![]() |
|
#21
|
||||
|
||||
|
Tangen, Murphy, and Thompson just published an article on this effect in Perception (40: 628-630, 2011).
They report that Quote:
|
|
#22
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
OTOH, that depth perception test where you have to identify which of a group of dots stands out from the background? I'm really bad at that. |
|
#23
|
||||
|
||||
|
While you're tripping out, why not make your eyes think you're underwater?
|
|
#24
|
||||
|
||||
|
I really couldn't see much other than some skin-tone mixing, but my co-worker was floored by the effect. Really interesting how that is.
|
|
#25
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
As far as the original optical illusion, I thought quite a few of those faces ended up looking like the Forsaken in World of Warcraft. |
|
#26
|
||||
|
||||
|
I watched it through following the instructions, focusing on the cross in the middle. Then I watched it once more covering the left face with my hand and looking directly at the right one; and again covering the right face and looking directly at the left one.
I got the exact same effect all three times: as the faces changed from one face to the next, there was a distortion effect during the change; for the moment inbetween, the faces looked normal. Unless there's something there I didn't see at all (which is certainly possible), it's got nothing to do with seeing two faces at once, or with peripheral vision; it's got to do with the rapid change from one face to another. |
|
#27
|
||||
|
||||
|
Even if you watch just one side, with both eyes, it looks cartoonish, although if you stop it, you see a normal face-- a photo, that it.
I think it's because the images are flashing so fast, they're coming at something like the rate of frames in a motion picture, so it looks like a "morph," rather than a series of discrete images. Is it downloadable? I'd love to count the actual image-per-second rate, and slow it down. Once it was slowed to something I could perceive as a series of images, and not a moving picture (ie, "morph"), then I'd like to see whether the effect when looking at the + is still there. I really don't think anything mysterious is happening. I think we're just seeing still images that are so rapid we're being tricked into perceiving them as moving, and in addition to that, we're seeing them peripherally, so discrimination is very poor, and we can't catch on to the trick. Just as a note, modern films are standardized at 24 frames per second, but that's because early sound films required that speed for good sound quality with sound-on-film. You can see a moving picture from a series of still flashed at a much slower speed, and some old silents were as slow as 14 frames per second. |
|
#28
|
||||
|
||||
|
How strange. Alot of the people looked like they had giant eyes.
|
|
#29
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
|
|
#30
|
||||
|
||||
|
That's the same experience I had. I kept seeing faces that appeared to be Sloth from the Goonies.
|
![]() |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
| Jack Palance's face | snopes | Entertainment | 6 | 02 March 2011 11:52 PM |
| Gun blows up in face | snopes | Fauxtography | 9 | 26 June 2009 12:35 PM |
| Saving face | snopes | Medical | 3 | 14 January 2008 10:58 PM |