This is a 100% gorilla-free post.
This is a 100% gorilla-free post.
Are you sure? Watch the video again!
Hey, the site layout actually crops it somewhat.
Complete failure here. I didn't notice a thing.
And I was expressly thinking along exactly the right lines (although I don't think I started quite early enough in the video).
Complete failure here. I didn't notice a thing.
I didn't either, but I felt like the deliberately stilted acting made me less inclined to spot that sort of thing -- it put me into a non-naturalistic state of mind.
On the other hand, I still probably wouldn't have noticed.
7,8: it really isn't possible. Check this one out.
Something seemed off about the knight in armour, but that was it. I think maybe he moved a bit, and I was like, "why is there a dude in armour? That seems suspicious!"
Likewise a complete failure. 0%
"why is there a dude in armour? That seems suspicious!"
Quick, hit him with a mace!
I noticed the exact thing I was likely to notice: the flowers. Are those fake, maybe fake roses, but given the color god, could they be some double azalea creation that non-flower people would thin--HEY! Those are some very prominent lilies.
I was so focused on looking for changes in the video I nearly hit a cyclist.
I did spot the switched maid, and a couple other things caught my eye without registering. If I'd had any idea that it was over 20 changes, I'd probably have caught more.
That said, if I didn't know it was a gorilla thing, I don't know that I would have caught a single thing.
I noticed the one thing that is most like a gorilla.
I noticed the thing by the head. Also, the legs.
What the hell is 10 supposed to be? I see a photo blinking with a blank gray screen. Seems to be the same photo every time, although the res is so low it's hard to say.
I did not notice the legs were off a different woman. Just noticed them.
I noticed the bear/knight switch but nothing else. It would have been interesting to watch it again knowing there were 21 changes, without knowing what they were.
And I thought, "there's gorilla-type thing I'm not supposed to be noticing" before I realized it's supposed to be a plausible bit of miss en scene.
Is this about Woody Allen sort of? Indirectly?
In the image linked in ten, all I can tell is...
SPOILER...
...the insignia on the tail changes a bit, and of course the engine goes missing.
Don't do faux French on a touchscreen, self.
That equality kills sex article someone linked to really is some quality trolling.
25: yeah, those are it. The first one is I think just an artifact of image compression.
The one in 28, I spotted a ton of changes more or less immediately. But the one in 29, not at all.
I really tried on 29 -- stared at it for a minute or so, moving my eyes over it in a grid pattern. Nothing.
The bunny's vagina is completely shaved in the changed photo.
No, I got nuthin'.
I did -- looking particularly at the spatial relationships between parts of the bunny and the leaves around it. Nothing.
watch the rabbit
This occurred to me! Also, there are two rabbits.
I noticed the knight and the changes in what they were holding, different flower pot, rolling pin vs candlestick, etc. Years on on job have made that reflexive I suppose.
Most of the time, the rabbit is thinking about a pink elephant, but in every 15th frame it's thinking about the invisible hand of the marketplace.
25: It's funny, I stared at the tail insignia, yet somehow didn't see the color change. Again, I blame the low resolution.
Missed the engine like a moron.
The technique in 32 worked for me on 29, aided by the assumption that the bunny was there to draw your attention away from the change. SPOILER: Lower right, foliage. It's amazing how hard it is to spot the first time, but how impossible it is to miss once you have.
It's not the rabbit.
Missed the engine like a moron.
Not like a moron! Like a person with a normal, correctly functioning visual system.
Not really worth a post of its own, but:
New York Times headline: "Hijacking of Turkish Aircraft to Sochi Foiled"
Voice of Russia: "Drunk Ukrainian fails to hijack airliner on Kharkov-Istanbul flight"
Ezra should hire the Voice of Russia's headline writer.
I love 38.
Like an architect, I found 28 effortless.
29, I'm with LB.
It's amazing how hard it is to spot the first time, but how impossible it is to miss once you have.
Aha! Yes, I see it now. And yes, now it's impossible to miss.
Wait, there's a bear? And the maid changes? I'll watch it for a 5th time then...
OK, so after seeing the explanation I went a re-watched the first part several times and I still only caught the hat, the picture and the clock. (And does the flowerpot change size or not? Can't tell.) I genuinely still can't see the difference in the maid now I'm looking for it. Is there something wrong with me??
Also, I remember explicitly keeping track of the different blunt objects on my first viewing - my list included rolling pin, bedpan, candlestick and flowerpot, and I somehow failed to notice that this came to four items between only three suspects.
Argh! Just spoil it, somebody! I can't find it, and I'll never get any work done until I do.
45: Yes! But it's not a big difference. I had to take screenshots and compare slices of them until it became obvious.
Me neither, and that's even with the lower-right spoiler.
Now I got it. One bright green small leafy thing appears and disappears.
29 is actually a particularly good demo of the effect because it's so obviously a change that, in the real world, you wouldn't want to pay attention to. If you were noticing that kind of thing all the time you'd drive yourself crazy.
47: Tough to describe, but: there's a fairly thick, blurry plant emerging from just to the left of the bottom right corner, with a branch shooting up a little left of vertical. Follow that vertical up a very little bit, and there's a bud from another plant that appears/disappears.
This one, from the same site as the bunny, drove me nuts. I couldn't help seeing all kinds of tiny differences that were clearly just compression artifacts (like the tail insignia in 10), but it wasn't until I was just about ready to give up that I finally saw the comparatively huge real difference.
Funny, I got 52.2 essentially instantly.
I, particularly, am terrible at this sort of thing in real life. I vividly recall (ironic, saying that) a sort of theater exercise we had to do in eighth grade, describing a familiar object in great detail while miming holding and displaying it. I described a little bell that for some reason was standing on a shelf in our kitchen. When I got home, I looked at it, and all the details I'd described were wrong. And this was something I'd seen daily for years.
One other really interesting (and important) aspect of all of these is the flash between frames; if that wasn't there they would be trivially easy.
53: I think that the bunny one primed me to be carefully searching for exactly the wrong thing/in exactly the wrong place in 52.2.
55: Without that, you'd just be reacting to visible movement, no?
53: Me too. That's a change in the real world that might actually concern you, and it's a fairly unique object relative to the scene. Not so much with the bunny one.
56: I mean, it also is fundamentally sort of random. Unless it's incredibly hard like 29 you're going to see it by accident sooner or later.
57: well, but why does the flash make it not register as visible movement?
60: Because every pixel on the screen changes for the flash, and then again when the flash ends. If it went straight from one to the other, you could easily see the single spot where something changed.
(The likely answer, not to be coy, is that your visual system is designed to expect continuity across brief drop-outs in visual information, such as you experience during saccadic eye movements. If there are no drop-outs, you can process changes better. It's related to the phenomenon where the second hand of a clock seems to stay still momentarily -- or a second displayed on a digital clock seems to last slightly longer than usual -- immediately after you look towards it.)
I mean, you probably know the answer to that better than I do, but that's what it seems like.
It's not the rabbit.
No, it's what the rabbit is looking at.
It doesn't have to be a full screen flash, although the full screen flash works better. And of course something slightly different has to be going on in the video in the OP.
66: Now that one surprised me that it worked at all, but it was much easier to see -- I was a little slower because I started looking specifically at the hidden spots. Once I looked at the picture generally, it was obvious.
I spent the whole time looking for a gorilla, and was disappointed. I assume it went downstairs while the threesome continued.
Thanks for posting my link!
As before I'll send a copy to anyone who wants to write a review.
My take-away lesson from this thread: Next time you rob a bank, instead of a gun, bring a strobe light.
Hey! I noticed changes! That almost never happens. Most clear was the rolling pin exchanged for the candlestick; my job must have trained me to look for cooking implements. (Seriously, I'm scarily good at picking out brands in kitchen sets on tv from a brief pan around.)
Okay, so about fifty seconds into the video, I'm thinking: there was a bear in the background that turned into a suit of armor when they zoomed in on the maid, I think the wall decorations changed, and that doesn't look like the same dead body that was there at the beginning. I guess I'll proceed with the video to find out if those are the gorillas or if I missed something much more obvious.
Hmm. I think that wasn't bad. Of course, if I hadn't been warned about the gorilla, I'm sure I wouldn't have caught a single thing.
||
Fucking iTunes fucking sucks. Fuck iTunes. Why does it get worse with every update? Why can't I keep my wife's godawful TV soundtrack stuff out of my ipod? Why do the things I buy from the fucking iTunes store keep fucking disappearing?
|>
I only definitely noticed the change in what was lying on the floor by the victim, although a couple of other things stood out to my eye without my being able to say they were different.
I feel like the 21-changes thing is a bit overwrought, since we can't optically or mentally keep track of so many details, even looking for them, what with our puny human maculae.
Why does it get worse with every update?
Because Apple cares more about user experience than any other company ever. </gruber>
I still like iTunes. Maybe I'm using it wrong?
80: Or you have Stockholm Syndrome. (I don't hate iTunes as much as, say, jwz. I will say that the stock music app on the iPhone is an absolute clusterfuck, and has made listening to all of the mixes people here have made virtually impossible.)
Hmm, I noticed the rolling pin swap out early on and went into self-congratulatory "I got it!" mode and didn't consciously register anything else. On rewatch I realized I had "seen" a couple of others like the woman's hat, but nothing else.
82: That was exactly my experience.
Rolling pin and coat change noticed here, nothing else.
I think the main reason I use Spotify so much is that I find iTunes so terrible, and so much worse with each update that they want me to download every three days. I didn't open iTunes for a while and probably missed two updates and when I got the new one I didn't know basic things because it looks completely different and is not at all intuitive. In short, I am with TJ and HATE ItUNES. (It also has big problems with how classical music tracks are listed but it always has and Spotify has them, too.)
I didn't open iTunes for a while and probably missed two updates and when I got the new one I didn't know basic things because it looks completely different and is not at all intuitive.
You can, and should, revert to more or less the old style. The key setting to enable is Show Sidebar from the View menu. Without it, the new UI is next to useless. With it, you're still stuck with iTunes' usual shittiness, but at least it's somewhat functional. Having switched to Pocket Casts for podcasts, though, I've cut down my iTunes use to the bare minimum.
Also, it's not as if Spotify is a UI miracle. They've decided to make it really hard and obscure to find people to follow who aren't your Facebook friends, even though it's core functionality and they're not doing it for privacy reasons or anything like that. It's perfectly happy to let you follow them if you stumble upon them while searching for something else.
the worst thing is that original itunes used to have this thing where you could set a different volume level for different tracks--things you've ripped from old CDs are often quiet compared to like...the thrills which for whatever reason (2008?) was the loudest anyone decided to mix music ever. So it used to be you could just jack up all your warren zevon to 11, and it was easy to add as a column to the right of track time/genre, but nooooo, now I can't even find it in any sub-sub menu.
The key setting to enable is Show Sidebar from the View menu
This, absolutely. Why they turn it off by default is a mystery.
87: If you select a track and hit Command+I to bring up the track's info, there's still a Volume Adjustment option under the "Options" tab.
