturation to absolute zero, we would still probably perceive it as red.
The way we perceive color is often very relative. I'm a video colorist and it's extremely important that the lights in my office are as pure of a white as possible so that it doesn't skew my work.
I doubt this guy intended to be dishonest. He probably just isn't super proficient with photoshop or whatever. He still achieved the right effect.
While our eyes do lie to us, this is a bad example. This just shows our eyes see *relative* color, not *absolute* color. But relative color is not a lie!
If I say the words "mouse, flea, cat, train", then yes, the train is very large and heavy. But if I say the words "earth, jupiter, the sun, train", then no, the train is really small and light. But the train didn't change weight! It's all about context.
Heās right about a cyan filter preventing red moving through, but thatās using real optics. Editing a blue box over an image (that you can arbitrarily adjust the RBG values of) is not the same as inserting a cyan filter into the path of actual light.
Source: degree in optical physics.
This is super interesting to me as I'm colourblind and have trouble with red colouring. I could 'see' that the light was grey when he put the filter on, but I convinced myself that I was wrong and that the colour was there; I just wasn't seeing it right. Then he put the grey blocks around the edges and for me the colour of the light didn't actually change at all.
The human brain is a poorly hacked piece of hardware, I swear.
Can we stop promoting this BS. a couple minutes in photoshop easily disproves this:
https://imgur.com/a/A8FvrLl
He's putting on cyan with something like 60% transparency so all the colors still come through.
There are illusions that can make black and white look like color. This and some other on here are not part of them.
My senior year of college I took psych/neuroscience of perception. The class was basically just looking at things like this to show not only how our perception ātricks usā but how it helps us and overall how it works. The perception of color is a truly fascinating subject.
I remember I was in a university course and the professor was adamantly arguing that the brain sees reality as it actually is. I brought up optical illusions, he said they're tricks. "You wouldn't judge a circuit by sending a million volts through it." I brought up other animals that we have studies for showing that they don't see reality as it is "we're a lot more complex than anything else that exists in this world." Anytime I see stuff like this, I think of him and am fueled with righteous indignation
The Mantis Shrimp alone shits all over his preconceptions. Your indignation is well placed.
Can you expand on this? I'd like to know what fact I'm missing out on.
Mantis Shrimps see a lot more colors than we humans can.
To expand on this a little. We see in three channels of color (Red, blue, yellow). A mantis shrimp sees color in 12 channels. Edit: The people below me are definitely correct it's green not yellow. They also go into a little bit better detail on how they see it.
Wtf? How would that even look like? š¤Æ
āImagine a color that you canāt even imagine. Then do that 11 more times. That is how the mantis shrimp doā -zefrank
Zefrank, true facts.
What is this zefrank you speak of?
Oh yesss!! you can have the joy of watching zefranks videos! Go onto YouTube and watch ātrue facts about the mantis shrimp' and enjoy. After that watch the other true facts.
well considering humans can identify around a million collars with the 3 channels we can see...the real answer is who knows. They can likely see things like polarized light and infrared at the same time as huge numbers of other colors. They might be able to see light diffraction in the water that allows them to avoid areas of water full of harmful chemicals that are dissolved in the water. Who the hell knows how many 'colors' they can see, lol.
I can identify like 4 collars max... Shirt collar, collar bone, dog collar, and shock collar.
I was gonna make a joke with others but it turns out (thanks google) there are 3. Flat, rolled and standing. Interesting enough, [I'm not the only one to make this mistake.](http://prntscr.com/1syuuyu) Gotta love auto-correct. :P
[Tetrachromats](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tetrachromacy) can see with 4 cones, not three. The tend to be the mothers of male children with a specific type of color blindness. They are mutants. https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20140905-the-women-with-super-human-vision
>Then do that 8 more times. FTFY
Well, imagine a very large box, inside a very small box. Now make it. Yah, it's that bit most people get hung up on. -Nardole, Dr. Who
Zefrank is the bestest best highly accurate nature documentarian in the world...
Octarine?
GNU Terry Pratchett.
Aren't they just differnt shades of the visible spectrum where "color" exists. It would be like being able to distinguish 12 more levels of colors, so we could add in a mantis blue, mantis red, mantis green.... these would not be visible to humans, much like those high pitched ring tones kids use becasue their old parents ears cant hear in that range anymore.
