• We have updated the guidelines regarding posting political content: please see the stickied thread on Website Issues.

Has Anyone Noticed This Peculiar 3D Effect?

barfing_pumpkin

Gone But Not Forgotten
(ACCOUNT RETIRED)
Joined
Aug 6, 2005
Messages
723
Has anyone ever looked at a page or a screen - as it seems to occur with both mediums - and noticed that if something red is adjoined to something blue or black, that the red seems to 'leap out' a little, as if it is floating a few millimetres above or in front of the page or screen? (BTW - when it occurs on a screen, it seems that the 'depth' becomes greater the further away you are)

I'm asking this now, because I noticed it in this months FT (issue 210). If you have it, look at the 'coming next issue' section: you'll see red writing on a black background, and if the effect is universal, then if should appear as if the red is floating slightly off the page.

So I'm wondering: what causes it? Does it happen to a lot of people, or only me? Or is it the result of an eye condition - astigmatism, or something like that? (as far as I'm aware, my eyes are fine)

And if the effect is commonplace, then doesn't it suggest the possibility of unaided, non-holographic three-dimensional viewing?
 
DEFINITIONS
Simultaneous Colour Contrast
When different hues are placed next to each other, physiological inhibitory interactions occur between them in the visual system which then cause particular colours (hues) to appear in adjacent parts of the visual field where they do not really exist. This phenomenon is related to simultaneous brightness contrast, or simply brightness contrast.
Afterimage
A transient visual sensation which appears after an intense or prolonged exposure to a visual stimulus.
INSTRUCTIONS
In FIGURE 1 below there is a large, blue square surrounding a smaller gray square. Observe that the gray square appears to have a slightly yellow tinge, although it has no objective yellow colouration. Placing the mouse pointer over the blue square causes it to disappear, leaving only the SAME small gray square, but now it appears to have LOST its yellow hue. When the mouse removes the blue square, the yellow tinge appears to fade out. Try turning the yellow off by quickly moving the mouse pointer on and off the blue background area. Notice how this phenomenon illustrates the definition of simultaneous colour contrast given above.
To create an afterimage keep the mouse away from the area of the blue background in FIGURE 1B and just focus on the gray square for a minute or two. Now make the blue square disappear with the mouse and stare intently at the gray square by itself. The observer should now perceive, in "reverse video," a yellow background in place of the blue one and a light blue square should appear to float over the small gray square.
FIGURE 1


INSTRUCTIONS
In FIGURE 2 below, there is a large, yellow square surrounding the exact same smaller gray square as above. This time, the gray square appears to have a delicate light-blue tinge, although it has no objective blue colouration. The light-blue tinge also becomes more obvious by turning the yellow surround on and off in quick succession.
Once again, create an afterimage by staring at FIGURE 2 for a minute or two. Now remove the yellow background with the mouse and fix your gaze on the remaining gray square for a minute. The colours are in "reverse video" again, but note that the background square of the afterimage should be a very light, blue tint, and a pale yellow should slowly begin to appear to hover over the gray square. The blue in the background of the afterimage is the same blue tint that makes the gray square in FIGURE 2B look different than the gray square by itself. In addition, this afterimage has the same colours as the original objective stimulus in FIGURE 1B, although they do not appear to be as deep. The systematically complementary relationship between blue and yellow should now be apparent.
FIGURE 2




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

COMMENTARY
Blue and yellow, and red and blue-green (cyan) are complementary colours. By definition, colours are complementary if they produce white light when added together as lights (additive colour mixing), but NOT as pigments (subtractive colour mixing). It is also a characteristic of complementary colours that selected pairs of them reciprocally inhibit each other in a predictable manner: blue versus yellow and red versus cyan, thus producing the phenomena of simultaneous colour contrast and the complementary afterimages, and both produced under conditions such as depicted in FIGURES 1 and 2 above. The reader may wish to practice afterimages with both pairs of complementary colours by viewing FIGURE 3 below. The reader focuses on each of the images in turn for a minute and then shifts his gaze to the dot in the white background space. The colours observed in the afterimage sensation are complementary to the objective physical stimulus.

FIGURE 3

A
B


¤
¤

C
D



That a given colour is induced from its complement, yellow from blue or blue from yellow, is at least partly explained theoretically by a particular cell type in the visual cortex of the brain. Double opponent cells, as they are called, "see" the world via photoreceptors on the retina which send them colour information. These photoreceptors are of three types corresponding to three thirds of the visual spectrum: red green, and blue. FIGURE 4 below shows the pattern of photoreceptors on the retina through which double-opponent cells "view" the world. In diagram A of FIGURE 4, for example, the double opponent cell "sees" the world through green and red cones (to make yellow) which are exciting it in the centre of its "field of vision" on the retina. Blue receptors in the ring surrounding the centre add to the excitability of the central green and red receptors through lateral pathways. At the same time, the double opponent cell is inhibited by blue receptors in the centre and by green and red receptors in the surround. Thus this double opponent cell responds best to a yellow spot in a blue background.

