@Pincho
"Here's another! At first you may only see the angels, but after awhile you may see something else."
Clever. I like that one.
@Exeat
"You're just talking crap now, the JPEG compression routine can't even change the colour of a pixel that much."
HAHAHAHAHAHA. ::Wipes tears from eyes:: That's priceless.
"You're saying the A text would have to be a darker grey then the tile,"
No, I'm not. It can be lighter than the tile and still work.
" and yet in the final image it's an almost white."
No, actually its a soild grey. Zoom in and check the values.
" That's changing something like RGB(50,50,50) to RGB(200,200,200) when the surrounding pixels are RGB(100,100,100) - I'm sorry but that just can't happen when you compress to a JPEG."
True. But that isn't the case here. The surrounding pixels are RGB(107,107,107) and the text is only slightly larger than that. Not anywhere near the 200s like you exagerated. Also the pixels values for the B are in the 70s and 60s. There is probably only one or two values that are in the 50s and those are probably late 50s.
"Not to mention the rest of the illusion was left relatively untouched."
What? You haven't even looked at the rest of the illusion have you.
"You're saying that somehow the compression routine changed just the A & B text and left the rest of the image alone? No way."
No, I didn't. In fact I specifically stated that the tiles were affected as well. Stop putting words into my mouth.
"I don't see why you can't accept the fact that the author just wanted the text inverted."
And I don't see why you can't accept the possiblitly that the JPEG screwed it up.
@Pincho
"The text it seems is meant to be different colours. I just tested it. So that prooves without doubt that the text is not part of the illusion."
Who can you test this when you don't have the original values and the compression setting.
@Exeat
"Here's a different image of the same effect. It's also a GIF image with no crappy JPEG compression."
Yes, I see. But is what is that suppose to prove? That the effect can work without the text being the same color? I've already acknowledged that.
"Notice the text inverted like the original?"
How can you compare it too the original when you don't have it? If you are referring to the JPEG then I think we have already been over why one is darker than the other.
@Pincho
Quote: ""What's the text got to do with it?"
I've already explained this what must be a million times. It is part of the square. ""
"That's the same as saying....
P1 "What colour is my door?"
P2 "It is Gold!"
P1 "It's not gold it's red???"
P2 "But the letterbox is gold!!! The letterbox is part of the door!""
Nice analogy. Except that I never said the text was the same color as the tile.
In fact, I said it was different in several posts. Never once, did I suggest or imply that they were the same color. How could one see the text if they were the same color as the tile?
@Mouse
" Neophyte's just trying to be a pain as far as I can tell, his arguments don't even make sense. Just ticking people off..."
What about my arguments doesn't make sense? I swear I need to take a public speaking coarse or something. I've been misinterpreted some many times its unbelieveable.
I'm not trying to be a pain. I sincerely believe that the text is part of the illusion because every variation on this that I've seen has had something other than the tiles as part of the illusion. Yes, the illusion can work without the text. I'm not, nor have I ever suggested otherwise. I'm just pointing out that the text was messed up by the JPEG.
If you could point out what you think doesn't make any sense I would be greatfull becuase I'm tearing out my hair here in frustration trying to figuare out why no one understands me. If this keeps up, I'll probably be bald.
@Chris Knott
"Letters A and B are not meant to be the same colour."
How do you know? Are you a mind reader? I'm basing my conclusions on the fact that other illusions similar to this always use something other than the tiles to demonstrate the illusion(ie The ChessBase example that easily confused posted).
"The illusion works with out the letters."
Agreed. I've said as much previously.
"Neophyte is completely wrong."
Disagree.
Besides, if I'm completely wrong, then you are wrong as well because I believe that the illusion can work without the text just like you.
"These colours (from the original illusion) are not and are not meant to be the same colour:"
How can you think that they're meant to be the same colour??"
JPEG compression, the inclusion of something else other than the tiles in every other variation on this illusion that I've seen. The ChessBase example that Easily Confused posted would be an excellant example.
"^^^^^ It still works without the letters ^^^^^"
Yeah, I know.
In case you didn't read the whole thread, here's what I said before:
Quote: "
No it wouldn't. A red outline could be used to highlight the two, arrows could point to them, even text based description would suffice like:
Look at the Light Square and in the cylinder's shadow and the Dark Square Outside of it. They are the same color.
"
"And, no, the arrows are not meant to be the same colour."
@Exeat
"Ok then, now back to the illusions! lol."
Thank you for bringing this post back on to topic.
Its getting tiring trying to defend myself constantly over such a simple thing. I wish people would give it a rest.
Anyway...
Is there any orange in this picture?
Moving circles.