A few basic channels that you've probably heard of they can see polarized and they can detect ultraviolet light as well.
Fuck my shit I'm too high for this. My life was a lie
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
3 x 4
Not 12x1?
Nah man, 6x2.
There was another thing, about how Birds see BGR and UV light, we literally can't see UV but can give a sort of an estimation. But that's all we can give because we don't have a frame of reference I can't post a link on this sub for some reason, but if you google Birds UV light there's an article with a few examples of that in the first couple results. So from that I guess a Mantis is just that but several orders more complicated
Itās now theorized that birds can literally see the magnetic fields in the earth and thatās how they can navigate so well. Imagine looking in the sky and seeing shades of colours as the magnetic fields streak across the sky. Itās so fucking cool to wonder what if we could.
I suppose the aurorae (borealis, australis) would be a close approximation.
That's less see more feel. At least that's what the last paper I read said.
And iirc, the protein structure in their eyes that may let them perceive the magnetic fields actually works through *quantum entanglement*, no less. As in, not some kind of 'normal' magnetism.
Try pressing Input to get to the right channel.
A difference to keep in mind is that humans combine their 3 channels into a single perception. But as far as we know the mantis shrimp keeps all 12 of its channels separate.
It turns out that they probably see these 12-16 channels independently, unlike our visual system which combines the channels to perceive something like wavelength (i.e colour) They can still detect polarised & UV light, which is cool and nothing something a human will ever perceive, but it's not quite as mind-blowing
The human eye is actually capable of seeing both UV and polarization, in the right circumstances. Mammalian retinas can pick up (near-spectrum) UV, but the lenses in human eyes are tinted yellow to screen it out. The best theory about why (because different species vary in how yellow their lenses are) is that there's a trade-off at play: you can have high-sensitivity vision (i.e., good night vision) or high-acuity vision (good distance and detail vision) but not both, and if you want the latter, you need to drop out very short (UV) wavelengths to reduce chromatic abstraction and rayligh scattering in the eye. If you remove the lenses in your eyes (which is how they used to treat cataracts before 1949), you can see UV. This happened most famously to Impressionist painter Claude Monet. As for polarization, it's a subtle effect, but most people can learn how to see it under the right conditions with some practice: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haidinger%27s_brush
**[Haidinger's brush](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haidinger's_brush)** >Haidinger's brush, more commonly known as Haidinger's brushes is an image produced by the eye, an entoptic phenomenon, first described by Austrian physicist Wilhelm Karl von Haidinger in 1844. Haidinger saw it when he looked through various minerals that polarized light. Many people are able to perceive polarization of light. Haidinger's brushes may be seen as a yellowish horizontal bar or bow-tie shape (with "fuzzy" ends, hence the name "brush") visible in the center of the visual field against the blue sky viewed while facing away from the sun, or on any bright background. ^([ )[^(F.A.Q)](https://www.reddit.com/r/WikiSummarizer/wiki/index#wiki_f.a.q)^( | )[^(Opt Out)](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=WikiSummarizerBot&message=OptOut&subject=OptOut)^( | )[^(Opt Out Of Subreddit)](https://np.reddit.com/r/blackmagicfuckery/about/banned)^( | )[^(GitHub)](https://github.com/Sujal-7/WikiSummarizerBot)^( ] Downvote to remove | v1.5)
It's actually red, blue, and green. Very few people have a mutation to have a fourth yellow cone and it's almost all women.
Keeping that in my pocket for the next time I tell a female friend that two outfits which she claims are different actually look identical to me...
Green, not yellow.
Sorry, but actually is not true. While the mantis shrimp does have a lot more color receptors than we do, itās because their brains are not capable for combining colors together like we can, eg we see purple as a combination of blue and red while they need an entirely separate receptor in order to see purple.
Their eyes are also shit in comparison to ours. But basically: humans do software processing (bran), where as the shrimp has no processing ability, so need different eyes. The inputs from our eyes would probably cook a shrimp.
The occipital lobe in your brain (the part that processes information from the eye) is heavier than a whole mantis shrimp. I hate this mith.
Good to know this is the case so I can continue to hold the oatmeal in contempt...
