Cool Illusion

[Isleh]

http://www.patmedia.net/marklevinson/co ... usion.html

[Ekade]

I can't stop staring at it...





*seizure ensues*

[Hashum]

I love those.

[Sai'nu]

*head twitch*



I feel like I've got this itch inside my skull now I can't scratch..... and, yet, I want to go stare at it more!

[X'an Shin]

There really is no green dot, and the pink ones really don't disappear.
This should be proof enough, we don't always see what we think we see.

It IS neat, but the guy who wrote it doesn't know what he's talking about there.

The pink dots DO in fact "disappear," they're being covered by a gray square.

The reason you see a "green" dot moving around is because in that spectrum, green is the "opposite" of purple (or really pink) that they're using. It's called an "after image." You're seeing the after-image of the pink dot displayed a as a green dot when the grey square blocks out the pink dot. The same thing can be done by staring at a green piece of paper for a few seconds, and then stare at a wall. You'll see a red square on the wall.

It has everything to do with how the rods and cones in your inner eye work. The reason the pink dots "disappear" has to do with the saturation of the pink color. If it were a bright red dot it probably wouldn't "fade" as much as it was.

Rest assured, you nearly always see what you think you see, unless someone is attempting to fool you, as in the case of this thingie.

Sorry to pull a Houdini on this. I DID enjoy it, I just hate when people (the folks who made this) attempt to intentionally mislead other people.

[Seret Sajet]

There really is no green dot, and the pink ones really don't disappear.
This should be proof enough, we don't always see what we think we see.

It IS neat, but the guy who wrote it doesn't know what he's talking about there.

The pink dots DO in fact "disappear," they're being covered by a gray square.

The reason you see a "green" dot moving around is because in that spectrum, green is the "opposite" of purple (or really pink) that they're using. It's called an "after image." You're seeing the after-image of the pink dot displayed a as a green dot when the grey square blocks out the pink dot. The same thing can be done by staring at a green piece of paper for a few seconds, and then stare at a wall. You'll see a red square on the wall.

It has everything to do with how the rods and cones in your inner eye work. The reason the pink dots "disappear" has to do with the saturation of the pink color. If it were a bright red dot it probably wouldn't "fade" as much as it was.

Rest assured, you nearly always see what you think you see, unless someone is attempting to fool you, as in the case of this thingie.

Sorry to pull a Houdini on this. I DID enjoy it, I just hate when people (the folks who made this) attempt to intentionally mislead other people.

Is there any thunder you HAVEN'T stolen yet? Just curious.

[Krusshyk]

You bastard X'an. I was going to talk about that. It's one of, like, 2 things I remember from college.

[Isleh]

It has everything to do with how the rods and cones in your inner eye work. The reason the pink dots "disappear" has to do with the saturation of the pink color. If it were a bright red dot it probably wouldn't "fade" as much as it was.

So the after image + the pink dots combine to match the gray background? The reason why you have to stare at the + is so the afterimage superimposes over the dots?

[Hashum]

There really is no green dot, and the pink ones really don't disappear.
This should be proof enough, we don't always see what we think we see.

It IS neat, but the guy who wrote it doesn't know what he's talking about there.

The pink dots DO in fact "disappear," they're being covered by a gray square.

The reason you see a "green" dot moving around is because in that spectrum, green is the "opposite" of purple (or really pink) that they're using. It's called an "after image." You're seeing the after-image of the pink dot displayed a as a green dot when the grey square blocks out the pink dot. The same thing can be done by staring at a green piece of paper for a few seconds, and then stare at a wall. You'll see a red square on the wall.

It has everything to do with how the rods and cones in your inner eye work. The reason the pink dots "disappear" has to do with the saturation of the pink color. If it were a bright red dot it probably wouldn't "fade" as much as it was.

Rest assured, you nearly always see what you think you see, unless someone is attempting to fool you, as in the case of this thingie.

Sorry to pull a Houdini on this. I DID enjoy it, I just hate when people (the folks who made this) attempt to intentionally mislead other people.

You mean it's not magic?

[Shensen]

LIES! There are no cones in MY eyes darnit!

[Krusshyk]

It has everything to do with how the rods and cones in your inner eye work. The reason the pink dots "disappear" has to do with the saturation of the pink color. If it were a bright red dot it probably wouldn't "fade" as much as it was.

So the after image + the pink dots combine to match the gray background? The reason why you have to stare at the + is so the afterimage superimposes over the dots?

Basically what is happening, is the cones that "see" particular colors (in this case the pink, get fatigued. They literally get tired. When they are tired they respond to the particualr light frequency they are intended to see differently. I think the staring at the "+" is to make sure that the same cones are staring at the same color constantly as to ensure they get fatigued.

Oh, and rods aren't used for color vision, so it's just the cones we are talking about here I think.

[Sai'nu]

LIES! There are no cones in MY eyes darnit!

Totally different experience if you try it with Beer Goggles!

[X'an Shin]

It has everything to do with how the rods and cones in your inner eye work. The reason the pink dots "disappear" has to do with the saturation of the pink color. If it were a bright red dot it probably wouldn't "fade" as much as it was.

So the after image + the pink dots combine to match the gray background? The reason why you have to stare at the + is so the afterimage superimposes over the dots?

The reason you have to stare at the + is so that the afterimage lines up with the original dot. Watch it again, stare at the plus for 10 seconds, and then look in a circle just around the +. You'll see the entire ring of pink/green dots move around the screen (because it's your eye that's actually reproducing the effect).

[X'an Shin]

Is there any thunder you HAVEN'T stolen yet? Just curious.

LOL hay I'm an artist too! ;P

[X'an Shin]

It has everything to do with how the rods and cones in your inner eye work. The reason the pink dots "disappear" has to do with the saturation of the pink color. If it were a bright red dot it probably wouldn't "fade" as much as it was.

So the after image + the pink dots combine to match the gray background? The reason why you have to stare at the + is so the afterimage superimposes over the dots?

Basically what is happening, is the cones that "see" particular colors (in this case the pink, get fatigued. They literally get tired. When they are tired they respond to the particualr light frequency they are intended to see differently. I think the staring at the "+" is to make sure that the same cones are staring at the same color constantly as to ensure they get fatigued.

Oh, and rods aren't used for color vision, so it's just the cones we are talking about here I think.

Also, what he said ^.