On Feb 5, 2:33=A0pm, Logan Kearsley <chronosur...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> On Feb 5, 1:06 pm, IsaacKuo <mech...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> > On Feb 5, 12:04 am, Logan Kearsley <chronosur...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> > > Thinking on it some more, though, I'm not entirely sure how one
would
> > > deal with the superposition of multiple light sources muddying the
> > > pattern.
> > I don't think it's possble. =A0It's similar to the problem of
de-blurrin=
g a
> > photo which has suffered a blur operation. =A0In the case of gaussian
> > blurring, the information is provably lost forever. =A0With this more
> > complex "rainbow" blurring, more information might be retained,
> > but I'm skeptical about recovering it.
> I'm pretty sure I've got it figured out. Each light source or shadow
> source will produce a set of arcs of pure colors (or lack of colors
> for shadow sources). When you superimpose multiple light sources and
> look at it with a human eye, we perceive composite colors that jumble
> up the information- but the iridescence eye doesn't have to do that.
> It can have, say, a red arc intersecting a blue arc and process those
> separately rather than looking at it as a purple blob.
You simply won't get distinct arc shapes unless there's just
one or a small number of point light sources. That is not what
real world imagery looks like. In the real world, you don't have
point light sources, you have a continuous image.
Instead of distinct arc shapes, you just get a blurring effect.
> Our retina's have built-in neural circuitry for picking up straight
> lines at various angles- the iridescence eye retina just needs
> circuitry for recognizing radius and direction of curvature of
> monochromatic arcs.
Nope, not good enough. You won't get monochromatic
arcs. Instead, you'll get blurs. For example, consider
what a solid disc (like the Sun) will look like, compared
to what a hollow circle will look like. Both will look like
a blurred dot, with some tinting due to the rainbow effect.
If the diameter is very small, then you'll get arcs like you
expect. If the diameter is large, then you'll just get a
blurred dot with a slightly tinted fringe. Either way,
you can't tell the difference between the two images.
Now, that's what happens when you have a reasonable
approximation of a single light source. But in the real
world, you have a continuous image of objects all around.
Everything will just be a blur. You might be able to tell
the vaguely greener ground from the vaguely bluer sky,
and maybe tell vaguely where the Sun is. But you could
have done that without any iridescent stuff just as well.
Isaac Kuo
|