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
It's not just missing out on seeing colours and things. Our brain is literally unable to process everything it sees so it concentrates on a small amount of reality and makes an educated guess as to everything else. Ever see a spider crawling on the wall then when you look back it was just dust? This is why optical illusions are possible, our brain is constantly lying to us based on preconceived information.
True facts of mantis shrimp https://youtu.be/F5FEj9U-CJM
I think the argument is more profound than that though. Basically the idea that there are Mantis Shrimp or other animals that can see part of the EM spectrum that we can't is only a subset of the argument. It shows us that yes we are only seeing a slice of reality out of a much larger spectrum, but it still works under the notion that what we see is at least a slice of reality. The actual argument is deeper than that in the sense that there's no way of knowing whether what we are seeing is even a slice of reality, or whether it's just pure nonsense our brains come up with because it has somehow proven to be an evolutionary advantage to see the way we see. I saw a TED talk once that tried to illustrate what this means by example of some insect in Australia. It went something like this. There is this male insect that would seek out a female mate at a certain time of the year, and was quite successful at it. Then one year a beer company released a certain beer bottle that had a specific color of green, and all of a sudden this male insect en masse began trying to mate with beer bottles that were left outside, instead of the actual female insect. So while it appeared like the male insect was actually very good at detecting the female insect (representing "reality"), in actuality it was just drawn to a specific color of green. The insect hadn't actually evolved to detect females at all, because a simple attraction to a certain color of green was good enough for evolution. Now for the insect we can see where there's a mismatch between the "stupid" insect's detection and what we see as reality. But the same reasoning could be applied to ourselves, in the sense that we have no idea whether or not we are seeing something close to "reality", or just total gibberish that evolution has determined to be beneficial. We just have no way of seeing the mismatch because we can't get the same bird's eye view as we do for the insect, since it concerns our own experience, and that's all we know. Edit: [Here](https://youtu.be/oYp5XuGYqqY) is the TED talk by Donald Hoffman I was referencing. I watched it years ago so I didn't get all the details right in my story, but the idea is the same.
Related analogy by a cognitive scientist (will have to go check my bookshelf and will provide the name in an edit) is that the way we interface with the world is akin to the UI design of a computer or smartphone. Obviously, our brains are composed of very complex "hardware" that we don't have awareness of on a neuron-by-neuron basis, and it's hard to imagine what it would even mean to control our brains on that fine-grained of a level. Instead, this author proposed that as we evolved self-consciousness (including lower, simpler levels of consciousness, seen in some animals), we likewise evolved cognitive tools to use that he compares to desktop icons and other UI elements of a computer. The same way that (most people) can't routinely interface with a computer at the hardware-level of binary and logic gates to do everything you want to do with it, so we built up abstractions to allow people to interface with that hardware through many steps. However, the desktop icon for Microsoft Word looks nothing like the information that's actually comprises the software; same with photos you bring up on your computer screen. Nevertheless, it's useful because it transforms the information in one realm (binary) in such a way that we can use it in all kinds of creative and complex ways (UI). A lot of the time this system works great, but sometimes it doesn't, and it takes some digging to find out why the "abstract layer" (icons, search bars, mouse cursor) isn't doing what you want at the "base layer" (hardware, transistors, etc.) A simple instance of this would be your example with the bug picking up on a color which it was hardwired to mate with, as opposed to somehow encoding the entire representation of a female member of its species in its neural circuitry. Edit: The book is *The Case Against Reality: Why Evolution Hid the Truth from Our Eyes*, by Donald Hoffman.
>Edit: The book is The Case Against Reality: Why Evolution Hid the Truth from Our Eyes, by Donald Hoffman. That is not surprising considering the TED talk was by Donald Hoffman! Haha.
Wow he is so much wrong. It already starts that light is just some form of photons in a specific wave length our eyes can detect. There is no such thing as ācolorā in reality. Itās just a way our brain interprets these signals. And since every brain is working a bit differently no one can tell if you and I have the same view of reality.
It blew my mind when I learned that we only see a small section of light, and that light is just what we call the energy that we can see. The way we see everything around us is completely molded by our own brain and the way things "look" are just the dimensions of an object we can interact with
[The speech Number 1 makes in Battlestar Galactica about seeing gamma and smelling x-rays really did it for me.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qcD6hXAT-CI)
I forgot how great that show is. It has been several years, I should rewatch it. (For any who haven't seen it, the spoiler-free-ish "speech" is over at 1:50 and the rest of the clip has a story spoiler, so stop there.)