Double-opponent cells can explain simultaneous colour contrast. When the double opponent cell which responds best to a yellow spot in a blue background "looks" through its retinal photoreceptors at a gray square on a yellow background, it "sees" the gray square through its green and red cones in the centre, and it "sees" the blue background through the blue receptors around them. The surrounding blue cones excite the green and red cones in the centre of its field of vision through lateral pathways, even though these green and red cones are not being excited by any objective yellow in the gray square on which they focus.

How is the yellow after image depicted in FIGURE 1, and described in the instructions above, explained? The white background reflects the entire spectrum to the retina, and therefore all three primary colours of red, green and blue. When the observer turns his focus to the white background after focusing on FIGURE 1, the blue receptors are saturated and therefore much less sensitive to the less intense "blue" wavelengths coming from the white. The opponent green and red receptors (yellow) in the neighbourhood, being fresh, become relatively more active than normal and in turn activate, by lateral pathways other opponent cells which see blue in their centres. In effect, double-opponent cells "opposed" to the objective stimulus which the observer originally brought to focus are activated. See FIGURE 4B below.

FIGURE 4

A
B


sorry images didn't transfer. Source:

www.langara.bc.ca/psychology/IllusionsIndex.htm
 
Well, I'm not sure if the above article is entirely relevant to what I'm going on about - it seems to be more about afterimages, or persistence of vision. Trouble is, it's so laden with jargon that it's hard to know what it's actually saying.

However, looking at example 4B, I did notice that the same effect occurs with the blue circle on the yellow circle.
 
I can remember studying this in Color class in Design school. But I wasn't paying that much attention so although I can confirm that this is a genuine visual effect that happens to everyone (although I don't know about the color-blind) I couldn't begin to tell you why. (I wasn't about to wade through the article above either.)
 
In TV Land, where they make programmes to go inside your television boxes that you buy and place in the corner of any room of your house (they're really that versatile), there's such thing as 'illegal' colours because of their brightness and contrast (like a vibrant cadmium red for example). Highly saturated colours can cause analogue transmitters to overload and shutdown. Not only that but they also don't play easy on the eye and I've heard they're also responsible for kicking off epilepsy in small numbers of the epileptic populace (and by and large most children in Japan I wouldn't wonder... what a way to make you tv show famous!) Basically, the colour can be Sooooo saturated that it almost seems to leap out at you as it were and slide around out of it's 'real' perameters.

These reality warping states are being carefully monitored by machines prior to broadcast called serial digital legalizers that check all YCrCb signals won't wig tvs and people out.

Which goes to show how more closely related we are to the television than we are to our supposed ancenstors, the gorillas. No wonder people cry when you take the television boxes away.

perhaps there's something similar for print? I've had work in print before and not been warned by the tech bods to watch out for any illegal reds under my beds, just about anti-aliasing... which probably falls under the catagory of illigal aliasing, which I'm sure the home secretary is aware of by now and doing something about it I shouldn't wonder.
 
Re. reds in telly land.
There's also other reasons for it - as red is fairly low on the broadcast spectrum, it's easy for it to 'bleed' into other colours making your picture look like crap. Here in the UK, there is a requirement for all tv broadcasts to meet specific requirements to ensure the best possible signal is met - hence we try to keep red tied down a bit.

I've not heard of an illegal red shutting down a transmitter however! Might go and have a google on that. :)
 
Sorry you felt that above article too jargony. Its the kind of stuff I've recently studied and I wasn't thinking (apologies all round).

My best advice would be for you to check out any psychology sites that deal with illusions and perception. If interested, you might want to check out the biology and neurology behind site as well :D
 
Sounds like colour stereopsis - other things being equal red tends to appear closer while blue tend to recede - the effect is heightened when you place red against it's complementary eg blue.

-
 
ghostdog: "Which goes to show how more closely related we are to the television than we are to our supposed ancestors, the gorillas. No wonder people cry when you take the television boxes away.

Perhaps there's something similar for print?"


I like that bit so much, I can see me quoting it for years to come. :D

Print is less likely to send people into epileptic mode. Apoplectic sometimes - this can be avoided by detaching the unwanted chip-wrapping from DVD and discarding it unread.

When I used to hang around uselessly on the margins of the colour-printing, image-setting world, I got used to the software reminding us that certain eye-catching colours which worked well on screen were out-of-gamut for printed media. Anything too shiny usually.

