91–100 of 111 posts
>> A fun (but impractical and frustrating) variant of this feature is to have the image change as soon as the viewer looks away. So you’re looking at a painting, glance away to another room, and look back to find a new painting hanging on the wall. Re this comment. There is this thing called "saccadic masking", the gist of which is that we are effectively blind while our eyes move from focusing on one position to the…
>> A fun (but impractical and frustrating) variant of this feature is to have the image change as soon as the viewer looks away. So you’re looking at a painting, glance away to another room, and look back to find a new painting hanging on the wall. Re this comment. There is this thing called "saccadic masking", the gist of which is that we are effectively blind while our eyes move from focusing on one position to the…
I apologize for the stupid response to your intelligent and well-written comment, but this reminded me of the classic "Creepy Watson" video, playing around with a poorly implemented follower AI in a budget video game. Audio not required, but recommended. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=13YlEPwOfmk
Thisi s cool, but to really reproduce art, you have to avoid RGB-based displays. I've always assumed the reason wide-gamut/CIE L a b*-influenced displays are uncommon is that RGB is "good enough" for most purposes outside of image-editing/printing. But they can only show a fraction of the colors humans can see. IIRC, the standard sRGB space used in most monitors can only show a third of the human-visible spectrum.
Yes, that seems like a huge limitation. Though the 5k iMac is wide gamut, so quite a bit better than sRGB. Are there even (consumer?) displays that have a significantly wider gamut? http://blog.conradchavez.com/2015/10/26/a-look-at-the-p3-col...
I suspect that when monitor manufacturers tire of competing on pixel density, brightness, 3D, and size, they'll eventually get around to competing on gamut. Maybe Apple will lead the way. A lot of photo/video cameras already capture a larger gamut, so monitors are the last piece of the puzzle.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's really cool! I'm not 100% sure, but what I remember from reading a few psych papers about this is that as long as the "mask" is similar to the original in a few easy to calculate sampling statistics (colour distribution, overall hue), it doesn't actually need to look anything like the original image, even calculating low-res imagery shouldn't be necessary. Our peripheral vision is just that bad (at least for s…
Hey, something I know about! I actually worked on one of those research projects in college, programming the experiments. The idea is that there is a certain radius around the focal point where you stop being able to detect changes. I'm not sure what the final results were, but the theory was that you can calculate how blurry an image can be and still be discernable based on how far it is from the focal point of your…
I remember reading about right eye and left eye dominance. Where they'd keep an image on the screen saccade invariant (ie, compensate for any saccades that were made). Slowing moving a letter/character/word/whatever to the edges of the participant's field of view and asking when the character was no longer legible. This happened surprisingly quickly, but at different positions for the left eye and right eye for pretty much all participants..
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Interesting! Thanks for sharing! There are algorithms that mimic fixation paths the eyes follow when presented with a novel image, very much related to modeling dopaminergic systems. It seemed to find task-relevant information dense areas first, and then slowly spread out to less information dense areas. I wonder if there'd be any benefit to running these algorithms on images, basically turning them into a video, and…
Do you have any more information about these algorithms? Or perhaps links to a paper or two? It gives me a couple ideas and sounds very interesting! I do wonder as you do as well. Feeding an image to a neural network instead of as a single input, but as a series of inputs separated over time, 'reusing' the same neurons for different portions of the image might allow for interesting feedback to develop.
I remember seeing a video of a robot that would attend to different parts of a scene based on the "saliency", in the sense of novelty, of its features. I can't find the specific video, but I think the model running the robot is related to: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3930917/ The paper is quite dense, as it describes biologically plausible models of dopaminergic systems, which makes the model quite complex as well, but it's interesting because this system is considered quite 'low-level', no cortex involved. I'll add more if I can find any..
>> A fun (but impractical and frustrating) variant of this feature is to have the image change as soon as the viewer looks away. So you’re looking at a painting, glance away to another room, and look back to find a new painting hanging on the wall. Re this comment. There is this thing called "saccadic masking", the gist of which is that we are effectively blind while our eyes move from focusing on one position to the…
This is also the principle behind foveated rendering ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foveated_imaging ) where you only render the graphics in high detail where the viewer is looking, and use a low-res image for the rest with the goal of saving computing power. Big area of development right now for VR!