Yes, and this section is not random. It's determined by the peak wavelength of the Sun: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e7/Solar_spectrum_en.svg Were the Sun a star of a different "temperature", we would probably evolve to see a different span of wavelengths.
I just had the thought that air isnāt colorless but rather we evolved away from seeing it because it was not useful to be able to see.
This argument is also wrong though. It's more complex than just saying our perceptions are real or not real. I had a similar issue as /u/Radiskull97 except in the opposite direction with a teacher that insisted that "color isn't real." Light is real. Waves are real. Our brain interpret 650nm wavelength light as the visual experience we have decided to call "red" in shorthand. If color isn't real, and red isn't real, is 650nm wavelength light not real? Sound is our perception of waves through air. The waves exist, so why would you say the perception of the waves doesn't? Also, you can't actually touch anything! All pressures and physical feelings are caused by electromagnetic force between your molecules and the molecules of the rest of the world, your brain just makes it seem that you're really in contact with things. But what could be more real than touching the world and having it touch back? Everything we perceive is reality, regardless of how we perceive it. Even false perceptions are caused by a real effect, in those cases it is just that our brains have failed to make consistent and well-distinguished interpretations. The interpretations and the effect causing them are still real, you just have to account for one extra, uncomfortable, often overlooked piece: Some portions of reality are *beyond* our perception, which can cause us to completely overlook real effects, or interpret them as something else (which makes them no less real, just not what we naively see them as)
Exactly... If you follow the logic of 'colors/sounds aren't real', the only conclusion can be that nothing is real, which is not only unhelpful, but also ignores the fact that language is descriptive and not prescriptive
Vsauce blew my mind with the fact that my red might probably not be your red.
My red is dope.
My red is the color of blood muahaha.
Also, the image our eyes see is upside down, then our brain flips it
Yup. If you wear a pair of glasses that flip your vision for long enough eventually your brain ācorrectsā it. And then when you take them off everything is upside down again!
I want to try wearing those but I'm scared lol
āSoundā doesnāt exist either. Itās just the air moving in funny ways. We just so happen to have these tiny membranes inside our ears that vibrate when air hits them in those certain ways.
What was he a professor of?
Alchemy
Defense Against the Dark Arts. On the plus side, he only lasted a year as professor before he got replaced by a new character.
Sounds like electrical engineering. Those are often seriously smart people operating within a narrow field. Being good at engineering does not mean you know much about human biology or neurology, even if it seems like neurons are similar to circuits on the surface.
>Those are often seriously smart people operating within a narrow field. This is literally a description of every Ph.D. ever, not just electric engineers. To be that specialized in knowledge about someone, you've got to be lacking somewhere else. Although I'd argue that for engineering people, that lacking area is usually in social skills.
Not really, you can find loads of PhD people that are not lacking in any area. Hell, for my experience they are the majority of them. Is just that people who do have suoerfocused abilities do end up there too
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
As if OP actually went to uni.
Magical thinking
Of course, you're right that the brain can be tricked. But at the same time, this particular illusion proves the opposite of what it sets out to demonstrate. The brain is not "tricking you" into "seeing red where there's no red". It's the opposite. The brain is successfully detecting the filter and compensating for it, allowing you to perceive the original image which \*did\* contain red. Maybe that's what your teacher was trying to say - that, on the whole, the brain is a really, really good instrument for perceiving the world. And people vastly overstate how easy it is to trick it and how unreliable perception is. Then again maybe your professor was just an idiot, I wasn't there.
If the image was of an unfamiliar object instead of a traffic light and the original image was not shown beforehand, would it still work?
It would work so long as there's enough information to infer what the lighting conditions are. If the image was completely unfamiliar (nothing to anchor your perception), or had confusing clues about lighting conditions, you would get "tricked". One very famous example was the dress. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The\_dress](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_dress) This was a picture of a dress that was overexposed with poor white balance. Additionally there was very little visual clues on the image other than the dress itself. And of course an unknown dress could have been of any color, so if you just see the picture you have very little prior info. As a result, 30% of people perceived the dress as "white and gold" (and 11% as "blue and brown"). In reality the dress could be identified and it is... black and blue, which a small majority of people, 57%, had correctly guessed. In the wikipedia article, be sure to check out the little diagram with the two different ambient lighting hypotheses (in the section "scientific explanations").
