Talk:Lilac chaser

message: Why is it called the Pacman illusion? The article doesn't mention it.
:Because pacman eats those little dot-things. Maddie was here 04:29, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  History 

message: But one real point is whether the content of WP should include a moving image--are there any others?--or do i misunderstand and the effect is produced from a static gif--in which case it should be pointed out in the article. DGG 09:02, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes there are other moving images on Wikipidia.  Particularly in the physics and astronomy sections.  The article does specify the affect is from the movement of the image.David Eagan 17:27, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Moving Image

message: Is the movement really beta and not phi?? --RawEgg 00:05, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have some trouble differentiating Beta movement from the Phi phenomenon after skimming their respective articles (at 3am local time). I notice however that the external link on both pages titled "Phi is not Beta" appears to be dead. The "classic" (i.e. only) example described in the Phi article is referring to two lines or images although on reflection I think this illusion can satisfy both criteria on one level or another.--Chris (talk) 01:59, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The link works for me. The speed of this effect is somewhere between Phi and Beta examples in that presentation, so i cannot tell what it is (and I also did not get what is color of Phi phenomenon). (90.183.57.98 (talk) 21:00, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Beta or Phi? 

message: Has someone vandalised the lilac chaser? It does not appear to be working properly on my computer whereas previously it has worked fine. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.44.4.243 (talk) 18:13, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: They don't all disappear at once; it's only two or three at a time that do. Lycanthrope777 04:33, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I can make them disappear all at once.   Stare very fixedly at the center. Redquark 00:58, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Like many such visual effects, different people will see them differently. Some traditional demonstrations of optical illusions do work for me, some don't. (This doesnt).—Preceding unsigned comment added by David Eagan (talk) 17:27, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Illusion works as described for me. Try playing with settings on the interactive version at Michael Bach's web page of illusion --Chris (talk) 01:59, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  It's easy to get distracted by the apparent movement in the image and have your eye try to "track" the "green dot" (once it appears). Also, when intently fixating on a single point, your eye naturally makes small, quick movements called microsaccades which tend to ruin the illusion. I suspect one or a combination of both of these phenomena caused the effect described by the original IP commenter. I find if I "relax" and "zone out" a bit, the involuntary eye movements are lessened and the iilusion starts to work as advertised. - dcljr (talk) 22:16, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not working properly? 

message: In the image, the purple dots do not disappear: they are replaced by a larger dot of a colour similar to, but not with the exact same texture, as the background.
Does the illusion only work if this is the case?? If so, this needs to be mentionned in the text.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.157.192.76 (talk) 20:50, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Illusion works as described for me. Try playing with settings on the interactive version at Michael Bach's web page of illusion --Chris (talk) 01:59, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  It's easy to get distracted by the apparent movement in the image and have your eye try to "track" the "green dot" (once it appears). Also, when intently fixating on a single point, your eye naturally makes small, quick movements called microsaccades which tend to ruin the illusion. I suspect one or a combination of both of these phenomena caused the effect described by the original IP commenter. I find if I "relax" and "zone out" a bit, the involuntary eye movements are lessened and the iilusion starts to work as advertised. - dcljr (talk) 22:16, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not disappearing! 

message: As described in the text, the gap in the GIF on the page is definitely a lighter bluish-gray, which is quite noticeable. It's not an illusion. You can open the GIF in an image viewer or editor and look at the single frames. Why is that so? I find it distracting and unnecessary. -- megA (talk) 18:44, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why is the gap a lighter grey? 

message: if you move slightly away from your screen while still focusing on the center, you will see green dots all around the purple ones for a very short time.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.93.97.69 (talk) 04:47, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  a 4th illusion 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Lilac chaser. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.123opticalillusions.com/pages/lilac_chaser.php
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 03:02, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified