is your blue my blue?
(midwest.social)
inlandempire
Art & Designhttps://ismy.blue/
Two years ago i shared this website where you try and determine when a shade is either blue or green.
Posting it again because lemmy has grown quite a bit since then, maybe we have more people that havent tried it!
It says I see turquoise as blue but the turquoise swatch they use looks green to me, so I dunno.
Hue 163. I feel like the inbetweens i would generally call turquoise rather than blue though, just that turquoise does firmly fall under blue for me if being less specific.
I wonder if this is partially cultural.
Wouldn’t this very much depend how color accurate your screen is?
Color accuracy is not even close to consistent between screens and manufacturers.
On my mobile.
Now to try it on the desktop.
[Edit: Desktop: hue 177 is boundary. It's probably more accurate, the desktop is colour calibrated for graphics/photography.]
This was fun! Quite surprising for me. Wonder what this means?
Yeah I get similar results. Are we secretly colorblind ?
Did we hug of death this site? It won’t load for me.
Edit: of course it worked as soon as I typed this. I got 174, which it states is the average. Funny, I’m partly red-green colorblind so I figured that my results might be a little skewed, but they’re not.
I want more of these sith more colorz
Then what's my delta e is for you:
https://muldoon.design/playground/whats-my-delta-e
What does this mean for me
I want new eyes.
This website is causing me trouble with its turquoise. Turquoise (the stone) comes in a broad range of colors from clearly green to clearly blue.
I'm not posting a screenshot because I'm on mobile and can't be fucking bothered right now but according to the site boundary is at hue 168.
I grew up a fan of Miku and I've always considered her blue. I would use the word blue green at most. So yeah. Teal forever
What is the curve thing?
The curve is a "Cumulative Distribution Function" (CFD). It is the representation of the number of people (who have taken the test) who believe that every color to the right is blue.
Ah thanks! I misread the legend and thought i was the curve and the line was the average.
With the context of the other colors I would move my line even more to the right
I got Hue 166.
Hue 164 here ;)
This is like showing me endless pictures of cows and asking me "is this a fish or a bird"? No. No it fucking isn't.
This reminded me of
https://muldoon.design/playground/whats-my-delta-e
Very similar to OPs test.
interesting!
What's My ΔE? 0.487 ΔE₀₀ (CIEDE2000)
I got almost the same
It's not accurate, it's fun!
I'm blue, da-ba-dee, da-ba-di
I draw the line at aquamarine, aqua means water and water is blue, marine relates to water and water is blue.
But the sea is green
Yeah i got 80% in the green direction. Most of the mixed ones look more like blue to me than green
This is useless: different screens will show colours differently, so your blue will change from screen to screen. How can you compare results with people who have different screens?
It notes that in the about section; it's not an accurate test. It's more of a fun bar game where you pass the phone around then argue about who's a blue purist.
Good to know that, I didn't even visit the website because the concept seemed ridiculous. I wonder how many people read the about section, though.
You sound like my 15 year old with such strong opinions about a thing you didn't even look at first.
I wonder how the results would differ if I did it one eye at a time, because my right eye sees more blue than my left usually.
Why isn't there a “this is turquoise” option?
Or the possibility of marking it as both green and blue? (Or neither, whatever floats your boat.)
RGB #00FFFF is objectively as green as it is blue (well, in my screen the midpoint at which I'd be more likely to call it green seems to be at or around #00FFF5 ± 5, but that's probably due to the screen being imperfect)... it makes no sense to call it (or sufficiently close hues) one or the other...
It's intended as a subjective test to determine your personal threshold where you start calling a color either green or blue. Of course there are a bunch of confounders, which they address in the test explanation.
My wife and I both took it using my phone. What she would call turquoise looks quite green to me, suggesting she could be more sensitive to blue light or our personal definitions of colors differ.
I don't know, maybe it doesn't work for people who are used to working with RGB colours.
#00FFF5 is and looks (to me) blueish green, #00F5FF is and looks (to me) greenish blue, anything in-between is up to calibration issues, or turquoise for short.
Maybe I've unwittingly trained myself to judge colours as objectively as possible regardless of what screen they're being shown in, I don't know.
Maybe it would be different with paint, but most computer screens have green pixels and blue pixels (and red ones), and simulate colours using those, so it's relatively easy to tell if it's biasing one way or the other.
Given an RGB screen maybe it'd be better to compare a gradient between, say, cyan and magenta, for instance, which combine different pixel colours.
I don't know, I'm not a neurologist or a colour theorist, just someone who's spent way too much time picking the right RGB values for UIs or documents to look adequate.
I might be colour blind
What a nice artsy patch of a dotted pattern!
I am, and got similar (on two monitors). On the bright (heh) side you likely have better distance vision and night sight (more rods, less cones).
Yeah, naw.
Depends on whether you think cyan is blue or green, I guess... It's both and neither.
I'm gonna be that guy and point out that there is no way the population stat is accurate when color reproduction on screens varies so much. (I got a similar 87%)
could be ever a true neutral monitor?
There are apparently very expensive monitors that are designed to be more accurate. I wouldn't know. I'm fine with my hand-me-down 1080 I got for cheap.
Lots of monitors can calibrated. Expensive ones will provide a way to do it properly (e.g. puck and software.)
Once upon a time I had a Viewsonic monitor that had a Pantone calibration card. Very nice monitor. Not terribly expensive but more than middle of the road.
The test would work on any monitor as long as everyone is taking the same test on the same screen.
Yeah, that's right, but the main problem that I see with that is that those people will be biased from the "real" green or "blue". I checked the site, and it says that a lot of other factors can affect how people perceive its monitor light.
Over the span of time it would take to check the entire population, the backlights or LEDs or OLEDs would start to wear out, slowly affecting the results. 😅
I am very uninteresting
This is a hard test because most of the colours presented don't look green or blue, is like a perfect blend, and hard to answer
Yeah. I saw cyan and to me, that's neither green nor blue.
It ends with "For you turquoise is ___". Turquoise is turquoise. If I had to choose, I guess it's blue, and so my line is gonna be between turquoise and green, but it's actually turquoise. But I can see an argument for turquoise being green.
Ultimately, it seems like the actual question the test answers is "If you had to choose, do you consider turquoise to be blue or green?"
I suppose that's where language and culture might help shape perceptions, because in french at least we talk about "turquoise blue", so there is no ambiguity answering that question
(I got 174 taking the test)
I think English generally thinks of proper blue as "dark¹ blue" and cyan as "light² blue", and turquoise is closer to cyan than proper green.
¹navy/royal/primary
²sky/electric/robin egg
FWIW, I'm not sure that tracks entirely, and that's accounting for my own years training in various analog and digital art media. For most US English-speaking humans (if not universally^1^, minus linguistic^2,^ ^3^ and biological^4^ differences, [per Oklab^5^]), the modern understanding of subtractive color^6^ (ie. [reflected] vs additive [light]) holds that :
- "Primary" blue == "proper" blue— it's in the name, heh. ☺️
- Navy & Royal are near neighbors, differing in both shade and saturation;
- Robins egg, sky, and electric mostly differ by shade and slightly in hue (+luminance/vibrance for electric), and
- Turquoise, ironically^7^, is nearly centered between primary blue & secondary green, while the stone is historically renowned for its incredible vibrance in its chromatic variance. (blue to yellow^8^)
It's crazy out there in color land! 🤣
That is what I thought too, but my result ended up being at the exact point on the OP photo I thought (prior to trying the test) that the color shifted from being blue or cyan or turquoise into being definitively green. Which the test says is the median.
Really it seems like it is gauging whether or not people think the mid range is more green or blue
whether or not people think the mid range is more green or blue
It's turquoise, though.
It is, but im saying “is turquoise/cyan closer to being green or blue” in a given person’s perspective. For my perspective, turquoise is a shade of blue that leans toward green, but not a shade of green. The same as vermillion is a shade of orange, although it is red leaning.