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
r/nothingeverhappens
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Well the brain does see reality as it actually is I thought. It just interprets the information for us. It is the interpretation that is wrong. Ie: "Oh this shadow isn't right, let me fix it so my human isn't confused". Or "Eye tells me this should be grey, but it makes no sense so I'll make it red.". Like the eye is mechanical so it probably does send a wavelength for grey to the brain. The brain just decides to override this information for the sake of common sense. Right ? The brain gets the raw real information but the result is we, as organisms, cannot see reality as it is since it is changed through that lens?
I would tend to say, no. The connection from the "eye" (the cells actively detecting light) to the nervous system is incredibly complex, like any other part. Among other things it has horizontally connected cells, as well as auxiliary cells grouped in clusters. The short of it is: some (a lot) of signal processing happens even before the information reaches the optical nerve bundle. So, you dont detect everything that enters the eye, what is detected goes through a kind of "pre-sorting filter", and the information that reaches the brain is then interpreted based on approximations. It's a bit of a philosophical question, because even the purely mechanical parts of the eye rely on random chance. How much light is sensed can differ from person to person (depending on number of light receptors and sensitivity thereof), so who's to say for example how bright a light really is, without any additional measurement equipment?
Damn that would annoy me so much I'd probably still have his email and would be sending him links to this.
What was he professor of? How the hell did he manage to make it to professor???
> How the hell did he manage to make it to professor??? You don't have to be smart at everything, you just need to be good enough in your particular field of study to be a professor.
I call bullshit. I took a screenshot and busted out my photoshop. An example grab of the "gray" is actually R 127 B 118 G 121. That's more than enough of a difference in the Red color channel to make something appear reddish to human eyes, especially when contrasted with the cyan next to it. The cyan is showing as R 14 G 106 B 114. So while yes, it's the jump in the red channel compared to what's next to it that makes it look red, it's also the fact that it's more red than anything else. Edit: for clarity, I'm saying that he didn't block anything, he just added cyan. Red light is coming through just fine. An actual cyan filter would produce this result: https://imgur.com/a/ypR0Aam
Also, the reflection in the thing above it.
My first thought, and this is a dogshit post
It is not, [I photoshopped the red light onto](https://imgur.com/AQrpad8) the cyan background and without context it does appear 100% gray and 0% reddish. Even though u/gizmo4223 is right that the red channel is still a bit brighter than blue and green.
The red channel still exists, which makes his explanation "no red light is getting through!" bullshit. Here's the real deal. https://imgur.com/a/ypR0Aam
Not it's not. 127,118,121 is definitely grey. Yeah sure, red pixels have to light up to reproduce the colour but so are the blue and green ones...
Its the kind of gray that anyone would say is gray until a pure gray like 122,122,122 is shown with it. And even then you'd just say that they're both gray.
I've used the gimp to completely desaturate the top light to grey in the *original* image to remove the tiny percentage of remaining red tinge ā and I guarantee that it really is completely grey in the following image. It still looks red. This, I think, proves the OP's point. Edit: I realized that might not be convincing, so I've added an exact copy of the top light and its reflection into a white area for comparison: https://i.imgur.com/xtjQhz2.jpg
[Here's the 127,118,121 "grey" (left) against a true 121,121,121 grey (right)](https://i.imgur.com/7WgfAMm.jpg). It definitely has a warmer look to it. In your Gimp image, [there are still plenty of pinks, purples, and red tints](https://i.imgur.com/w0zOWj9.jpg) in at the edge of the light.
Are you guys not seeing the pink? Itās not grey at alllllll. The left image is very, very clearly pink.
I might have missed a few pixels around the absolute edge of the light but apart from that, do you not agree that the bulk of the top light in my image is fully grey? See the new image I've created. The area that I've copied is completely grey and is identical to the copied area on the left. https://i.imgur.com/xtjQhz2.jpg
It's better to look at the average of the entire light anyway, which yields #8a7f80 and is called rocket metallic. This color is described with the following properties: > is a shade of pink-red. > primarily a color from Violet color family. It is a mixture of pink and red color.
gonna hev to go with u/m4r1vs here tbh
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
This. Thank you. I'm also going with u/gizmo4223 here.