I was only allowed the odd bit of spot-colour myself - you are at that age.

8)
 
The_Spine said:
I can remember studying this in Color class in Design school. But I wasn't paying that much attention so although I can confirm that this is a genuine visual effect that happens to everyone (although I don't know about the color-blind) I couldn't begin to tell you why. (I wasn't about to wade through the article above either.)

The Colour-blind can see it. I remember a C-B mate of mine asking me if a Red+Blue combination looked funny to me too. He couldn't see what was different, but the two tones were different to him too.
 
In TV Land, where they make programmes to go inside your television boxes that you buy and place in the corner of any room of your house (they're really that versatile)...

Okay, ghostdog, you saucy minx - so I'm assuming the above was written as a result of my admission of finding the quoted article too jargon-filled to be of any use.

As you seem to find my ignorance 'pon this matter so tremendously amusing, could you thus re-write the thing in sufficiently comprehendable and concise English, so that this poor benighted fool here can understand it, please? Oh - and you must be quick, lest people get thinking that you needed to do some research beforehand...
 
barfing_pumpkin said:
"Has anyone ever looked at a page....and noticed that if something red is adjoined to something blue or black, that the red seems to 'leap out' a little, as if it is floating a few millimetres above or in front of the page...."

While I've personally NOT noticed this effect on TV or computer screens (hence my edit above), I've experienced it MANY TIMES with book dust jackets and both paperback book and magazine covers.

It's most noticeable (for me at any rate) with blue lettering on a red background and sometimes with red letters on blue. If you take such a cciver and give it a little shake, the red letters seem to move at a much different rate than the rest of the cover, as if each letter was mounted on little wobbly springs.

But I'd always assumed that this effect was unique to me. Otherwise, I thought, some commercial advertising use would have long since been made of it.
 
You also can get the same effect if your eyes blur a solid texture, and the 2 images overlap onto one another. Reminds me of those posters popular in the 90's that you can only see when doubling your vision.
 
Human_84 said:
"Reminds me of those posters popular in the 90's that you can only see when doubling your vision."

Bring markedly myopic, I've never had any problems with THAT one.
 
But I'd always assumed that this effect was unique to me. Otherwise, I thought, some commercial advertising use would have long since been made of it.

Good point - if I were you, I'd patent the idea pretty quickly; could you imagine a UK Labour party election poster where the red (the traditional colour associated with Labour) stood out from the blue (the traditional colour of their main opponents, the Conservatives)? Sports teams, brands - Coca Cola (red) vs. Pepsi (blue) - there's quite a bit of potential there, I reckon.



You also can get the same effect if your eyes blur a solid texture, and the 2 images overlap onto one another. Reminds me of those posters popular in the 90's that you can only see when doubling your vision.

Ah, I remember them - stereograms, otherwise known as 'magic eye' pictures. But I think the effect we're talking about here is different: as you say, the effect only occurs when you double your vision, whereas with this red/blue thing, you don't need to do that (unless, of course, the red/blue effect comes about as a result of a very slight visual overlap between the pixels (TV) or the tiny print elements (page). Hmmm - might be worth studying an image where this effect occurs with a magnifying glass.)
 
I've not noticed the effect on screen, only in print too.
The back cover of the Beatnigs CD was the first real time I noticed it - then my art teacher taught us about complimentary colours that advance/recede when placed next to each other. Bright red text on a blue background is the most effective IMHO.
 
This may not relate directly to what is being asked, but I have noticed when reading articles from my pc monitor, where light colour writing is on a dark background, I always gets white 'ghost' lines in my vision for a minute or two afterwards.
 
OldTimeRadio said:
barfing_pumpkin said:
"Has anyone ever looked at a page....and noticed that if something red is adjoined to something blue or black, that the red seems to 'leap out' a little, as if it is floating a few millimetres above or in front of the page...."

While I've personally NOT noticed this effect on TV or computer screens (hence my edit above), I've experienced it MANY TIMES with book dust jackets and both paperback book and magazine covers.

It's most noticeable (for me at any rate) with blue lettering on a red background and sometimes with red letters on blue. If you take such a cciver and give it a little shake, the red letters seem to move at a much different rate than the rest of the cover, as if each letter was mounted on little wobbly springs.

But I'd always assumed that this effect was unique to me. Otherwise, I thought, some commercial advertising use would have long since been made of it.


Has anyone got 'Ever fallen in love with someone (you shouldn't have)'
by the Buzzcocks in a picture cover?
I remember the red lettering on blue background having this wobbly effect and i thought it was marvellous.
Well it was 1978 and I was 15.......... 8)
 
Back
Top