Useful discussion regarding the F(x) Phone project – just like the title says. To ensure everyone gets the latest info and updates when the topic shows up in the forum sidebar.
(No, it's just the usual TMO-OT-ADD: Oh, a topic. Oh, those words remind me of this other thing, let's post that! Oh, a tree! Interes… Look! Cameras!)
As long as it's as good as N900 - I don't care `cause I don't need better. for better quality I have a dedicated cam. as a pocket camera on-the-go, the N900 level quality is enough. even if it's possible to do better in terms of hardware, not software postprocessing.
I totally understand that view point. However, saying you are fine with the camera on the N900 is very different than saying that there have not been any advancements in camera hardware except ability to capture low light and having better flashes.
Useful discussion regarding the F(x) Phone project – just like the title says. To ensure everyone gets the latest info and updates when the topic shows up in the forum sidebar.
(No, it's just the usual TMO-OT-ADD: Oh, a topic. Oh, those words remind me of this other thing, let's post that! Oh, a tree! Interes… Look! Cameras!)
For example the data that the brain receives from viewing colour alone ...is staggering.
And the incredible function of what the eye manages in collecting that data ...even more staggering.
Just for one example.
(and I know myself I still decades later cannot help but look in absolute wonder and awe ...every now and then ...when I see the colour in question...even still..and I know many will be equally haunted by this once they read it.)
Now that I have exposed you to this colour.
This is what happens to your eyes.
The moment you looked at it.
The physical characteristics of it are that the nature of the colour yellow vibrates at a molecular level to be able to be visible for us.
For the human eye to discern the colour you just saw,
the molecules in the human eye must set up a corresponding speed to the same rhythm of the colour yellow.
That speed of the molecules in the human eye recognizing that colour yellow are vibrating so many times a second.
A glance at the colour yellow ...
for the eye ..
the number of vibrations the molecules do and the data transmit thereby are the equivalent to the number of all the waves that have washed up on every shore of Earth since the dawn of our planet.
In that one moment.
Sounds like pseudo-science. At least, the part about shore of Earth.
pseudo science eh?
Casual dismissal without inquiry?
the laws of physics and the laws of visible light haven't altered any since socrates or before ...if memory serves...
the only thing that has altered is our refinement in understanding (except in some it appears who casually dismiss) of exact numbers.
All visible colour is calculated thus .
the order is in the 10 to the 14th power Hz oscillations per second for "seen" colour.
That means...
Ergo ..
the electrons in the human eye must resonate at a harmonic frequency with which to perceive the colour ....that the colour vibrates at.
Ergo ...
Your eye cannot perceive what it cannot "allow" for.
Ergo psuedo science my *****.
And how do these exact number connect "the number of all the waves that have washed up on every shore of Earth since the dawn of our planet." to "the number of vibrations the molecules do and the data transmit in that one moment."? Neither of them can be calculated exactly. While our understanding and quantification of molecules' vibrations can be improved with time, I do not expect anybody to be able to calculate the number of all historical and pre-historical waves that have washed up on every shore of Earth since the dawn of our planet.
But it can be said that I was merely nitpicking your poetic comparison of two numbers which may {or may not?} be of the same order of magnitude.
Now, let's go into what happens when light hits retina of the eye. Photopsins (in cone cells responsible for colour vision) or rhodopsin (in rod cells responsible for night vision) are the photoreceptor proteins which, when exposed to light, undergo isomerization of part of molecule (called retinal cofactor) from 11-cis-retinal into all-trans-retinal configuration. Further details are shown in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Visual_phototransduction , where I can find no mention of any molecule, atom or electron vibrating at a frequency determined by light frequency of photon hitting it?
Let's go from biochemistry to physics... Photons can be absorbed by nuclei, atoms or molecules, provoking transitions between their energy levels. A classic example is the molecular transition of retinal (C20H28O), which is responsible for vision.
In physics, absorption of electromagnetic radiation is the way in which the energy of a photon is taken up by matter, typically the electrons of an atom. Thus, the electromagnetic energy is transformed into internal energy of the absorber, for example thermal energy. See also https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photoisomerization
Absorption of a photon by an electron, if it does happen during photoisomerization, may be related to excitation of electron? Even in this case I do not see how any electron, atom or molecule would start vibrating at frequency of light wave absorbed.
I am rusty, sure... Haven't studied such abstract subjects in a long time... But you cannot argue that implied link - between number of waves washing up on shore of Earth, and number of vibrations of molecule in one moment - makes any sense. Coincidence, at most, and unproven one, at that?
Sorry for going on off-topic rant like that. I get distracted very easily.
Thank you. Best wishes.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Per aspera ad astra...
In my understanding the people partaking in this debate are talking a bit past each other
@endsormeans was absolutely correct in the part where he talked about artists perception of an object.
"Vision" has nothing to do with eyes and is fully a creative process that happens in the consciousness of the artist, it is a mental process and not optical. It is only coincidental that visual arts have anything to do with light except as a carrier of sensation; eyes are just the widest sensory bandwidth we have so often useful.
On the other hand I agree with @pichlo and @wikiwide that the bit about vibrations was not very accurate, but that was not the point of the posting, was it?
@endsormeans was absolutely correct in the part where he talked about artists perception of an object.
No one was arguing that. Shame he went on a tangent and started trying to explain the physical perception. It sounded like using chakras to explain metabolism.