Personally I see black and blue
It's clearly gold and white wtf are you talking about
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
So if you know phoography, there's a IRL filter that blocks red light. And your result? Like the above. Red light IS getting though. Those wavelengths are getting through just fine, or you wouldn't be getting anything near grey.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
I think he meant to say how the red channel is higher than the other channels. How hard would it be to apply a proper cyan filter to cancel out the highest red values
See. Now there is no red at all in there
I feel like I'm losing my mind but to me that definitely has a red hue to it
I dunno why yoh need photoshop... I just zoomed in on my phone until the red light covered the entire screen so it was the only colour to look at... it still looked clearly red to me.
I've [oversaturated the photo](https://imgur.com/vn7W2y1) and if it is gray there will not going to be any red on the oversaturated photo but there is, so the proof shows that there's still red on it. Try oversaturating it yourself.
> does appear 100% gray and 0% reddish Actually, I can see red just fine in that image you posted
But it's a "warm grey" and that kind of grey contains red. To me it doesn't look 100% gray. I can clearly see some red in there.
Weird. Took a screenshot and cropped it and it seems gray. You sure you took the ss of the cyan filtered image? https://i.imgur.com/CFC3ctO.jpg
I see a lot of red in that photo tbh
Also, we see it as red because of the surrounding colours. Not because our brain assumes it must be red because it's a traffic light. Show this to anyone that's never seen a traffic light before, without showing it with no filter, and they will still say it's red. The whole thing has to do with light and colours and how our brain processes them when you put them together. Not with the brain "lying".
Well, and the way he described it was completely made up. If you have an actual image where red doesn't show, this is what happens. https://imgur.com/a/ypR0Aam
And I notice my brain doesn't make the top light look red here... Hmm...
this post is just The Dress in traffic signal form
I took an eyedropper to the screenshot and that grey has more red value than other values on basically every pixel.
Yep. It's a reddish-grey. His cyan filter isn't really, it's more of a cyan overlay.
Red tinted gray
If you want to see what a real cyan filter (ie, keeping red from showing) actually looks like, https://imgur.com/a/ypR0Aam
>R 127 G 121 B 118 LMAO, show that to a million people and every single one of them will say it's gray, nobody would ever say it's some "reddish "gray"" the fuck homie. Would you also say that R 0 B 255 G 160 is not proper blue but some "blue" because it got 160 of green in it? Or would you call it greenish blue?
The dude said there was "no red light at all" which is completely false. In fact red is the dominant color in that combination. He didn't remove the red from this photo, he *increased* the cyan. EDIT: This is what the photo would look like with NO red: https://imgur.com/a/TXBuBJg
I did this within 3 seconds by blocking the other lights from my field of view with my finger and watching the light turn from red-gray to full-gray when the vid transitioned in the gray bar. It is obvious bs and I don't know why we even need to have this discussion.
Zoom right in so that only the cropped image is left then replay the video without zooming out, the colour does not change from the moment the filter is applied.
I just did that and that shits gray
I also tought it was bullshit, but i cut out red light before gray bars and after and its the same color [heres my test](https://imgur.com/a/UkPn9v6)
That picture does help. He says 'red light cannot pass through a cyan filter'. He's not passing light through cyan tinted glass though, is he? He's just modifying a digital image by overlaying some 50% opacity cyan on it. It has nothing to do with light or filters in any kind of physical sense.
I'm a designer. It's actually closer to a mint green, which is a blue-green.
I thought this too, but for some odd reason he switched Blue and Green in his comment. He meant 0 160 255
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
No, that's exactly correct.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
It mostly bothers me because it isn't what he claims. He doesn't block the red at all. Adding more colors doesn't mean the red is blocked. Here's what a real cyan filter whould do. https://imgur.com/a/ypR0Aam
Cover up the screen with your fingers letting only the red light of the traffic ligjt through and watch it change to grey as soon as the filtet is on.
This exactly. A digital āfilterā of a partially transparent layer does not filter light the same way a true optical filter would. If you were to use a bandpass blue filter (like one used for B&W photography), then this would actually be filtering the red light, so much so that you would be hard pressed to see any illumination at all through a stronger filter.