The sim cockpit had a pair of Silicon Graphic Reality Engine^2s - one driving a projector that lit up a 5 or 6 meter diameter 1/4 spherical screen at low-ish resolution, and another driving a projector that was aimable and slaved to the pilot's helmet (and maybe even eye tracking, I can't remember) that projected a small patch of high resolution imagery exactly where the pilot was looking. If you knew what it was doing, it was easy enough to "catch out" that system and see the edges where the two images joined, but once immersed in flying it disappeared completely. It was spectacularly obvious what was going on if you were watching the screen while someone else had the helmet on.
I _so_ wanted one of those Reality Engines back then, I suspect my phone now has more graphics processing power though (I'm pretty sure my Galaxy S6 in a Gear VR does a significantly better job than that multi million dollar military project ~20 years ago...)
>> A fun (but impractical and frustrating) variant of this feature is to have the image change as soon as the viewer looks away. So you’re looking at a painting, glance away to another room, and look back to find a new painting hanging on the wall. Re this comment. There is this thing called "saccadic masking", the gist of which is that we are effectively blind while our eyes move from focusing on one position to the…
This is also the principle behind foveated rendering ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foveated_imaging ) where you only render the graphics in high detail where the viewer is looking, and use a low-res image for the rest with the goal of saving computing power. Big area of development right now for VR!
Of course, the big obvious problem with such a display is that the eye moves, and moves faster than you could possibly move around the display. The real key, I would think, would be something equivalent to a metamaterial convex lens, that could be "tilted" and "flexed" in the same way the lenses in our own eyes can, to redirect and "refocus" the centre of the image to the new eye position without actually moving it per se.
We already have a technology to achieve this sort of "tilting" and "flexing", it turns out: magnetic deflection, as seen in CRTs. No reason you couldn't use it to deflect a continuous parallel matrix of rays by a constant amount, rather than one continuously-shifting beam. Heck, you could use an array of coherent emitters (laser diodes) rather than point-source diodes, and use phosphorous on the intermediary panel like the good old days.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is also the principle behind foveated rendering ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foveated_imaging ) where you only render the graphics in high detail where the viewer is looking, and use a low-res image for the rest with the goal of saving computing power. Big area of development right now for VR!
Heh - I remember back in the very late '80s or early '90s, my dad was working on the flight simulator for the "swing wing" F111E's new avionics package that Australia was getting. The sim cockpit had a pair of Silicon Graphic Reality Engine^2s - one driving a projector that lit up a 5 or 6 meter diameter 1/4 spherical screen at low-ish resolution, and another driving a projector that was aimable and slaved to the pil…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is also the principle behind foveated rendering ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foveated_imaging ) where you only render the graphics in high detail where the viewer is looking, and use a low-res image for the rest with the goal of saving computing power. Big area of development right now for VR!
I just posted this in another comment, but M$ research has awesome foveated rendering: http://research.microsoft.com/apps/pubs/default.aspx?id=1766...
When it was my turn, they started with the full resolution image. I was waiting for them to enable the foveated rendering - until they told me it was already running. I could not tell at all that it was not all rendering at full resolution. Really impressive.
The main presenter mentioned that the optic nerve/brain processing 'shuts down' for up to 40ms during a saccade, so they have that long to render the small region at full resolution between the time when your eye has its new target and the optic nerve comes back on line.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes, that seems like a huge limitation. Though the 5k iMac is wide gamut, so quite a bit better than sRGB. Are there even (consumer?) displays that have a significantly wider gamut? http://blog.conradchavez.com/2015/10/26/a-look-at-the-p3-col...
Kudos to Apple for making the new iMacs wide-gamut. But I don't know that it's too common in the consumer space yet, mostly because once you start using multiple color spaces, you run into the problem of images created in one color space being shown in another. If the image data isn't tagged correctly, things will look over/under-saturated on different monitors. (E.g., is rgb(255, 0, 0) the reddest red in sRGB or the…
Any RGB based color space will be triangular shaped; if it's to be physically realized in a display, all 3 vertices must lie within the CIE gamut. Since the CIE gamut isn't perfectly triangular you will always be missing some colors outside of the triangle no matter what you do. You could do much better by adding a 4th primary to create a trapezoid, which would more completely fill the space. As the entire industry is RGB based this would be completely impractical, but it would be fun to see as a demo.