45, just a little better than average based on the scale at the bottom of the page.
Eek, I did this some time ago and got a 0, and just now I got a 22.
Of course, my monitor is much older now.
But so are my eyes.
0 for me. My better half is one of those rarer color-blind women-folk, though. And she’s left-handed. And a lesbian. Sadly, she has crappy luck gambling.
2009 MacBook Pro? Do you use it in your work? The screen’s colour reproduction doesn’t seem that good to me.
Your score: 8
Gender: Female
Age range: 50-59
I just got a 0 on the cheapest LCD screen you could buy six years ago. 
But I’m a painter, I should be good at this stuff.
Same as above, using an Apple IPS monitor. Because I deal with color in my job I viewed it as a challenge to do well, and probably spent 12 minutes moving many of the chips back and forth with their neighbors… but eventually got bored and said enough.
Huh–that I did not know. I knew that dark-adapted rods could saturate easily (which is why dark adaptation is so easily lost), but didn’t know that there was another saturation point well before normal bright conditions.
In principle, yes–but that’s the kind of thing that an uncalibrated monitor could easily throw off. Somewhat ironically, calibration could make this test more difficult.
Not too surprising to me but interesting nevertheless. The random distribution of receptors helps with detail as well–intuitively, you would expect the detail limit of the eye to be on the order of the receptor spacing, but in fact it’s much higher than that for certain cases (vernier acuity is the quintessential example–the ability to line up two offset lines). I’m not sure that the reason is known for certain, but it’s a pretty good guess that the eye uses the stochastic distribution to make extra inferences about the position of the lines. You couldn’t really do this if the receptors were in a perfect grid.
Female. 131
i know I have issues with color, and I guess this proves it.
Actually, older. Think I got it in '08
Model Identifier: MacBookPro3,1
Yes, Landscape Design. Color is not critical like in high end magazine advertising or similar, but I do fine with approximating colors of actual flowers, and other elements. The Epson printer I use is pretty good too, so overall the print I present to the client looks very good.
Mine seems fine for my purposes, but precise color is not critical for my work.
Am I doing it right? What’s with the extra chip below each of the rows?
I tried it without moving any and got a score of 936! now everone can feel a little better about thier score. 
I got a 7, which I thought was good until I saw most people here got like a 4 or a 0.
So I’m just gonna say I didn’t try very hard, I’m tired from working in the office all day, the computer monitor is cheap, and you guys are probably pulling our legs anyway.
I had troubles with the turqouis here too, and knew I was having trouble with it during the test. It didn’t surprise me that the results showed that was my weak area.
ETA: Highest score for my gender and age range is 109748. Wow…
Here’s the screenshot I got last time I took the test.
Got a 4, but my eyes were starting to freak out on me after a couple of minutes, so I didn’t spend much time checking my work.
Precisely the problem. I know the way my monitor is set up that certain hues are mixed up–I can go compare it on another monitor.
Though LCDs are much more accurate that CRTs were. It’s probably not going to be off by more than 100 or so.
That’s full out wrong. I know for certain there are times where a bright yellow will, when, made brighter, take on a green tint, and then, a bit brighter still, will lose it. I also know it looks perfectly fine on the LCD monitor that is more correctly calibrated.
Furthermore, if one color is brighter than another, then rather than seeming like continuous color, it will seem like it gets brighter all the sudden, and thus look wrong. You can only do this measurement if the brightness is either the same or contiguous, otherwise the color differences are too small.
From what I can tell, this thing only works properly if the full screen and text magnification is at 100%. Seeing as that won’t fit on my monitor, I can’t do this test.
Well I know this is bragging a bit, but I took 2 different versions of this test on 3 different monitors and scored a 0 each time. Now if only I could figure out a way to capitalize on my newly discovered talent for having perfect color acuity! 
I took the test for real this time and got a 4.
Thanks for bumping this VenusGx so I could prove my awesomeness.