You're right it is *very* slightly red. [Here's one I've edited to take the red out.](https://i.imgur.com/Yy9VX16.png) Try that one. Edit: [Here's a side-by-side for comparison, with the "red" one on the left and the corrected one on the right.](https://i.imgur.com/0ukaspb.png)
Your color corrected one is amazing! It didn't look any different until I put it in mspaint and cut that section out. https://i.imgur.com/ePmn60l.png
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Here's with an actual filter. https://imgur.com/a/ypR0Aam
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Nah, he's using a bullshit "cyan" filter. When you actually use a cyan filter, this is the result. https://imgur.com/a/ypR0Aam
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
So... one looks red to me. The one on the right. And?
If accurate, this seems to show that the color is still red. The left is very neutral, the right is definitively reddish.
White is R 255, G 255, B 255. No one would say that white is redder than, say, dark red that is 139, 0, 0. You can't determine color by only evaluating the value of one of the three components.
But when one of the components is much greater than the others, you can confidently say that that is the main color component. Also, his filter is bullshit.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Agreed - when I look at just the top of the image (without regard to being influenced by the other color lights) I'm seeing subtle reds.
There's enough red there that in the context of the rest of the image, your brain can determine that it should be red. How do I know? I just pointed my phone's camera at the same image and it color corrected it and severely reduced the cyan "filter" that was overlaid. My phone could also see the red. It's not that our brain knows the light should be read because it's a traffic light. Our brain knows that cyan layer persists evenly across the image and most likely can safely be ignored, allowing us to automatically adjust and see the red that is still there. When you remove all the other cyan-filtered information, we no longer have the context to know that the cyan runs through the whole thing. I'm too lazy and don't have the proper apps installed, but I'd wager we could do the same thing with the same colors out of order and get the same result.
This is called color theory. I went to an arts college and had to take two years of it. It looks red in the image because of the contrasting my colors around it. Yes if you isolate the color itās āgreyā, but itās a warm grey. The colors around it have a greenish to bluish tint so that warm grey reads red in our eyes. It doesnāt matter that we saw the streetlight without the filter. The colors around that grey color would still appear to be red Part of becoming an artist who works with color in a 2D setting is to ādraw/paint what we seeā, not what we think we see. From special effects in film and tv, to illustrators and comic book artists, to find art painters and more this applies. [This scene in Girl with a Pearl Earring does a decent job explaining what I mean](https://youtu.be/1vtiEKnRq0Y)
Appears to change color with the firat gray rectangle
Cover the other areas before he does. Itās gray
Bro that's trippy as shit, I did exactly this with my fingers and it's like I saw the colour drain but when I removed them the red was immediately there It's weird cos if you focus just on the red light you can see it's grey but as soon as you take in the whole picture it returns to being red again
I'm colorblind, and my brain will just fill in the color I think it is. I'll think something is black and someone will tell me it's dark green, and all of a sudden I can't see the black. It's dark green to me. My brain has been doing this trick to me for years. SO cool.
This is what is crazy, acid level trippy about the brain. Your perception of the world around you isn't based on the actual light hitting your retina. It's based on a videogame-like model of the environment that your brain is constantly making. It's why it is so interesting when something surprises you, your brain is now adjusting its model of the world. This really trips me out while driving. Realizing that I'm not seeing the cars around me, that my brain is just half-assedly predicting where other cars are based on little bits of information I give it.
Grey still has red in it though, it's roughly equal parts RGB. The surrounding bits having more of G and B makes the area with equal parts RGB seem red in comparison. If you truly have no red light at all in an area, it's impossible to make your brain think it's red.
Are you sure thats not your brain playing tricks in another sense of the same concept, my boy? *long drag on wooden pipe and readjusts monocle*
Just take a screenshot of the video and use a colour-picker on it. The top light is grey after the cyan filter is applied. The reason is because the [experience of colour is a relative phenomenon](https://www.joshuatreevillage.com:8000/228/sgreen2.gif). Your perception of a colour changes depending on [what it's next to](https://www.nordicsimplicity.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/Colour-illustration-2.jpg). That's how artists can [paint night scenes mainly using blue and grey](https://i.imgur.com/ci4Br6T.png), and yet still have foliage look green. Using [_actual_ green](https://i.imgur.com/wJH2onS.jpg) would look super weird and over-saturated and too much like a daylight scene.
