You have done a great service just now, @andy_hilmer: you have both demonstrated and coined an awesome neologism!!!
Ladies and gentlemen, I give you:
Troellitism
or if you prefer a Danish flavor:
Trøellitism
Or if you are Danish and Fransh:
Trøéllîtîsm
Coming to you from Greece:
Trøéllîtî∑m
This optical illusion demonstrates why the eye cannot be trusted to choose the proper colors. If you study Vermeer’s pictures, the premise is that he had an extraordinary ability to match the tones precisely, to the point of it being too precise and not possible without some mechanical means.
Talk about Yak Shaving.
Hi dfaris 
That illusion works because of the extreme high contrast between the shades in the checkerboard. It doesn’t really replicate the situation described above - subtle shading differences that we’re told the human eye supposedly wouldn’t see.
That all depends on whose eye your talking about. Not everyone sees color to the same intensity or with the same ability to separate between the wavelengths. Some people do see the color shading in whites. I’m one of them. I paint, draw, and do design. (We also hate walking around in bright sunlight.)
I just tried this test again, and scored a 4 (0 is perfect). If you want to really test your color vision, this is a better place to start.
Also, here’s a trompe l’loeil I did on a tide pool from a photo I shot. I used no mirrors, and no tracing. The original photo was not digital, and was a 4"x6", the final piece is 1’x3’. (It was a table top covered in glass.)
I thought the conclusion was that is was entirely possible to do at that time period with available technology. The paints and optics were all done with methods available at the time. The final device was even less complicated then the original proposed.
Yeah, I’ve been following these for years:-
http://www.ritsumei.ac.jp/~akitaoka/index-e.html
The ‘snakes’ are most people’s favourite. And even cats can see it move, astonishingly.
Unfortunately we don’t know what the original colours were actually meant to be, but the above illusion CAN be painted through an iterative process, and a good artist can isolate the individual areas and arrive at an approximation. The iteration process hones in on the overall image, so the artist takes in the whole as well as the isolated image and nearby associated colours that compliment or clash with it.
As to this being a proof of copying lens aberrations, I just don’t care anymore! 
Cool Video - and narrated by Ken Nordine!!!
…You must first invent the universe.
I also scored four, the last line was tough.
Yep, the last line is the hard one for me as well.
I’m an 11. That’s friggin HARD. Especially that third line.
Oh noes, not INTELLECTUALIZING! Whatever would we do if people started thinking about things? Jesus.
Well if there’s Troellitism, it’s not a far stretch to imagine Trollectualism and Trollopsism.
I’m pretty sure he’s talking about the effect illustrated by the following optical illusion:
The mind uses contextual clues to decide whether a shade of gray appears white or black. As a result, two distinct shades of gray can be interpreted as both being white. As explained in the OP, a human being looking at the wall would see the whole thing as a particular shade of off-white instead of the gradient effect you get in a photograph (or Vermeer painting) of it.
Edit: Whoops, I got scooped!
Pretty sure that it’s a viola da gamba, or a “gamba”
Technique ≠ art.
The human eye automatically compensates for changes in brightness - when you are exposing for a photograph, the changes in brightness and in color tone over the course of a day are very substantial.
Wow, THAT is a snotty article… I’m both an artist and a “technician” and the line is much more blurry than some purists want to admit. Besides, the point here isn’t that Vermeer was a “hack” - he was a great artist using great tools. It seems like some people get offended on behalf of a dead artist - if Tim didn’t deeply respect Vermeer he wouldn’t have spent thousands of hours trying to better understand the process. The act of replicating the Vermeer wasn’t to diminish his work, it was to increase the appreciation of his ingenuity.
Okay, disclaimer first: I’ve only read the article, not seen the film, so I may be missing some important claims from Tim and Penn.
That said, I think Jonathan Jones has completely missed the point. It’s not that Vermeer is a mere tracer, or that Tim’s device makes him Vermeer’s equal. They’re investigating what sort of techniques a master painter might have used. That doesn’t diminish his mastery: Tim’s technician’s copy might resemble a Vermeer from a distance, but the devil is in the details, and Vermeer is a master of those details. Besides which, if he did use this technique, then coming up with it in the first place and making it work is no less brilliant than his skill with a brush. I don’t think it would diminish a great artist if, say, he was found to have used a straightedge and drafting template to rough in his lines before overpainting. That’s just technique. It’s the end result that matters.
Penn Gillette can certainly be an arrogant asshole, so maybe I’m wrong about his intention. Whatever he thinks, though, I think this discovery (if true) only does add to Vermeer’s glory, not tarnish it.
It seems most people in this thread haven’t seen the movie. A couple of things to note:
