I got 100% on this test, which is curious since I fail the standard UK CAA colour vision test (Isihara plates) totally, and finally passed it only via the Wright-Holmes Lantern Test!
Eye of an eagle 
100%
100% too. Not sure wether this test be totally genuine, might well be some scheme to get more ahem “signs of appreciation” on ahem “ahem”.
I wondered if results wouldn’t be affected by the quality of one’s display screen, too – mine are low cost, just like my aircraft ;)
100% too.
Here is a more normal test which I found quite interesting.
I found this one interesting to do with someone else. There were entries that one of us couldn’t see but the other could easily see. Yet we both were given normal colour vision scores. Apparently cv is a scale rather than an on / off thing.
I too have the “eye of an eagle”. However it is not a test for colour blindness, as it is just looking for a different intensity of a single colour, rather than the difference between colours. It would probably be possible to get 100% with monochrome vision
100% I score 100% on normal color vision tests also, which is rather peculiar. When I see dark green and dark blue separately, I have no clue if it is blue or green like “normal” people. I have to see them together to see the difference. My wife always makes fun of this at every opportunity.
100%
I got 100% as well, which is not surprising as I only dropped a point on the Farnsworth-Munsell 100 hue test, and Nagel’s Anomaloscope says that all my cones are working as they’re supposed to.
I did a PhD in colour perception and spent several years of my life in black-painted rooms, playing with spectrophotometers and writing calibration routines. My only real interest in colour vision tests was to make sure all my subjects had normal colour vision, but suffice to say that it’s not an easy thing to test accurately.
I think the major issue with this test is that it fails to isolate dark/light perception from colour perception. For example, a protanope will not be able to see the red-green difference between two patches of colour that appear equally bright to someone with normal colour vision. However, the red patch will appear darker to the protanope, and so he will still be able to pick it out from a sea of green patches.
The usual way round this when designing a colour vision test is to add light/dark noise to the remaining patches – so that the task becomes one of discriminating a red patch from lots of light and dark green patches rather than from 5 green patches that are identical in colour and lightness. This is effectively how Ishihara plates work – though with the odd-one-out task replaced with pattern recognition.
Dublinpilot’s test is effectively an online Ishihara test. I don’t know enough about the computer side of things to know whether it’s valid. Ideally you need to know the spectral emmissivity of the screen phosphors/LEDs/LCD screens etc (and LCD screens used to be considered uncalibratable for scientific purposes). Commercial versions always supply monitors in my experience.
I got tested initially with Ishihara and several other system. I failed all and ended taking the lantern test. At the end of that the doctor said it was the worse he had seen for along time. My medical says CVD.
Did this test several times and scored 100%. That made me a bit suspicious. I then tried to do a few errors on purpose. With them I still got 100%.
