I have been asked to put together a new project on optical illusions, and so was taking a quick look around the web to see what was out there. Here are 3 amazing illusions that I have never seen before…..in different ways, they each show just how many assumptions we make about the world around us
1) Created by Barton Anderson and Johnathan Winawer, in one image the figures appear black and the other they appear white. In fact, both sets of figures are identical.
2) A lovely induced movement image…
3) “A Lufthansa 747-400 and a United Airlines 757-20 on simultaneous approaches. The separation requirement for flying parallel and simultaneous approaches is 225 meters. These two aircraft are at a safe distance for the approaches they are each flying. Due to the Lufthansa 747 being three times larger than the 757 plane and being slightly behind , gives us this incredible optical illusion.”
Assuming it’s genuine, it’s great….
Which is your favourite and why?
If the one with the airplanes isn’t doctored, it’s by far my favorite, because it made me go ‘huh?’ immediately.
The first one is pretty cool, too. Makes you look twice.
The second one isn’t really doing anything for me, though. I get that it’s supposed to move, but it’s not moving, except for a slight flutter in the middle part if I’m not looking straight at it. So it’s not that interesting to me.
WOW air planes is the best
(1) Sure you’re right. Instinct is to cut then into photoshop and confirm pixel brightness – can’t be bothered – so trust you.
(2) is a great illustration of how we have no control over ourselves
(3) is a bit boring
The planes because I have never seen it before. The others are versions of things I have.
I think the photo of the planes is awesome, but it doesn’t seem to fit in the same group as the other two illusions.
The second one has the neatest effect for me – the perceived movement of the image is just disconcerting.
I guess the first is my favourite in that I hate it, and all such similar ones. Whereas with a lot of optical illusions, once you have “solved” it, you can see it clearly, there is never that kind of resolution here. You look at it, you know you’re being “suckered” but it just doesn’t help.
Also, I would guess that the aircraft were photgraphed with a telephoto/long focal length lens. These have the optical effect of foreshortening the image, making distant planes (ho, ho!) seem closer together than they truly are.
The first one is my favourite as it underlines why we can’t always trust our instincts and believe what our eyes tell us. As someone who used to be involved in paranormal research (from a sceptical point of view, I hasten to add), I used to get quite frustrated by things that some less-sceptical people would claim as proof of the existence of ghosts, often trying to get them to realise that our eyes and brains are not perfect.
As for the third one, it’s the same sort of optical illusion which makes the Red Arrows “Corkscrew” manoeuvre look so cool! (Number 16 on this page: http://www.deltaweb.co.uk/reds/mano.html)
(Sorry – fixed link is http://www.deltaweb.co.uk/reds/mano.html )
1) I like it. Reminds me very much of the checkerboard shadow illusion which many people have seen before (the blocks marked “A” and “B” are actually the same colour).
2) Very cool. My favourite one.
3) Not so much an illusion as a test of your preconceived notions about photography. I have seen it many times and some similar ones but event the first time I saw it I was not too shocked at the “foreshortening-like” effect.
I love everyday optical illusions. I was so shocked, when reading Pratchett, Cohen & Stewart’s “The Science of Discworld” that the full moon can be covered by your pinky finger at arms length. Most people assume that at arm’s length you would have to have a cup or a side plate in your hand to cover the full moon but the tip of your pinky will do it (whether it is on the horizon or high in the sky, it is still the same). Many optical illusions (such as number 2 above) work because we have about 160 “full moon sized” gaps in our vision which the brain fills-in (yup, full moon sized!) – according to Pratchett, Cohen and Stewart.
Some people in comments have refered to a 4th illusion. I didn’t see a fourth in the article above, was it added on the 21st and then deleted? Or maybe you are refering to this checkerboard illusion that I posted?
In the one that I posted, the blocks “A” and “B” have the same colour (R121 G121 B121). I like that people are sceptical, but have a look at the image here. All that I did was copy the “A” square over and over until it reached the “B” square, there is no trickery, each adjacent block os the same colour. Also, on the left is a bar of uniform grey that (at the top) looks like a “black” square in the light and near the middle looks like a “white” square in shadow.
Yes the checkerboard one is indeed my favourite and its very simiar to #1, the checkerboard is so good in fact, I’ve had to take scissors to my printouts to prove it to people. Never thought to use this as a tool towards not believing everything you see but I will now.
The first one is my favourite as it underlines why we can’t always trust our instincts and believe what our brains tell us. As someone who used to be involved in paranormal research, I used to get quite frustrated by things that some hardened ‘sceptical’ people would claim as proof of the non-existence of discarnate entities, often trying to get them to realise that our eyes and brains are not perfect.
I think that I would go with the first and the fourth – just shows how many assumptions we all make about our surroundings….
#4: Squares are quite clearly different colours. Was this a test?
In the 4th one, do you mean just the outline? Cause the inside is different colors, but the outline looks the same on both. However the plane one if real is very nice.
1) Interesting as it’s something you know could be true, but you have to check it anyway, just to convince yourself.
2) Boring.
3) If it’s not photoshopped, that’s the best by far.
4) Blatantly not squares of the same colour, confirmed by checking in photo-editing software. (Left R253,G254,B000 and Right R255,G102,B000)
Yes, they are clearly different. I did a quick comparison in Microsoft Paint, here.
http://img5.imageshack.us/img5/8095/notthesame.jpg
I don’t see a fourth example… but, between the three that I do see, find the black and white images (#1) the most compelling. The “movement” image (#2) and the “two jets” image are both eye-catching. But what is so remarkable about the black and white images, is that you wouldn’t even know that there was an illusion unless someone told you, or you had previously seen a similar example and recognized that this could be something along the same vein. Tempts one to wonder: what else is out there that can’t be (so readily) observed??
Yes, the jets. The 225m you quote is the separation between the parallel runways at San Fransisco. In good weather conditions, they use special “Close Parallel Operations” when the aircraft on the respective ILSs. I don’t know if they have rules about staggering and locking on speeds, but I suspect so. Wake turbulence longitudinal separation will also apply, but I also suspect there is a certain amout of fudging that goes on there too….
I put the 1st one into Paint and looked at the colours….
they are not the same….
THIS one is amazing though: http://www.scienceagogo.com/news/img/eye_checkerboard.jpg
What is the illusion on that link supposed to be?
Ok, I’ll say it – because normally people pick stuff apart on here and no one’s said anything yet. I don’t understand how number 1 is supposed to be the same colour. I’ve seen the checkerboard version before and I understand that one, but here there’s no shadow to trick the eye into seeing darker colours.
Is it supposed to be that they were the same before the clouding was put over the top?
Either way, in the first one the figures are lighter than their lining marks (e.g. kneecaps, muscle definitions) but in the other they are darker. I tried to check pixel colours, and I think I’m right, but I don’t know the exact way to check this – can anyone else check it?
So am I missing something, or is number 1 a lie?
Also, I see no number 4 – was that proven a lie and removed?
Yeah – I agree with the skeptics about number 1: I tried to “see” the illusion by masking the background (just put a small hole in a piece of paper and look at the same spot on both sides) and it looked different… so I brought them both into Corel Photo-Paint, zoomed and, as far as I can tell, they both are very different.
I could be wring (I didn’t spend all that much time) but perhaps the original was a true illusion and this one was ruined by the image compression?
At first I couldn’t believe that the two images of #1 were the same – so printed them, cut out the letters, numbers and the bodies, and compared these individual pieces. Except for small areas of the bodies, the images of both sides are similar tones.
The shot of the airplanes also makes them look closer together because it was taken probably take with an extremely long telephoto lens which gives the impression of perspective being compressed. You see the same thing all the time in Cassini spacecraft images of two moons of Saturn in the same frame looking close together although they are separated by millions of miles.
Hi!
In the extras for one of The Lord of the rings films, there is a fantastic featurette (is that with two ts?) about how they filmed hobbits and normal people with simple “age old” perspective tricks
Enjoyed your Blog very much indeed!
Best regards and hugs from Lisbon Portugal!
Maria
I’d pick number 2, but then this one is a bit of a favourite:
http://www.ritsumei.ac.jp/%7Eakitaoka/index-e.html
you’ve probably seen the page, but if not, it’s well worth a look.
second one
3rd one
the black and white one i dont get and the movement one is kinda boring – seen to many similar ones
how on earth was that taken??
The minumum separation between AC on parallell approaches is 610m
1 is a lie. The color picker says the left bodies color is around #f0f0f0, the right bodies are around #666666