this post was submitted on 31 May 2026
533 points (91.7% liked)

Mildly Interesting

26945 readers
255 users here now

This is for strictly mildly interesting material. If it's too interesting, it doesn't belong. If it's not interesting, it doesn't belong.

This is obviously an objective criteria, so the mods are always right. Or maybe mildly right? Ahh.. what do we know?

Just post some stuff and don't spam.

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
 
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Buffalox@lemmy.world 90 points 3 weeks ago (33 children)

Goddam! Thank you!
That kind of explains the gold or black dress!

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

I can for the life of me only see it as white and gold, and I have really struggled trying to understand how others can see it as blue and black? I bet the picture you show here is a result of the research the picture of the dress initiated. It can't be a coincidence that the illusion you posted also is made with dresses.

[–] NessD@lemmy.world 78 points 3 weeks ago (6 children)

It's such a strange thing. For most of the illusions I can trick my brain to perceive both variants. This one is clearly black and blue. I can see that the black parts isolated can appear golden in the light, but for the life of me I can't see it any other than blue. Brains are weird.

[–] NaibofTabr@infosec.pub 26 points 3 weeks ago (2 children)

I wonder how much of this depended on the differences in device screens. In 2015 there was a lot more variability in display technology, lower resolutions in general and worse color fidelity. OLED was uncommon and expensive, you probably only had an IPS display if you worked in graphic arts, and a lot of people were still using standard LCD monitors backlit with fluorescent tubes, which meant that the black depth was limited and the detail in dark regions of an image was frequently not visible on the screen.

[–] HonoraryMancunian@lemmy.world 9 points 3 weeks ago

I remember showing a woman at work it, from my phone. She saw it as the opposite to me and another coworker. Me and the other coworker were stunned.

[–] JGrffn@lemmy.world 7 points 3 weeks ago

Just looked up the origonal dress pic on my pixel 8 pro. Its still white and gold to me. I've only ever seen it as black and blue (without aid) a handful of times since the day it went viral. In sure screens could influence this, but this damn thing stands as a powerful illusion on its own.

[–] kubica@fedia.io 7 points 3 weeks ago

In the drawing, the surrounding background and the hard black lines on the lighter version are probably causing that we don't compensate the light in the same way in both drawings. We are not given the same picture like it happened with the original photo.

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] Viceversa@lemmy.world 24 points 3 weeks ago (6 children)

The dress was revealed to be, in fact, blue and black.

[–] Murse@slrpnk.net 12 points 3 weeks ago

On 28 February 2015, Roman Originals announced that they would make a single white and gold dress for a Comic Relief charity auction.[31]

Oh man, MAJOR missed opportunity there! They sold out of the blue and black ones like overnight, they should have fast-tracked a white and gold version production to hit the shelves ASAP and enjoyed the flood of purchases.

load more comments (5 replies)
[–] Rhynoplaz@lemmy.world 10 points 3 weeks ago

It was only after following elaborate instructions: change the brightness, squint, and cover up this section of the image, that I was finally able to see a white dress.

As stupid as it was, it was a pretty cool accidental worldwide psych experiment.

[–] whosepoopisonmybuttocks@sh.itjust.works 6 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

Correct interpretation: blue and black in an overexposed image

Misinterpretation: yellow and gold in an underexposed image.

The area of the picture that isn't the dress is washed out in white and the overexposure is even bleeding over top right corner.

Anyone misinterpreting must either be bad with visual context or not understand photography.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] DarrinBrunner@lemmy.world 5 points 3 weeks ago (3 children)
load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (28 replies)
[–] ICastFist@programming.dev 39 points 3 weeks ago (2 children)

I had to copy the image in Paint and select the colors to believe they were the same. Goddamned witchcraft, I say!

[–] dan1101@lemmy.world 10 points 3 weeks ago

Paint is compromised, they are in on it!

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] stream_bone@piefed.blahaj.zone 28 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] dreadbeef@lemmy.dbzer0.com 27 points 3 weeks ago (4 children)

Historians are gonna really wonder why so many people talked about this

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] teslasaur@lemmy.world 24 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) (4 children)

I don't get it. Are they suppose to look similar with the filters applied? I see both dresses underneath the filter, very clearly. On the left is the same black and blue dress with a yellow filter effect, on the right is a yellow and white dress with a very clear blue filter on top.

