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!
As cool as this is, it would somewhat depend on how accurate the display you’re looking at it on is. The same person might get different results on different displays.
No, its Turquoise.
Yeah the phrasing on this is odd. If turquoise (or cyan) is an even mix of blue and green, this is really a test to determine how closely you can identify when blue and green have a 50-50 mix.
IIRC if you trace the etymology of it you’d see it means something like “Turkish blue”.
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%)
Also the first colour calibrates you by being clearly green or blue. If I start with green, the next colour it shows me looks blue in comparison and visa versa.
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.
Let me check the rulebook
The test would work on any monitor as long as everyone is taking the same test on the same screen.
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. 😅
That may have meant the same model, not the same monitor. Which would be even more wrong, so ¯\_༼ •́ ͜ʖ •̀ ༽_/¯
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.
Agreed, but it’s fun to use in person with someone else.
Japanese people: these are both 青
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 eggFWIW, 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](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colorimetry), minus linguistic[2](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linguistic_relativity_and_the_color_naming_debate), [3](https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/col.22955) and biological[4](https://physicstribune.com/light/visible-light/) differences, [per Oklab[5](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oklab_color_space)]), the modern understanding of subtractive color[6](https://library.si.edu/exhibition/color-in-a-new-light/science) (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](https://www.researchgate.net/figure/The-top-turquoise-samples-possess-pure-blue-with-slight-colour-variation-The-bottom-15_fig1_348996929), 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](https://www.gia.edu/turquoise/gem-research))
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
and also influenced by the previous color.
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
Wouldn’t this very much depend how color accurate your screen is?
Color accuracy is not even close to consistent between screens and manufacturers.
Yes. Really only good to do as compared to someone else physically in room with you. Ambient lighting could make a difference too. Nonetheless curious how much variance people’s scores are across devices.
Is this bad
That just means that you are correct
From About on site:
Who made this?
I’m Patrick Mineault, a neuroscience and AI researcher. I made this as a side project using Claude 3.5 Sonnet. I obtained a PhD in visual neuroscience from McGill in 2014. You can read my blog here.
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.
To add to the other comment, also if you’re a web dev and care about device averages.
I am color blind and they all started to look the same after about the 3rd one.
Also colorblind. It looks like the overwhelming majority of people are wrong about blue!
My main criticisms is the “your boundary” doesn’t need to be a line, it could have a width. There should be a third choice for when the color seems evenly split.
Your boundary is at hue 189, bluer than 98% of the population. For you, turquoise is green.
I was a graphic designer. I’m picky about colors. Color names are pretty much useless as demonstrated by this site. It’s why we use things like the Pantone matching system. Both to pick colors that don’t have names, and to have a standard to match printed output to.
Colors can be, and are, spec’ed by CMYK, RGB, and Hex values, but those values don’t guarantee the colors will match. Monitors and printing presses of various types all output color differently. Screen printing a shirt, is different from CMYK printing on an offset printer, and printing on a laser printer. They’ll all produce slightly different, or sometimes very different, results for the same values input.
For printing, a spot color is often used, that is, a specific color of ink, say Coca-Cola Red, that is mixed and added as a fifth color to the usual CMYK plates. That way the color is guaranteed to match. Fabric dyes are also custom mixed, of course.
A physical, printed book, like a Pantone swatch book, or even a color card produced by the company, is the only way to check how close the color is. And, there are acceptable ranges depending on the product, someone at, say, Coca-Cola, decides whether a color produced is close enough. They understand there are variances due to technology. “Close enough”, though, will always be very damn close for a larger company, but not necessarily perfect. They don’t fuck around with their branding.
Spot color is specific you the brand being printed, right?
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.
Tbh there’s a wide range I could say it’s blue or green.
I’m the opposite. For me there’s a wide gap. Because I just think turquoise for everything in the middle.
Love it. Need more silly things like this!
Oh, and