Other people may perceive turquoise as being just a green as I think it is blue. That is really the point of the test. Not “do we see the same green or blue”, because the question isnt about what green or blue are at the extremes. Its about cyan/turquoise as you said
Some are hard to tell, but still distinct enough to be more green or blue.
Its for fun though, not an actual test.
Yeah test was the wrong word. The ones I saw weren't more green or more blue, they were just darker or lighter versions of the colour in between green and blue. Lol
I got an identical score to yours /u/inlandempire.
I am just gonna say: turquoise is a blue kind of color or its own color.
I'd say it's more of a green color
I got 177, 176, then 184, so I figured I'd go one more time and got 176 again (then 179 because 5 is a nice number)
Then I tried on my phone which is currently lowest brightness and thought for sure I'd get different results than my computer monitor. 179, 177, and 176
Is your green my blue?
And my green your blue, too?
Could it be we have differing views?
And say we do, well how would we discover this fact?
And even if we did would there be any impact?
I don't think this will affect us personally
But it could have effects on the interior design industry
That what I have always wondered. Is there a easy to tell if all of our brains perceive the same colours? Maybe whatever I see as "blue" (~400nm) someone else sees as what I would call "yellow" but all they have ever known to call it was blue. Same wavelength but the brain interprets it differently.
We could all have the same favourite colour but just call it different things.
Did it twice. 174 and 175, so consistent at least
Anytime color perception comes up, it's good to point colorblind isn't a lack of colors...
It's just different colors:
Red-green color blindness is caused by an unusual form of a light receptor in the eye, which is sensitive to a different range of colors than normal. This variant type of receptor makes it harder to distinguish among red, orange, yellow, and green. The resulting shift in color perception bestows extra sensitivity to other hues, however, as the researchers demonstrated by asking subjects to rate the similarity of 15 circles painted in tones of khaki. People with regular vision struggled with the test, while color-blind men aced it. The findings lend credence to the theory that people with red-green color blindness make good hunters or soldiers because they are not easily fooled by camouflage. The researchers hypothesize that the variant form of receptor could be an evolutionary relic from the time when early humans needed to spot predators or food hidden in branches and leaves.
https://www.discovermagazine.com/in-combat-stick-with-the-color-blind-15907
People who suck at red/green, are the ones that never understand why all the different colored khakis were always mixed together on the rack.
People just always assume what they perceive, is what every one else does too.
Also, as we age the lens in our eyes starts to yellow, diminishing our ability to perceive blue. There is speculation that this is why many artists use more blue in their paintings when they get older - they're painting to match what they imagine, not what they see.
That's why old ladies have blue/purple hair...
It doesn't look purple to them, or their friends.
Nah, we have blue or purple hair to hide the the brassy tones our hair gets when reach oldness, but getting the tint result neutral is harder than expected. Less so these days, and some hair types or damaged hair grabs the rinse much stronger than others.
I'm not talking about today, I'm talking about back like way back in the day when the "blue rinse" was part of a normal blonde dye job that had to be done by a professional at a salon.
Older ladies back then were likely to have cataracts changing their color perception, so rather than listen to the (usually) young stylist, they left too much blue in. But to them and their peers, it looked the same as when they were young.
I fucked up and put "have" instead of "had".
Not like I'm an expert, but I don't think the literal "blue rinse" has been a thing for a very long time.
I got 175, but oddly when I look at the final result it's off. If I had been asked to pick the dividing line when I can see all hues at once it would have been more to the right. My strategy was if I could see any hint of green, so by themselves some of the ones near 175 looked blue, but then pick up the green cast when they're near another green.
I tested again, slower, and still got 176.
Do you have automatic brightness adjustment on?
I got bluer than 93% of population with phone screen at 50% brightness.
I got true neutral with phone screen at 100% brightness.
I had already set colors to natural from day one.
So not only is my blue not your blue, but my 175 is not even your 175.
That's the problem with simulated worlds, a little quantum fluctuation and everything is off.
Your worlds do quantum? My worlds take a massive shortcut which make no sense at all and it's driving the smart monkeys crazy trying to figure it out.