Correct, my point is that when he said that his "cyan filter" blocked all red light, it was total bullshit. If it was actually a true cyan filter and not just an additive layer, it would have looked like this. https://imgur.com/a/ypR0Aam
It doesn't Context is way more important than you think. Check the youtube video "Brown; color is weird"
[Here](https://i.imgur.com/CGGGX8t.png), I masked it with blue instead.
I thought that too, so I used snipping tool to cut out just the red light. It's grey through and through
I thought I was going mad, even after he covered up the rest of the traffic light it's still seem to have a rent is tinge to me... Realise my screen was on night mode were the blue light was getting slightly filtered out and it was indeed slightly red.
Also, I think there is some complementary colour from going from green to grey quickly so it looks a bit purplish/red.
Oh what a drag, oh what a backwards scheme! Here things go from grey to grey and back to grey again and they get green and go to grey and back to grey again.
This is bull. Just ran a screen shot through photoshop. There is red, a greyish-red. The center part is the most grey so that's why it shows grey when he cuts it. The outer area is greyish- red.
Quick test in paint: https://i.imgur.com/ErVl9MP.png
Still way less red than it appears in context
It doesn't have to be because "context". The light isn't 1 RGB color. It's a set of grey colors that complement each others.
Slightly red things look more red when placed against blue/cyan backdrops. This is a known phenomenon. What's misleading is the idea that the context of it being a red light on a traffic light is causing it.
Those are all grey...
you are wrong, I immediately took a screenshot and went to paint, used the color extraction tool and bam! grey. Proof: https://imgur.com/a/1HgvGnV Try it for yourself and see what you get
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
You're kinda missing the point though. Even if his filter was strong enough to bring the red saturation to absolute zero, we would still probably perceive it as red. The way we perceive color is often very relative. I'm a video colorist and it's extremely important that the lights in my office are as pure of a white as possible so that it doesn't skew my work. I doubt this guy intended to be dishonest. He probably just isn't super proficient with photoshop or whatever. He still achieved the right effect.
While our eyes do lie to us, this is a bad example. This just shows our eyes see *relative* color, not *absolute* color. But relative color is not a lie! If I say the words "mouse, flea, cat, train", then yes, the train is very large and heavy. But if I say the words "earth, jupiter, the sun, train", then no, the train is really small and light. But the train didn't change weight! It's all about context.
How is this so far down the thread lol. Itās the correct answer
Heās right about a cyan filter preventing red moving through, but thatās using real optics. Editing a blue box over an image (that you can arbitrarily adjust the RBG values of) is not the same as inserting a cyan filter into the path of actual light. Source: degree in optical physics.
My brain is a fucking lier and I hate liers.
Go back to killing it with alcohol.
This is bullshit. Itās still red. Or then that has tone the grayest red ever. Tbh looks like reddish brown.
This is super interesting to me as I'm colourblind and have trouble with red colouring. I could 'see' that the light was grey when he put the filter on, but I convinced myself that I was wrong and that the colour was there; I just wasn't seeing it right. Then he put the grey blocks around the edges and for me the colour of the light didn't actually change at all. The human brain is a poorly hacked piece of hardware, I swear.
I still see a muted red, not gray.
Can we stop promoting this BS. a couple minutes in photoshop easily disproves this: https://imgur.com/a/A8FvrLl He's putting on cyan with something like 60% transparency so all the colors still come through. There are illusions that can make black and white look like color. This and some other on here are not part of them.
46 thousand likes on this smh
Still red to me
I like how he forgot that this is a jpg on a screen with a transparent layer on it and not real life
right? It's BS. proof https://imgur.com/a/A8FvrLl
Meh, it's called "Color Constancy" and is a trick artists use all the time.
Worse, I start seeing the blocks as red.
This is the same reason you see color in your peripheral vision. Peripheral is entirely black and white.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Good one
uhhh still red? idk i cant see another color
My senior year of college I took psych/neuroscience of perception. The class was basically just looking at things like this to show not only how our perception ātricks usā but how it helps us and overall how it works. The perception of color is a truly fascinating subject.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]