[–] Th4tGuyII@fedia.io 26 points 3 weeks ago (2 children)

Yeah, don't worry, you're supposed to be able to see they're different.

The majority of the image being grey is gives your brain the right context required to perceive each half is being tinted, so the perceived white balance isn't shifted around like in the original "the dress" meme.

This is more of a teardown of the "original" illusion than a demonstration.

Looking at the bridge, it becomes clear that even though you can see in the wider context that the dresses are separate colours - when compared directly under skewed/tinted white balance they become indistinguishable.

Meaning that in the original "the dress" meme, how you perceived the dress' colour depended greatly on how you perceived the tint/white balance in the surrounding areas of the photo (or how it was displayed on your device).

[–] Zahille7@lemmy.world 14 points 3 weeks ago (6 children)

I've seen the dress on multiple different types of screens and it has literally always looked blue and black.

[–] IWW4@lemmy.zip 11 points 3 weeks ago (3 children)

Yeah i am with you. I never understood how anyone saw gold.

[–] psycotica0@lemmy.ca 6 points 3 weeks ago

Sorry, I'm team gold. We're real! I've never seen blue in the original image.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (5 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] fonix232@fedia.io 17 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

The point is that a black-and-blue dress, when brightly lit, will look eerily similar to a white-and-gold dress, when it's in shade.

[–] teslasaur@lemmy.world 5 points 3 weeks ago (3 children)

Ok, i just dont see it then.

[–] TherapyGary@lemmy.dbzer0.com 6 points 3 weeks ago (2 children)

It's a demonstration of how tinting can make two different colors appear the same. Zoom in and you'll see it

Left vs right:
1000014595 1000014596

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[–] Azzu@leminal.space 7 points 3 weeks ago

Yes, but the black and blue is actually exactly the same color as the yellow and white. They're both the same color but one looks black/blue while the other looks white/yellow.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] wewbull@feddit.uk 23 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] brucethemoose@lemmy.world 15 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) (2 children)

Human vision is an illusion. It’s mostly inferred, and not representative of how the world actually looks, and I think that’s pretty cool and profound.

[–] KillerWhale@orcas.enjoying.yachts 6 points 3 weeks ago (2 children)

Please explain how the world actually looks

[–] Sasquatch@lemmy.ml 7 points 3 weeks ago

I don't think there's an objective answer to that

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] LovableSidekick@lemmy.world 15 points 3 weeks ago (10 children)

I don't even understand the point of this. I see a black dress with a blue apron and a yellow dress with a white apron. Is that wrong?

[–] nuko147@lemmy.world 7 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

Turn your phone horizontal (with locked orientation), now put one finger from your left hand and one finger from your right hand to the areas above outside the boxes.

Voilà! The boxed areas are the same.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (9 replies)
[–] SCmSTR@lemmy.blahaj.zone 13 points 3 weeks ago

Oh come on, not this again

[–] espurr@sopuli.xyz 11 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)
[–] topherclay@lemmy.world 12 points 3 weeks ago

This kills the crab.

[–] ThirdConsul@lemmy.zip 9 points 3 weeks ago (10 children)

I have no idea what must be wrong with someone's eyes to call that dress white and gold. I mean it was always a stretch, the shadow/lens on top of it would have to be fucking BLUE to color it something similar.

Even then it sounds stupid to go with that stretch of it being white and gold.

My working theory is that people who saw it gold and white were exposed to lead.

[–] Zoomboingding@lemmy.world 11 points 3 weeks ago (3 children)

I feel like this post illustrates pretty cleanly how someone would see that

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] petrol_sniff_king@lemmy.blahaj.zone 11 points 3 weeks ago (2 children)

Shadows do generally overrepresent the color blue due to rayleigh scattering.

Brains are also very quick to make assumptions and also very rigid about keeping them. The spinning dancer illusion, even when you already know you can and have seen it spinning both ways, it can be difficult to switch percepts.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (8 replies)
[–] Fleur_@aussie.zone 8 points 3 weeks ago

This pic makes my brain go "AHHHHHHHHHHHHh"

[–] Professorozone@lemmy.world 7 points 3 weeks ago

This actually helped me.

[–] urheber@discuss.tchncs.de 7 points 3 weeks ago (2 children)

Well yeah, obviously... What's this trying to illude?

[–] ApertureUA@lemmy.today 6 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

Or maybe remove the blue and yellow pieces of glass in front of them?

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›